|
It also appears to be alternating one-way over the speed bump too?
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 14:52 |
|
|
I think he's referring to what we generally call a chicane - where a two-way road is briefly reduced to one lane by an artificial island. One direction has clearly signed priority over the other - generally the direction whose side is not obstructed by the island. It's used widely in the UK as a "traffic calming" (slowing) measure on residential streets with speed limits of 20 or 30mph, often instead or as well as speed bumps. It's also useful for discouraging "rat-running" where a residential street is used as a shortcut between main roads - the likelihood that you're going to have to wait, especially at rush hour, makes it less appealing as a speedy shortcut. We're pretty used to them, and in practice you're going pretty slowly (or should be) in a well-lit area so they're not particularly dangerous. (If you think they are, then I guess we should ban all parking on two-lane residential roads!) However, they can be unpleasant (and are unnecessary) for bikes, hence the common addition of a bike bypass like the one above. That's actually fairly good as it goes - usually they're gutter-sized and full of debris. e: they can also be used to make crossing the road easier, to protect weak bridges by only allowing one lane of vehicles on them at a time, and to make areas where the road naturally narrows more obvious Jonnty fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Aug 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:We're pretty used to them, and in practice you're going pretty slowly (or should be) in a well-lit area so they're not particularly dangerous. (If you think they are, then I guess we should ban all parking on two-lane residential roads!) except cars parked on two-lane residential roads don't block an entire lane of traffic and also i've seen enough dashcam videos where people slam through those islands to say that they're not always in well-lit areas or properly signed. imho anything that artificially blocks a lane as permanent traffic control is wildly reckless, even if you put enough reflectors on it to send a light beam straight to mars
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Turdsdown Tom posted:except cars parked on two-lane residential roads don't block an entire lane of traffic and also i've seen enough dashcam videos where people slam through those islands to say that they're not always in well-lit areas or properly signed. Reducing reckless driving is wildly reckless. Got it. E: To be less glib, how would you deal with the problem of people driving through neighbourhood streets so fast they "slam through" speed humps? Lead out in cuffs fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Aug 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Landmines.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Reducing reckless driving is wildly reckless. Got it. A wall usually does the trick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:It's also useful for discouraging "rat-running" where a residential street is used as a shortcut between main roads - the likelihood that you're going to have to wait, especially at rush hour, makes it less appealing as a speedy shortcut. I'm honestly curious, because that seems to be the same train of thought that creates endless spaghetti streets and dead ends in American suburbs. It creates a layout that's worse for everyone just to stop traffic from taking 'shortcuts'. Haifisch fucked around with this message at 09:51 on Aug 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
Haifisch posted:Why is this a problem? I know some people are allergic to the idea of non-residents driving down their street(even when the non-resident traffic is driving safely & slowly), but that can't be the only reason, can it? Because an actual road hierarchy can still be a good thing without necessarily leading into hellish suburbia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
Haifisch posted:Why is this a problem? I know some people are allergic to the idea of non-residents driving down their street(even when the non-resident traffic is driving safely & slowly), but that can't be the only reason, can it? A good shortcut can end up gridlocked, which isn't something you want on a quiet residential street. A lack of road hierarchy also leads to more intersecting traffic at intersections, which can make stoplight synchronization impossible if intersections are spaced too closely, as they often are in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Reducing reckless driving is wildly reckless. Got it. If people are capable of repeatedly "slamming through" a speed bump, the problem is that the installation of it was hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Jasper Tin Neck posted:A good shortcut can end up gridlocked, which isn't something you want on a quiet residential street. Phone posting so cant get a link, but I know there was a study about closing 'residential shortcuts'. Their findings were that these roads help take pressure off the main roads and provide redundancy in case of accidents or road work, so if you close off one that causes the others to get more traffic who then ask to be closed off aswell leading to greater on the main roads. Though I do admit that if they are getting enough regular through traffic to be more than what a residential street should be getting normally thens a problem. And any proper solution should also look at why people are using it so much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Reducing reckless driving is wildly reckless. Got it. Reducing hazards by adding more hazards is a pretty stupid idea in most disciplines, yeah. Also this: fishmech posted:If people are capable of repeatedly "slamming through" a speed bump, the problem is that the installation of it was hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Haifisch posted:Why is this a problem? I know some people are allergic to the idea of non-residents driving down their street(even when the non-resident traffic is driving safely & slowly), but that can't be the only reason, can it? As Koesj says, a sensible hierarchy of roads is generally a Good Thing and creates pleasant, walkable and safe residential areas. Traffic planners can then focus "heavy" interventions like signalised crossings and segregated bike lanes on the main roads. High traffic volumes and speeds outside houses and flats means that kids aren't allowed to play out or walk/cycle to school and adults who don't feel like walking/cycling to work or the shops even when they're only 5mins away. In turn, this creates even more traffic, parking problems, obesity problems and generally soulless areas. If you do it right there are no "dead ends" and "spaghetti streets" for people, only for cars - it's called filtered permeability. Far from causing suburban hell, good walkability is basically necessary to support any sort of high density without crazy amounts of underground parking as streets and surface parking just can't support the demand created by every individual owning a car in those areas. The existence of gated neighbourhoods in many US suburban neighbourhoods suggests that support a different kind of filtered permeability which has very little to do with transport planning. Turdsdown Tom posted:except cars parked on two-lane residential roads don't block an entire lane of traffic and also i've seen enough dashcam videos where people slam through those islands to say that they're not always in well-lit areas or properly signed. Then you're obviously used to seriously wide two-lane residential roads (in fact I'd say they're really three lane in practice). A car parked on the road you linked to would almost certainly have blocked a whole lane of traffic, the island is only just wider than the car that's passing it. If drivers are regularly slamming into clearly marked obstructions in the road then that's pretty scary as there's loads of them in the UK - they're called children. It also probably justifies the intervention on that particular road. Driving is full of "artificial hazards" like junctions, traffic lights, bends, parked cars...if people can't spot them, they probably shouldn't be driving. Standards are higher in the UK than the US but I definitely support tightening them up - driving should be a privilege and not a right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Turdsdown Tom posted:Reducing hazards by adding more hazards is a pretty stupid idea in most disciplines, yeah. (Most accidents happen when driving conditions are great) Also, from a theoretical view, why not make road decision trees instead of hierarchies (Or are they the same thing?)? Eskaton fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Sep 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Florida's latest road toy, which I find to be extremely useful: http://www.fl511.com/ The speeds displayed on the map are from FDOT's sensor network, and not the typical Google values. You can also read the road marquees, see events from FDOT's incident tracker and check the cameras (they're live if you have access).
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Turdsdown Tom posted:Reducing hazards by adding more hazards is a pretty stupid idea in most disciplines, yeah. "Slamming" into the pictured structure doesn't look like it could cause anything worse than some damage to the car. Far preferable that speeders hit a chicane, than that they hit a pedestrian.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
Varance posted:Florida's latest road toy, which I find to be extremely useful: http://www.fl511.com/ For anyone up my way who isn't aware of it, Ohio has something similar at http://ohgo.com/
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:"Slamming" into the pictured structure doesn't look like it could cause anything worse than some damage to the car. Far preferable that speeders hit a chicane, than that they hit a pedestrian. It's also worth noting that this is right in front of a school. Also that the "8 foot bike lane" is actually the widened sidewalk outside the school.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:"Slamming" into the pictured structure doesn't look like it could cause anything worse than some damage to the car. Far preferable that speeders hit a chicane, than that they hit a pedestrian. He needs to drive his Bimmer at at least 25mph or else the engine falls apart. Also, what are the point of arterials in a theoretical sense..? The cars move too fast to be pleasant for pedestrians (or even providing decent car access) and they don't move cars very quickly because of signal stops (Not to mention the least desirable property in a city is along these kinds of roads from what I've seen). Eskaton fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:He needs to drive his Bimmer at at least 25mph or else the engine falls apart. yeah in urban planning circles those are called "car sewers" because they create an effect like an open air sewer. No one wants to be around them but we've resigned our selves to thinking that they're needed and just part of life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:yeah in urban planning circles those are called "car sewers" because they create an effect like an open air sewer. No one wants to be around them but we've resigned our selves to thinking that they're needed and just part of life. I feel like the problems with arterials are a symptom of the greater problem of sprawl (also bad mode shares, but that's deeply interrelated with sprawl too).
