|
Cichlidae posted:If you're like me and measure your commute in dollars, not miles or minutes, it makes a difference. Unfortunately, it affects the poor much more than anyone else, so there is a social dilemma to think about. Maybe if there were a discount applied at the till, the same way we have cut-rate bus passes, the implementation would be more just.
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Do variabele toll rates (like the one in the picture where the toll changes from day to day) work? I can understand a peak usage rate, like during rush hour toll is higher than off hours. But if i am on my way to work or a customer and i see the toll rate has doubled (especially if it is on the order of cents) i am not going to turn around. Even if for some reason it was suddenly $10 i'd still keep going. It's pretty well established that people value their time in transit differently depending on where they're headed. The scale for the value of time goes from most to least valuable:
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
Yay, another red-light camera program gets discontinued, this time in Pasadena:quote:City officials decided not to renew a contract with American Traffic Systems Inc. for the city's seven red-light cameras, citing a lack of enforcement from Los Angeles County courts, time wasted by Pasadena police officers and questions about the cameras' effectiveness in improving traffic safety. Not that I drive in Pasadena, it's just the principle of the thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
Jasper Tin Neck posted:It's pretty well established that people value their time in transit differently depending on where they're headed. The scale for the value of time goes from most to least valuable: I think the NihilismNow's original question is over truly variable rates, that is rates that change from day to day in an upredictable fashion, even at the same time of day. That is, how effective is it to raise the toll if drivers aren't able to predict the price before reaching the toll booth? If I recall a previous discussion in this thread, the answer to that question is not very well. Such systems must be able to alert drivers when they're deciding a route to work, not at the toll booth. They also should be a little predictive, as the toll at 7:00 might be significantly lower than the one at 7:30 or 8:00. These are all doable, but require a pretty well-designed system to distribute this information via multiple avenues (for example, the web, SMS, and electronic signs throughout the area). If this information isn't readily available, then drivers will end up hitting the high toll and just eating the price. Toll rates that change throughout the day in a predictable manner, however, are a very different beast. If the toll is always high at 8am, then drivers can plan their trip accordingly, even if it doesn't do as good a job responding to unexpected traffic jams. The upside is that you don't have to do very much coordinated information distribution: just post some static signs describing the price plan, and put a note on your website.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
kapinga posted:I think the NihilismNow's original question is over truly variable rates, that is rates that change from day to day in an upredictable fashion, even at the same time of day. That is, how effective is it to raise the toll if drivers aren't able to predict the price before reaching the toll booth?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Yay, another red-light camera program gets discontinued, this time in Pasadena: While I'm philosophically opposed to traffic cameras, my bedroom window overlooks an intersection equipped with an ATS system, and red-light running has dropped DRAMATICALLY in the last couple years. We have very few T-bones here now. However, they re-did (extended) the yellow light timing, lack of which seems to cause most of the problems with these systems - and the lack of enforceability. But no problems with ATS equipment in our intersection. Protesters have even given up. Every so often someone will vandalize it, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
Remember that those tolls are for a HOV/Toll lane. That is, you use them for free if you are transit vehicle, three- or more person carpools, motorcycles, emergency vehicles, and Alternative Fuel Vehicles. You only pay to get in them if your car has just one or two people in it. The lane is right on the main roadways:  It's not an entire route that's tolled; it's just an extra lane that can be used freely in many circumstances and vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
Jasper Tin Neck posted:You're correct in that it isn't very effective if the pricing information is only received after the fact or once you're at the ramp. Ideally, you'd have real-time information about prices and some sort of forecast. I don't know about those lanes but the Express Lanes in San Diego are variable on a per-mile basis (as you can enter/exit them at many spots.) The full length ranges from $0.50 up to $16 or so for 20 miles of barrier separated lanes but they're free if you're carpooling. It saves anywhere from 5 minutes to upwards of an hour when traffic is absolutely terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 02:21
|
|
|
I took a transit planning class from a guy who worked I-394 in Minneapolis, a bidirectional variable toll HOT lane (I guess I got tolls in that description). For the first half it's two seperate lanes in between the eastbound and the westbound lanes that eastbound (into the city) in the morning and westbound (out of the city) in the afternoon. After a major intersection it just turns into a standard HOT lane in each direction. The tolls are posted at the point where you can decide to go into the HOT lanes or not, so you don't have to make a choice until that instant. Anyway, that guy that worked on it. He said that after it was in operation they ran tests every day for a while to test travel time, and what they found out that the travel on the HOT lane wasn't always faster, but it was always consistent, it always took 18 minutes to go the length, so clearly the tolls were working. We also have HOT lanes on I-35W, and in a year or two there's going to be a program there where when tolls are high, that toll money is used to decrese the bus fare of people on the express bus that runs on I-35W at that time, so riders save even more on days where there's high demand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Yay, another red-light camera program gets discontinued, this time in Pasadena: Pasadena must be one of the only places in the world where red light cameras have failed to reduce red light running (and possibly even collisions). I don't understand how anyone could possibly be opposed to red-light cameras if everything else remains the same as it was (i.e. yellow duration).
