|
Wolfy posted:Haha, I was mostly referring to having a stop sign on an entrance to a pretty busy freeway. Sometimes I drive by some of those entrances and see people sitting there and just wonder how long they have been there. I guess in that area it's pretty much impossible due to lack of space for real onramps...I just think there has to be another way. That's just how we used to build them 70 years ago. Personally, I'd rather remove the ramp than have a stop-controlled on-ramp with no accel lane. Local businesses aren't too appreciative of that sort of thing, unfortunately, so you're either stuck with the stop sign, move the ramp, or widen the freeway to fit an accel lane. Mandalay posted:I know exactly where that is, because I used to commute on Ashby in college, and this reminds me. The City of Berkeley in its infinite wisdom decided to let CA-13, a four-lane road, lose the curbside lanes to parking during most of the day. There's plenty of side street parking, but no, those fuckers get to park on a major arterial, the only CA route surface street to bisect the city. I definitely agree; on-street parking on arterials hurts capacity and causes accidents. Just keep in mind that the town's first priority is keeping their businesses happy, not encouraging traffic flow. Some towns (Middletown, CT, I'm looking at you) prefer their roads to be congested because it gives their CBD more "face time."
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
Calast posted:My favorite is the times right at the edge of when you can park there, so you're going down the right hand lane, come around a bend, and there's a car parked illegally in your lane. There are some creative geometric tricks an engineer can do to discourage parking in those last hundred feet or so, where the right turn lane is needed. Of course, those are for full-time parking lanes, not this part-time usage. The best way to fix that is some really strict enforcement. dennyk posted:Saw a hell of an odd glitch the other morning; one of the traffic lights down the street from where I live was showing a green and yellow light at the same time on the main road (both steady, not blinking). Wasn't there long enough to see what happened on the rest of the cycle, but it had traffic backed up way down the road past my place because no one knew what the gently caress was going on with it and everyone was slowing down while trying to figure it out. Uh-oh, sounds like a couple wires got crossed. Usually, the conflict monitor will pick up that something's wrong and send the signal into flashing mode. I know it can detect if a bulb's out because no current flowing, but could it detect if both bulbs were getting triggered at once? At least the drivers had the right reaction and kept moving cautiously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 18:46
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:
I always thought of San Pablo as a road on the fringes of the city (as opposed to bisecting), but you got me there  Cichlidae posted:I definitely agree; on-street parking on arterials hurts capacity and causes accidents. Just keep in mind that the town's first priority is keeping their businesses happy, not encouraging traffic flow. Some towns (Middletown, CT, I'm looking at you) prefer their roads to be congested because it gives their CBD more "face time." I see what you're saying, and Berkeley is sometimes actively hostile towards traffic flow (which I sometimes agree with actually). But this stretch of CA-13 that I'm talking about is primarily composed of single-family homes:  edit: another question, when do traffic engineers put lights on freeways? I was driving on I-605 the other day in Los Angeles and visibility was pretty bad. Given that "safety" is a huge buzzword in DOT circles, I was surprised that this major freeway wasn't lighted. Mandalay fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Jan 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 22:05
|
|
you forget san pablo ave (aka route 123)
|
Cichlidae posted:There are some creative geometric tricks an engineer can do to discourage parking in those last hundred feet or so, where the right turn lane is needed. Of course, those are for full-time parking lanes, not this part-time usage. The best way to fix that is some really strict enforcement. The thing that really gets my goat about that thing in particular, there at Rose, where Sacramento goes from 2 lanes each way with onstreet parking to 1 lane South and 2 lanes sometimes going North, is that when there is parking in that lane, you're commonly forced to merge in the intersection. Which is doubly bad because people commonly line up in the right lane to avoid being stuck behind someone in the left or straight lane, so going straight from the left lane becomes hazardous. I honestly think that if they don't want to ban parking there all the time, they should make the approach better down Sac from Rose; like if the left lane going North at Rose was left turn only, and the right lane had cat tracks over to the left lane. So there'd at least be some goddamn consistency, and less bedlam.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 22:26
|
|
|
Heh. I know that NY one because my GPS always suggests I get on the Hutch there for 2 miles or whatever rather than just staying on 95. TomTom, it is not faster to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 23:54