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Also that the "8 foot bike lane" is actually the widened sidewalk outside the school. What are you talking about? Because he's talking about the big green painted lane with 2 bike symbols painted on it. It's really hard to miss! Eskaton posted:Also, what are the point of arterials in a theoretical sense..? The cars move too fast to be pleasant for pedestrians (or even providing decent car access) and they don't move cars very quickly because of signal stops Uh, because we can't have freeway/rural highway and quiet residential street be the only roads?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Uh, because we can't have freeway/rural highway and quiet residential street be the only roads? It seems like the worst of both worlds instead of an actual middle option. From personal experience, this works a lot better than this. (And I'm almost certain the tax revenue per infrastructure works much more in the favor of the former) I guess I'm saying is Parisian style boulevards are way more pleasant than what is usually built. It also seems weird that land use decisions aren't the first step to mitigate congestion over trying to fight induced demand. Eskaton fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
fishmech posted:What are you talking about? Because he's talking about the big green painted lane with 2 bike symbols painted on it. It's really hard to miss! That one is clearly three feet wide, so cannot be what he was talking about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:That one is clearly three feet wide, so cannot be what he was talking about. I think 8ft was referring to the length.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:Was looking for an actual why. Obviously you're going to need more than a 20ft wide road, but I see some 5 lane monstrosities that aren't really doing a lot of good for the city besides moving cars and making gas stations. They're pretty expensive for their utility too. I really don't understand what you're asking. Absurdly massive monumental boulevards aren't the logical progression from a narrow residential street. You do need to have roads that are in-between in size and performance. And your comparisons are bizarre, those aren't in actual cities, and they're both arterial roads. I can't imagine why you think the first one is better for going through a pretty low density area than the other, or why you'd think it'd be better for tax revenue? And building fancy boulevards through the middle of tiny towns and outlying areas would just be crazy. Your first link is a town of like 3000 and the other is like 8000, they're not going to pretty up US 23 for places like that. Lead out in cuffs posted:That one is clearly three feet wide, so cannot be what he was talking about. He's asking about the blatantly painted bike lane, not the obvious sidewalk. The bike lane that only lasts like 8 feet, which seems super super pointless. fishmech fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I really don't understand what you're asking. Absurdly massive monumental boulevards aren't the logical progression from a narrow residential street. You do need to have roads that are in-between in size and performance. I don't know why you're thinking of massive boulevards. The first example is a literal boulevard in a tiny town (There's a small frontage road with curb parking beside the larger, higher-speed road. Nothing terribly elaborate). They're both arterials which is my entire point and one is much more compatible with urban development. The latter has massive distances between the buildings along it and and is essentially encouraging a waste of utility frontage, though that may not be entirely the road's fault, but zoning or something. How those aren't aren't "actual" cities is beyond me, but they evidently are moving multi-lane arterial levels of traffic past an urban area at some point. Eskaton fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:I don't know why you're thinking of massive boulevards. The first example is a literal boulevard in a tiny town (There's a small frontage road with curb parking beside the larger, high-speed road. Nothing terribly elaborate). They're both arterials which is my entire point and one is much more compatible with urban development. The latter has massive distances between the buildings along it and and is essentially encouraging a waste of utility frontage, though that may not be entirely the road's fault, but zoning or something. Neither of those are "compatible" with urban development, as they're in tiny small towns in the middle of nowhere. The first one isn't a boulevard either, it's just the highway that happens to have a small road next to it - and the primary reason it exists is that the railroad is blocking the road from expanding on that side. You see similar configurations all over America, and if the railroad or road happened to have swapped positions the side road wouldn't exist. Uh, one has 3000 people and the other has 8000 people. That's how they aren't actual cities, on top of them also being extremely low density development. And the traffic going through them, since that's US 23, is mostly traffic that's