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 10:57
|
|
|
DogGunn posted:Pasadena must be one of the only places in the world where red light cameras have failed to reduce red light running (and possibly even collisions). Lack of any human judgement of the particular situation (needed to roll into the intersection a bit to let an ambulance squeeze around you? Red light camera don't give a poo poo). Incomplete coverage of the incident with which to defend yourself (sure the camera caught you driving through the light, but it didn't catch the wreck in some other part of the intersection or the emergency services worker who was waving you through the light). Ability for subtle malfunctions to go unnoticed for long stretches of time, screwing thousands of motorists in the process. Run by for-profit companies with no incentive to fix any of these things (yeah, you can basically level the same criticism at the local PD/government but at least citizens have a vote).
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 12:41
|
|
|
DogGunn posted:I don't understand how anyone could possibly be opposed to red-light cameras if everything else remains the same as it was (i.e. yellow duration). One thing I really would love to see is "slower traffic move right" cameras. Sadly, these would undoubtedly be accompanied by speed cameras and render it moot 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 13:51
|
|
|
So the extreme heat in Wisconsin has started making the highways buckle over. Some people manage not to notice the giant hump in the road or the big bright-rear end orange warning signs on both sides. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf0l3NO-35U
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
Great comments "This is as usual all a hoax.. There is no Road Buildings that benefit the People. You will notice this by Chinese now rebuilding Bridges in the USA. Why? Because as Martial Law sets in, These TANKS being deployed will have to cross these bridges. Highways are unimportant. We as a fact are being lied to by the media about what our alleged Great Government is doing. You might notice that Google, Bing and other Engines now block hyperlinks in your searches. I am going to do a video to Prove this." Traffic engineers, confirm/deny that highways are only for chinese tanks now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
The Proc posted:So the extreme heat in Wisconsin has started making the highways buckle over. Some people manage not to notice the giant hump in the road or the big bright-rear end orange warning signs on both sides. Not at all surprised that two signs aren't enough. You can easily break your back doing that, too, so I'm sure that driver will end up suing the state and win. If there is a hazard that pressing in the roadway, you either have to shut the road down, or physically prevent the motorists from reaching it, for example, with a concrete barrier. It's the state's responsibility to do so, and the fact that they put up signs actually makes their case much weaker, since they were aware of the problem and chose not to rectify it properly. Baronjutter posted:Great comments I thought that was common knowledge! It's the first thing we learn when we get jobs with the Great Government.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:If there is a hazard that pressing in the roadway, you either have to shut the road down, or physically prevent the motorists from reaching it, for example, with a concrete barrier. It's the state's responsibility to do so, and the fact that they put up signs actually makes their case much weaker, since they were aware of the problem and chose not to rectify it properly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
Drives can be loving stupid and just get into a trance like zombie state. The other day I was crossing the street at a huge long avenue with like 4 block visibility and almost highway-like lack of access/distractions. I didn't step out because I noticed she was going really fast, while the old lady on the other side did go. The lady had to jam on her brakes and almost slid through the crosswalk. People just zone the gently caress out, specially on straight fast sections of road.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Great comments I wonder what this guy thinks of Agenda 21.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Lack of any human judgement of the particular situation (needed to roll into the intersection a bit to let an ambulance squeeze around you? Red light camera don't give a poo poo). Incomplete coverage of the incident with which to defend yourself (sure the camera caught you driving through the light, but it didn't catch the wreck in some other part of the intersection or the emergency services worker who was waving you through the light). Ability for subtle malfunctions to go unnoticed for long stretches of time, screwing thousands of motorists in the process. Run by for-profit companies with no incentive to fix any of these things (yeah, you can basically level the same criticism at the local PD/government but at least citizens have a vote). These are all issues with the management of the camera and how it's enforced, rather than the actual camera. If setup in a proper location, it could save the roads authority / states millions of dollars by reducing the number of casualty accidents at the intersection. Even in Pasadena, they said there was a decrease in incidents at the intersection. Move fowards to let an ambulance through or directed to move through a red light, contest it if it's even issued. Is it broken? Well that's not the cameras fault, it's the people who should be maintaining it. It wouldn't surprise me if the red light cameras also had CCTV watching over the area due to the likelihood of vandalism. Speed cameras are one thing, but red light cameras really only have benefits. It's just that no one likes to be fined.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 06:35
|
|
|
DogGunn posted:These are all issues with the management of the camera and how it's enforced, rather than the actual camera. If setup in a proper location, it could save the roads authority / states millions of dollars by reducing the number of casualty accidents at the intersection. Even in Pasadena, they said there was a decrease in incidents at the intersection. Funny you should mention that; most studies I've read showed an increase in accidents, particularly in rear-ends. There are easy ways to reduce red-light-running collisions that don't rely on a third party who stands to make money off of it. The best way is simply to time the signal properly. Increasing the red clearance is an easy fix with a minimal reduction in capacity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 12:18
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Funny you should mention that; most studies I've read showed an increase in accidents, particularly in rear-ends. I've seen some suggesting an insignificant change in non-casualty accidents and a notable change (decrease) in casualty accidents. I've also read some that suggest what you've suggested too. It probably depends on the type of intersection. One that has a history of red light incidents would most likely significantly benefit from a red light camera instead of one that doesn't (including other changes such as the ones you've suggested).