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:edit: another question, when do traffic engineers put lights on freeways? I was driving on I-605 the other day in Los Angeles and visibility was pretty bad. Given that "safety" is a huge buzzword in DOT circles, I was surprised that this major freeway wasn't lighted. There are warrants for lighting, much the same as signals. Generally, lighting is put in at high-volume interchanges, then smaller ones, and sometimes on the main line itself if the area is dangerous or congested. smackfu posted:Heh. I know that NY one because my GPS always suggests I get on the Hutch there for 2 miles or whatever rather than just staying on 95. TomTom, it is not faster to do that. While we're on the subject, here are two of my French favorites.  This one is in Le Havre. It's been under construction for some time. Each stage brings new and interesting ramps!  Lyon is awesome, and has tons of really cool interchanges due to its huge size and hilly terrain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 01:41
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I definitely agree; on-street parking on arterials hurts capacity and causes accidents. Just keep in mind that the town's first priority is keeping their businesses happy, not encouraging traffic flow. Some towns (Middletown, CT, I'm looking at you) prefer their roads to be congested because it gives their CBD more "face time." I shake my fist in agreement because I lived there for 19 years. I'm going to have to keep shaking my fist for a while at things like the 66/17/9/main st. junction. Is there any way to fix it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:I shake my fist in agreement because I lived there for 19 years. It'd be rather easy to fix. We've had plans for 30 years that would make Middletown a breeze. The city, however, doesn't want us to fix the roads, and has blocked every attempt. The most progress we've made so far went a little like this.  You see, if we don't change anything, Middletown and Portland are completely gridlocked in 2020. Nobody's moving at all. Wow, that's perfect! Think of how long they'll spend experiencing our shops! So, by fixing up the interchanges and coordinating the signals, we can get things moving smoothly, as this simulation shows. What?! People are actually going THROUGH Middletown! We'll turn into another New Britain! You'll ruin us! But wait! When we ruin the signal offsets and screw up the coordination, we can make it back up again! Genius! We'll take it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 21:40
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I've spent many an hour diagramming and pondering that interchange myself. Lots and lots of left exits and weaving. Are you pondering what I'm pondering? No really... what are you thinking about it? It sucks so bad right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 04:40
|
|
|
Zero One posted:Are you pondering what I'm pondering?  Try that on for size. Much reduced weaving, added lanes, simpler interchanges, and plenty of land opened up for development to offset the costs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 17:40
|
|
|
I don't quite understand what you are trying to do with the Telegraph overpass and it's ramps. It's definitely a lot better, though. Especially since you would no longer be required to use surface streets to get from M-10 South to 696 West, 696 East to M-10 North, or M-10 North to 696 East.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 20:38
|
|
|
Zero One posted:I don't quite understand what you are trying to do with the Telegraph overpass and it's ramps. That's a volleyball interchange. Pretty useful for interchanges with a ton of through traffic, with the added advantage of being quite compact. I put in an extra ramp eastbound to eliminate a weaving conflict. If the volumes are too high, it's not a big deal to use a stack instead, though it would cost more. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
Of course, SR 796 is a secret, hidden, unsigned route.  It's interesting that both NY and CT have hidden route number systems, but as far as I know, Massachusetts doesn't. There are state maintained roads that aren't signed, but as far as I know if there is any kind of numbering system it hasn't been made public. Also, on I-238, I believe there is now an x80 interstate number free in California, so they really have no excuse in their lack of fixing this numbering travesty. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2010 04:21
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:Of course, SR 796 is a secret, hidden, unsigned route. Talking with a friend in MassHighway maintenance, this seems to be true: Me: How do you keep track, if they don't have numbers? Him: we got a book CT also has some unnumbered, unsigned state-maintained sections, but they're generally too small to count as a route. We do have a 0.04-mile-long numbered route, though! quote:Also, on I-238, I believe there is now an x80 interstate number free in California, so they really have no excuse in their lack of fixing this numbering travesty. Those drat hippies and their LSD-fueled Interstate numbers! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 01:40
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:We do have a 0.04-mile-long numbered route, though! 200 feet!? I suppose I should ask, is it signed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 01:56
|
|
|
thelightguy posted:200 feet!? I suppose I should ask, is it signed? Not at all. Cute little SR 910 is only 0.04 miles if you're generous.  It's just a tiny stretch between an off-ramp and another state route.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 02:57