just passing through town, they don't have 2 lanes in each direction because of the town's own usage. I mean if your standard for "is a city" is that it has at least one road through it that has 4 lanes in total, that would make a lot of nowhere places cities - 4 lanes is pretty standard for long distance surface highways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Neither of those are "compatible" with urban development, as they're in tiny small towns in the middle of nowhere. The first one isn't a boulevard either, it's just the highway that happens to have a small road next to it - and the primary reason it exists is that the railroad is blocking the road from expanding on that side. You see similar configurations all over America, and if the railroad or road happened to have swapped positions the side road wouldn't exist. Okay, I guess you have a different definition of urban that revolves around numbers, but you pretty much defined a boulevard there, dude. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulevard Eskaton fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Actually, I can straight up tell you they're urban roadways because in traffic eng, that's usually defined on whether you're using drains or ditches for rainwater.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:Okay, I guess you have a different definition of urban that revolves around numbers, but you pretty much defined a boulevard there, dude. Dude, those places are the definition of a small town and a rural/exurban area respectively. Nothing about either of them is a city. That's not a boulevard, it's a road that happens to need a side road because there's something blocking it from being continuous. The separation is only there because the railroad was built through first, and apparently the state couldn't reach an agreement to have it moved when they decided to expand US 23 there (since it was probably originally 2 lanes total, before increased long distance traffic volume required an expansion project). This is a boulevard:  And this is a boulevard:  And so is this:  Even this is, though it's pretty lovely:  But your thing, this?  That's just an arterial that has a narrow road next to it because of the tracks being in the way. Look at the article you tried to link to defend that, and notice how boulevards are usually with a median down the middle separating traffic directions, or are very wide if they don't have medians. That chunk of road in a small town fufils neither condition Eskaton posted:Actually, I can straight up tell you they're urban roadways because in traffic eng, that's usually defined on whether you're using drains or ditches for rainwater. They're not urban roadways, because not in anything close to an urban area.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
fishmech posted:They're not urban roadways, because not in anything close to an urban area. Okay, I got that from traffic eng professor, but okay. Anyway, not sure what your point is. It is much easier for a pedestrian to deal with my first example (Generally a sign of being more compatible with an urban area) than my second yet they are dealing with the same road. Also, there's literally four lane roads in half of your pictures and one without a serious median, so I'm not sure what exactly your issue is, but it geometrically fits the bill. You're spergin really hard on this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
This is a boulevard: A pointy part of a defensive perimeter around a town or city. Don't use our historical city design concepts to make your lovely highway sprawl sound more interesting   drat uncultured Americans! Entropist fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
The thread in which fishmech tries to argue that roads that aren't in a major metro area cannot possibly inform street/city design for pedestrians because the buildings near them aren't tall enough or something. FYI: that's an incredibly busy street during the summer with cars and pedestrians. Life if you want a real disaster, I can link you one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:Okay, I got that from traffic eng professor, but okay. I doubt your traffic engineering professor actually told you that if they don't use a ditch the road is in an urban area. It is no easier for a pedestrian to deal with either of those roads. They both have decent sidewalks, and they both have quite far differences between safe crossing points, because they're different stretches of a long distance surface highway that isn't in any sort of city or even large town. It does not "geometrically fit the bill". The single direction one lane frontage road that exists due to the railroad being there doesn't make that arterial a boulevard. The other things all have medians, or are part of a very wide road with extensive setbacks from the travel lanes to the buildings, creating a semi-park-like environment with the wide sidewalks. The road you posted in rural Michigan is just a 4 lane arterial with no intentional design made to make a boulevard. Eskaton posted:The thread in which fishmech tries to argue that roads that aren't in a major metro area cannot possibly inform street/city design for pedestrians