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 12:43
|
|
|
DogGunn posted:These are all issues with the management of the camera and how it's enforced, rather than the actual camera. If setup in a proper location, it could save the roads authority / states millions of dollars by reducing the number of casualty accidents at the intersection. Even in Pasadena, they said there was a decrease in incidents at the intersection. This is an extremely optimistic position that does not appear to take reality into account.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 14:44
|
|
|
Chaos Motor posted:This is an extremely optimistic position that does not appear to take reality into account. It is incredibly realistic outside the United States (seeing as how they're adopted at a much higher rate in other developed countries compared to the US, despite whatever flaws). Not many people like red light cameras but they do a job, and if used properly can do a decent enough job at doing what they're meant to do, in conjunction with anything else. DogGunn fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Jul 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 15:39
|
|
|
DogGunn posted:I've seen some suggesting an insignificant change in non-casualty accidents and a notable change (decrease) in casualty accidents. <joke>Lives in Aus, defends red light cameras.....RedFlex employee?</joke> Seriously though, Toledo, OH put in cameras while I was there for college. My apartment backed almost right up to one of the camera'd intersections. I never once saw a T-bone crash there, but after the cameras went up there was a rear-ender at least once a week as people who were trying to clear a yellow slammed on the brakes and caught following drivers by surprise. Cameras do reduce red light running, but the same effect can be seen by increasing yellow time and in that case you don't get the increase in rear-enders. You also don't have the perverse incentive to try to increase the number of tickets to increase revenue, as almost every city that's installed red light cameras does. edit: You really like these cameras, don't you. *contemplates removing joke tag from Redflex accusation*
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 15:57
|
|
|
wolrah posted:<joke>Lives in Aus, defends red light cameras.....RedFlex employee?</joke> Haha wolrah posted:My apartment backed almost right up to one of the camera'd intersections. I never once saw a T-bone crash there, but after the cameras went up there was a rear-ender at least once a week as people who were trying to clear a yellow slammed on the brakes and caught following drivers by surprise. It's probably important to look at the actual statistics (before and after) rather than any anecdotal evidence. While you may have never seen a T-bone before the camera was installed, that doesn't mean it happened. And while you may have noticed rear ending incidents occurring more regularly after, doesn't mean they actually did. Of course, the complete opposite could have been true, and there was no history justifying the camera... in which case, that is an issue with the certifying authority rather than anything else. wolrah posted:Cameras do reduce red light running, but the same effect can be seen by increasing yellow time and in that case you don't get the increase in rear-enders. I would rather see different methods are reducing red light running, such as what you've suggested there, before red light cameras are installed. They should really only be a last resort. wolrah posted:You also don't have the perverse incentive to try to increase the number of tickets to increase revenue, as almost every city that's installed red light cameras does. 100% agree with you there. Victoria, Australia has gone red light and speed camera crazy. It makes up hundreds of millions of dollars of the state's budget (they'd be lost without it), and the fines increase each year by an amount higher than CPI, and with tolerances as low as they can go. However, although they do increase the revenue for the state, they also save themselves a stack of money due to reducing the number of casualty accidents. Rear enders are significantly cheaper to the state than serious injuries or fatalities. The money they save of course gets put straight back into maintaining and building further transport infrastructure... *state gives another contract for a tollway promised to be a non-tolled freeway* DogGunn fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Jul 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
How to demolish a bridge in less than 16 hours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MAJxtSepMs
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
So those safety barriers ..   are they supposed to go through the car? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
Gat posted:How to demolish a bridge in less than 16 hours: Am I the only one that saw a game of Hungry Hungry Hippos played with cranes when they were demolishing this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Seriously though, Toledo, OH put in cameras while I was there for college. My apartment backed almost right up to one of the camera'd intersections. I never once saw a T-bone crash there, but after the cameras went up there was a rear-ender at least once a week as people who were trying to clear a yellow slammed on the brakes and caught following drivers by surprise. If you rear end the guy in front of you at a stop light because you didn't anticipate he could stop (for a traffic light, who would have guessed?) you were going way to fast anyway or didn't keep enough distance and are a bad driver. These cameras will probably educate people in Toledo on properly anticipating traffic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
MrBling posted:So those safety barriers .. How does this happen? Any barriers I've seen rise up out of the ground at both ends, so how do you slam into one like that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
Gat posted:How to demolish a bridge in less than 16 hours: That brings back memories of time-lapse videos of scavengers eating up dead animals. Also, those street cleaner trucks are adorable! And the concrete pads put down onto the asphalt to support the equipment and contain debris are brilliant. MrBling posted:So those safety barriers .. Not supposed to, but unfortunately, we can't idiot-proof everything. Roadside barriers aren't meant to be hit end-on, and most rails whose ends don't taper into the ground will spear your car if you're going fast enough / hit at the wrong angle. It's hardly a new phenomenon, either. Trains sometimes got impaled by rail they ripped from the ties, which then entered the cabin, known as a "snake head."