|
|
|
By biggest pet peeve driving in Virginia is inconsistent yield signage. Some yield signs have a little note that says yield to oncoming traffic, some yield signs have little triangles drawn to show where you need to yield before merging. Problems is its totally random and you have to guess just by looking at the road. I'm convinced there are tons of not yielding properly (people thinking there is a yield lane to speed up) accidents every year. When I was in Poland last year every yield that did not have a speed up lane was clearly marked with triangles on pavement and a sign.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 03:27
|
|
|
Speaking of yield signs, this has weirded me out ever since I lived near it briefly last summer: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...4,0.004753&z=18 Looks like a normal four-way intersection, but if you look at Street View, you'll notice that the cross streets have yield signs! What the hell? A yield sign where two roads meet at a 90 degree angle? Am I crazy, or is that very abnormal?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 03:39
|
|
|
I've seen this in VA in really low traffic density areas. Makes sense, why have to stop if theirs usually no one ever coming? Most people roll through stops signs anyway. I think these should be more common.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 03:51
|
|
|
I guess I'm just weirded out because I've never seen a yield sign anywhere that wasn't a merging type of situation where you're coming in at an angle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 04:00
|
|
|
Echo 3 posted:Speaking of yield signs, this has weirded me out ever since I lived near it briefly last summer: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...4,0.004753&z=18 I was thinking about this exact issue today while doing some VISSIM modeling. The difference between Stop and Yield is, obviously, you are required to stop at a Stop sign. Of course, nobody REALLY stops, we roll through at 5-10 mph. If a side road is a low volume/low speed approach and the sight distance is very good, a Yield sign works just as well as a Stop sign. If there's a car coming, you can just wait. If not, go right on through. At first glance, it seems like it wouldn't be as safe, but drivers may eventually ignore the Stop sign and blow through it regularly if they normally don't have to stop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 04:56
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I was thinking about this exact issue today while doing some VISSIM modeling. The difference between Stop and Yield is, obviously, you are required to stop at a Stop sign. Of course, nobody REALLY stops, we roll through at 5-10 mph. If a side road is a low volume/low speed approach and the sight distance is very good, a Yield sign works just as well as a Stop sign. If there's a car coming, you can just wait. If not, go right on through. Make it happen! (please)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 21:17
|
|
|
When I've traveled to the US it seemed that stop signs were used so much that they kinda lose their impact of "you MUST stop". Here in the UK 90% of the time we have a Give Way (yield) sign, a stop sign is only used on dangerous junctions. And usually the junctions that they put one of them in, you'd be idiotic not to stop anyway. I think it means that they get more respect, and so are adhered to more. Though we have a concept of a major/minor road system here, so we never have a 4-way stop at a crossroads, one road always has priority. If we need the functionality of a 4-way stop, we use a mini-roundabout (just like a roundabout, but the island in the middle can be driven over). Mini roundabouts are also used to help people navigate otherwise awkward junctions by chaining a few together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
See, that's probably one of the big differences. At least in the Phoenix area, the only times you see four-way stops are for roads of completely equal volume, and at that, very low volume. I'd bet 90%+ are in residential areas where neither road even has a single stripe on it. The rest of the stop signs are where roads of wildly different volumes intersect, and are two/one way stops where a small residential road will link up with a 4-lane+ arterial road, and again, only where the residential road has very low volume. In spots where one residential road is the main way in or out of a neighborhood and has much higher volume than the other ones into the same area, they'll move it up to a signal with sensor bars on the side roads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 00:21
|
|
|
noblergt posted:When I've traveled to the US it seemed that stop signs were used so much that they kinda lose their impact of "you MUST stop". Here in the UK 90% of the time we have a Give Way (yield) sign, a stop sign is only used on dangerous junctions. And usually the junctions that they put one of them in, you'd be idiotic not to stop anyway. I think it means that they get more respect, and so are adhered to more. This is a great strategy. It's been shown that roundabouts are more efficient and safer than all-way stops with any combination of volumes. Mini-roundabouts aren't too popular here, as people tend to ignore the painted island and just take left turns as usual (right turns for you in the UK.) IOwnCalculus posted:The rest of the stop signs are where roads of wildly different volumes intersect, and are two/one way stops where a small residential road will link up with a 4-lane+ arterial road, and again, only where the residential road has very low volume. In spots where one residential road is the main way in or out of a neighborhood and has much higher volume than the other ones into the same area, they'll move it up to a signal with sensor bars on the side roads. This is called a semi-actuated signal. Unfortunately, once you put one up, people will start cutting through residential streets to avoid them, and then you'll need more stop signs and speed humps on those streets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 01:43
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:This is called a semi-actuated signal. Unfortunately, once you put one up, people will start cutting through residential streets to avoid them, and then you'll need more stop signs and speed humps on those streets. Actually, there's one I'm intimately familiar with because I used to ride my bike through it every day when only the one on the right was signalled, and the one on the left was a one-way stop:  Before the signal was there, making the left turn from north to west was nearly impossible, and was worsened by the fact that this is the main drag to a large middle school immediately to the south. It'd back up way deep until the signal to the immediate east would change and then, maybe, some cars would sneak through. Each of these neighborhoods usually only has a handful of ways in or out, and turning left on that road is hard enough that everyone trying to do so goes towards the lights, not away from them. semi-edit: I just realized I think you meant that people normally travelling on the arterial road would cut through neighborhoods to avoid them; this particular intersection doesn't trigger often enough for long enough for that to be an issue, and there's no viable way around it anyway if you're going east/west.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 02:48
|
|
|
For people who are curious about CT's list of secret unsigned numbered routes, this might help.
kefkafloyd fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Jan 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 15:23
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:For people who are curious about CT's list of secret unsigned numbered routes, this might help. Now that he's posted that top secret list, I have to kill each and every one of you in this thread. Start posting addresses. IOwnCalculus posted:semi-edit: I just realized I think you meant that people normally travelling on the arterial road would cut through neighborhoods to avoid them; this particular intersection doesn't trigger often enough for long enough for that to be an issue, and there's no viable way around it anyway if you're going east/west. Yes, that's it. I'm putting two new signals on a collector roadway, and I know it's going to cause people to drive through the adjacent neighborhoods to avoid them. Town still wants the signals, though. v  v
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 18:27
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
Oh man... I just noticed that you have now made it REQUIRED to cross four lanes of traffic to get from Telegraph South to 696 West. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2010 05:30
|
|
|
Zero One posted:Oh man... I just noticed that you have now made it REQUIRED to cross four lanes of traffic to get from Telegraph South to 696 West. It's easy enough to stick a second ramp in like I did for 696E-Telegraph; it's just a matter of whether the weaving analysis sees a problem. My main goal there was to maintain route continuity and cut down on the tremendous size of the interchange while providing all movements. Heck, if you really want to, you can make all four legs of the volleyball interchange have dual ramps. You've certainly got the room for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2010 13:13
|
|
|
Great thread here, I read the first dozen pages or so over the past couple days. I hope this hasn't been posted in the other 25 pages I haven't read yet, but the biggest problem intersection I know of nearby is in Poughkeepsie: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...016512&t=h&z=17 I don't even know what you call this thing. It's got sort of a cloverleaf design, but only two leaves. The big issue seems to be the four rather short weave sections, including traffic entering and exiting on the left. I've avoided driving through it whenever possible, but I've heard it can be a massive pain when it gets busy unless you know exactly what you're doing. It certainly doesn't help that it's posted at 45 or 50 through that area but you'll always see people going at least 60 in the left lane. Another thing I wanted to ask about : how do you feel about two-way stops at four-way intersections? I only know of one place like this, and it's a relatively low-traffic spot, yet apparently causes quite a few accidents. Basically north-south traffic at the intersection has stop signs, but east-west does not have any traffic control, except if they want to make a left. Plenty of people though see that they have a stop and assume that the cross traffic is supposed to stop as well, despite no "All-Way" or "4-Way" on the stop sign. More recently they added a "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop" warning, but that was after I totaled a car there 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2010 19:36