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
There has been attempts to mitigate that with the collapsible end guard rails. I have no idea how effective those are, though. I've only seen them in a few places here in Massachusetts, but the first installation I remember is on Route 33 in Chicopee near Westover.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:There has been attempts to mitigate that with the collapsible end guard rails. I have no idea how effective those are, though. I've only seen them in a few places here in Massachusetts, but the first installation I remember is on Route 33 in Chicopee near Westover. I've heard mixed reviews for those. At some point, we'll probably have to stack sand barrels in front of any blunt ends, like we do for concrete barrier. It's too bad we can't bury all the ends. Space is often limited, and if you hit that little dirt ramp, you're probably going to fly into the woods anyway. We like to think that, no matter what we do, it's going to be safer than having nothing at all. This isn't always the case...
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That brings back memories of time-lapse videos of scavengers eating up dead animals. Also, those street cleaner trucks are adorable! And the concrete pads put down onto the asphalt to support the equipment and contain debris are brilliant. The concrete pads look like a well developed, long running method too. I wonder why it hasn't been picked up elsewhere. Seems pretty cheap to implement, and would provide both site safety and extended road life. I wonder about those narrow cabin, center driver position dump trucks, though. Must be quite the learning curve on getting the hang of reversing them into position. Also, the breakers separated all the re-bar before loading, for recycling, which was nice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
MrBling posted:So those safety barriers .. Not pretty, but probably comparatively rare compared to cars coming off high speed roads and hitting trees.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 08:52
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:There has been attempts to mitigate that with the collapsible end guard rails. I have no idea how effective those are, though. I've only seen them in a few places here in Massachusetts, but the first installation I remember is on Route 33 in Chicopee near Westover. We have something like that on the guard rails I've seen here in Memphis. They curl the guard rail back on itself if they get hit, pretty nifty if you ask me.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 09:21
|
|
|
Those do look pretty neat, but these ones I've seen were big double-guardrails at the ends of medians. Unfortunately, I don't think I ever took a photo of them. They look like the guardrail is designed like a crumple zone. So instead of spearing the car, it absorbs the impact. There might be ones on Route 9 in Natick and Framingham, so the next time I'm out there I'll have to pay attention.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 13:13
|
|
|
Lest we forget, this is what happens to guiderails over time (at least the weathering steel ones):  Hope your tetanus boosters are up-to-date.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 14:41
|
|
|
Oh, I guess I should mention that the guy that cut his car in half on the safety barrier up there got away with just a broken arm. Hooray for
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 14:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
So there's this traffic light on the way to work that I think I've got figured out, except for one thing. It's got sensors in the ground to detect the presence of cars and appears to change the amount of time the light stays green based on how many cars pass over the sensor or something like that. The street I approach on is particularly low-traffic, so I've noticed that often when its doing a cycle it will completely ignore my street if it doesn't detect a car and just cycle the other streets to green (the light is set up to only allow one direction of traffic on my street to go at a time, so people turning don't turn into each other - my street is a small surface street crossing a fairly large highway (US-1)). I guess that makes sense, don't want to waste time on a street nobody needs to use. The issue I have with it is that I always seem to pull up within a few seconds of the light changing, while the other lights are still yellow. It then proceeds to ignore me and cycle all the other streets, and I have to wait another few minutes for it to start another cycle. I assume this is some kind of race condition in the software running the light, that once it starts cycling it can no longer accept input that determines which lanes to cycle. It might also be a safety feature for all I know. It's made me a few minutes late to work on more than one occasion, no big deal really, but it's annoying. Do you think I could  to the city engineers and get something done about it? Am I just being an annoying nerd who needs to take a different route to work?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 20:56
|
|