|
|
|
Nibble posted:Great thread here, I read the first dozen pages or so over the past couple days. I hope this hasn't been posted in the other 25 pages I haven't read yet, but the biggest problem intersection I know of nearby is in Poughkeepsie: I'd call it a figure-eight, though it's not a standard sort of interchange, for the reasons you listed. At least the layout is relatively intuitive, unlike its bastard brother near Springfield, Mass:  That one puts the two worst weaving sections on the freeway, where at least your example relegates them to Route 9. quote:Another thing I wanted to ask about : how do you feel about two-way stops at four-way intersections? I only know of one place like this, and it's a relatively low-traffic spot, yet apparently causes quite a few accidents. Basically north-south traffic at the intersection has stop signs, but east-west does not have any traffic control, except if they want to make a left. Plenty of people though see that they have a stop and assume that the cross traffic is supposed to stop as well, despite no "All-Way" or "4-Way" on the stop sign. More recently they added a "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop" warning, but that was after I totaled a car there They're rather common around here, so I'm very used to them. I assume any stop sign without an "all way" plaque is two-way stop. A traffic engineer can do a lot to make it more apparent when it's only a two-way stop. Big, bold stop bars (and a lack thereof on the cross street), wide shoulders on the high-volume approaches, and signs can go a long way. I'd certainly rather have two-way stop than four-way stop in most places, since four-way stops are often done as traffic calming and aren't warranted. Moreover, as I've mentioned, roundabouts work better than four-way stops with all volumes. New Hampshire, taking this to heart, has the policy, "If you're reconfiguring an intersection, the first thing you have to do is tell us why you're NOT building a roundabout."
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2010 22:51
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I'd call it a figure-eight, though it's not a standard sort of interchange, for the reasons you listed. At least the layout is relatively intuitive, unlike its bastard brother near Springfield, Mass: Both 9 and 44/55 are heavily traveled around rush hour, though if I had to guess I'd say 9 actually carries more traffic. And looking a little more closely, it has some more oddities I didn't notice before, like the way 44/55 drops a lane at the exits - probably not a big effect on capacity though since the bridge is one lane each way anyway. The biggest problem with the weave areas is that they're so short and 9 is usually busy, so you often end up with traffic stopped waiting to get into 9's left-hand lane with fast traffic and not that great visibility. Seriously, who thought that this would be enough room to safely support a left-lane weave? http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...149.91,,0,13.59 Another question, about seemingly redundant road signs. I pass a few of these every day, like a "DO NOT PASS" on a road with a double-yellow center line, or "WAIT FOR GREEN LIGHT" at a traffic light. I know why they're posted at those specific areas, but it seems silly since they're basic traffic laws that you need to observe everywhere anyway. Is there some sort of criteria for determining when they need to spend money putting up signs to tell you things you learned in Driving 101?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2010 23:37
|
|
|
Nibble posted:Both 9 and 44/55 are heavily traveled around rush hour, though if I had to guess I'd say 9 actually carries more traffic. And looking a little more closely, it has some more oddities I didn't notice before, like the way 44/55 drops a lane at the exits - probably not a big effect on capacity though since the bridge is one lane each way anyway. The biggest problem with the weave areas is that they're so short and 9 is usually busy, so you often end up with traffic stopped waiting to get into 9's left-hand lane with fast traffic and not that great visibility. Seriously, who thought that this would be enough room to safely support a left-lane weave? The "DO NOT PASS" sign could very well be a remnant of a previous passing zone that was removed. It happens all the time here that we redo an intersection, but either the project limits are too small or the contractor's not smart enough to remove all the outdated signs. The redundant signs, like "WAIT FOR GREEN LIGHT," are a cheap, lazy way to fix an accident problem. Get a complaint that too many people are running the red? Put up a nonstandard sign that red-runners will just ignore. At least the citizens can't complain anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2010 23:50
|
|
|
I noticed on my way home yesterday that they were putting up some posts along the highway for those big green directional signs. The thing is, the new posts were about twenty yards in front of old ones that had identical signs on them. Do those just get replaced periodically, or was there some design flaw with the old signs/posts? They just repaved one side of the highway, if that's relevant at all. I didn't think to get pictures. Also, really cool thread. I'd always wondered what went into traffic engineering.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 03:53
|
|
|
Nibble posted:goddamn 9/44/55/mid hudson bridge interchange holy hell I hated that interchange when I went to school out there. So, what are we going to do with our High Speed Rail Road stimulus funds?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 04:29
|
|
|
ninepints posted:I noticed on my way home yesterday that they were putting up some posts along the highway for those big green directional signs. The thing is, the new posts were about twenty yards in front of old ones that had identical signs on them. Do those just get replaced periodically, or was there some design flaw with the old signs/posts? They just repaved one side of the highway, if that's relevant at all. I didn't think to get pictures. Both! We're supposed to replace our overhead signs every 20 years, and the structure designs themselves have changed several times in the last 20. The latest ruling, which was back around 2003, completely redefined how overhead supports were designed, so most DOTs should be building new types since then. Old sign supports also get pretty bad just by themselves. I've seen sign supports from the early 1990s that are already ready to fall over, and ones from the 1960s still in good shape. Lobstaman posted:holy hell I hated that interchange when I went to school out there. $40M of it got obligated today to double-track the section between Newington and New Britain. Should help out with the planned New Haven - Springfield HSR.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 05:07
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I'd call it a figure-eight, though it's not a standard sort of interchange, for the reasons you listed. At least the layout is relatively intuitive, unlike its bastard brother near Springfield, Mass: I've taken this interchange so many times it's hard to count. The effect to the actual driver on I-91 is something more like a traditional cloverleaf. Which is still not optimal, mind you, but it's not confusing. For something in a very confined space, it works remarkably well, even if it's not optimal. It also serves as a bit of a roundabout U-turn for Route 5. The flaw is that there is just not enough space on the bridge to have a nice long merge lane. I've always had to be triple careful when taking the ramp for route 5 South when traveling on northbound 91 because both 391 and Route 5 north traffic merge very close together. There will never, ever be a stack or some other kind of interchange there because Route 5 is a divided highway and Riverdale St. has a ton of traffic, and it's bordered by the Connecticut river. There just isn't enough space, which is why they came up with this idea in the first place. Course, it could be worse, like a few miles down the road where all of the interchanges on Route 5 are rotaries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 17:36
|
|
|
Question for a roundabout enthusiast! I plan facilities at a major academic health system. There's talk of putting a roundabout w/ HAWK signals at what's effectively the "front door" to the hospital. A lot of people have concerns about it. Let's say, hypothetically, that the site in question is this one: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=...2,0.004501&z=18 The east-west road is a minor arterial and the north-south road is the primary entrance to the medical campus. The campus itself is as full as you get in the Midwest. 15K employees on about 30 acres, a medical school and 2.5M net square feet of clinical space. Fully-built out, surrounded by rivers, railroads, steep slopes, dorms, etc. Tons of pedestrian traffic at the intersection. Patients and visitors park on-site, and most of them are unfamiliar with the area. The combined traffic/wayfinding/parking issues on the campus are a huge embarrassment. The intersection we're dealing with is a level of service D on all four legs at both peak hours, and getting worse. In 2012, we'll be adding a million square feet of clinical space. A 900 car deck and intermodal transit center is slated to open on the parking lot just to the west. Oh, and there are bridges on the north-south road on both sides of the intersection, so no road widening far enough back to put in turn lanes unless you want to spend tens of megabucks to replace those bridges. As an urban planner, this place always keeps things interesting. The plan was originally to add a couple right turn lanes and a median u-turn crossover, but it's a band-aid. Our traffic consultants and the city are both starting to push for a roundabout. Seems fine to me, but lots of folks are worried about it. Concerns: high pedestrian activity, confused non-locals, emergency vehicle traffic, articulated buses some day, very frequent pressing of the HAWK signal, etc. Are there examples of roundabouts in the United States in locations like ours? The consultants really haven't been able to find many that have been put in at very high pedestrian locations, and none so close to hospitals. ppdd fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jan 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
Seeing as I had to look up what HAWK signals were, I figure someone else might too. I found these two videos to be pretty good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW1XYazSNkQ This one shows the signal and pedestrian signal on a bench. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2KVQ_usoZQ This one shows an installed signal. Notice a number of cars running the signal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 19:57
|
|