because the buildings near them aren't tall enough or something. All I'm saying is a) it ain't a boulevard and b) that sure as hell ain't a city. And I have no idea why you're trying to insist it's both. And of course it's busy, it's a major US highway! Those tend to be busy roads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It is no easier for a pedestrian to deal with either of those roads. They both have decent sidewalks, and they both have quite far differences between safe crossing points, because they're different stretches of a long distance surface highway that isn't in any sort of city or even large town. I can tell you from user experience you're wrong. The traffic is slower in the first example and there's less high-speed lanes to cross while the other has cars moving at 35-40mph (perfectly fatal) that can and do use the median. You absolutely do not want to cross it (Though you're also in a parking crater, so walking is already the awful option). Not sure why it has to be intentional to be a boulevard, though. quote:All I'm saying is a) it ain't a boulevard and b) that sure as hell ain't a city. And I have no idea why you're trying to insist it's both. I'm not saying it's a city, but that is definitely urban if you bother going down the street and looking at the building pattern...! It's boulevard like. Does that work for you, dude? Does that help us understand why it works better than than the 5 lane for the town? No, but thanks for your help. You know what, I'm done with autism for the day, thanks. I didn't know it was a highway. I've only driven on that road 5,000 times. Eskaton fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:I can tell you from user experience you're wrong. The traffic is slower in the first example and there's less high-speed lanes to cross while the other has cars moving at 35-40mph (perfectly fatal) that can and do use the median. You absolutely do not want to cross it (Though you're also in a parking crater, so walking is already the awful option). You don't want to cross the first road outside of crosswalks either though. Maybe you personally do, but it's a pretty bad idea, both crossing 4 and 5 lanes unprotected is terrible for pedestrian safety, and even if the cars are only going 25 it can easily kill or cripple you. Although complaining that the latter road which is even further out from a city goes a whole 35-40 mph is quite ridiculous. How are we supposed to get anywhere in a reasonable fashion if our long distance surface highways can't be at least 35 mph? Because a boulevard is an intentional choice of road design? Like that's the point of it, you build a boulevard because you're intentionally seeking to create a particularly grand roadway compared to others. The grand Paris Boulevards, the boulevard sections of Park Avenue in NYC, and so on. Even that lovely boulevard that leads between a mall and some housing developments is at least trying to be fancy. That stretch of US 23 on the other hand, is just a plain old arterial road. It happens to have a narrow road next to one side, separated by a railroad, that's no sort of intentional design. Design like that comes up constantly around the country, because major surface roads often get built alongside railroads that were there for a long time before cars were common - like this example:  In this case, that railroad's been there in more or less the same location since the 1830s. The roads eventually developed on either side later on, much like what happened with your Michigan small town. Eskaton posted:I'm not saying it's a city, but that is definitely urban if you bother going down the street and looking at the building pattern...! It's boulevard like. Does that work for you, dude? Does that help us understand why it works better than than the 5 lane for the town? No, but thanks for your help. It is not urban, it is a small town. Those are very different things. And it's also not boulevard like at all. And it doesn't "work better" than a 5 lane road, nor is there a problem with it being 5 lane where it is 5 lane. It doesn't matter how many times you drive on that road, it won't make it any more of a boulevard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You don't want to cross the first road outside of crosswalks either though. Maybe you personally do, but it's a pretty bad idea, both crossing 4 and 5 lanes unprotected is terrible for pedestrian safety, and even if the cars are only going 25 it can easily kill or cripple you. Although complaining that the latter road which is even further out from a city goes a whole 35-40 mph is quite ridiculous. How are we supposed to get anywhere in a reasonable fashion if our long distance surface highways can't be at least 35 mph? I really don't know why there's a problem of saying the road layout has somewhat of a boulevard effect. I didn't just pull that out of my rear end. Other places can have it too, and I think that's good for them. It's unintentionally cool and good. I'd much rather walk along the smaller road, but there's still a place for car traffic and small business in parallel. Eskaton fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:Yes, but you're not looking at the actual effect of that layout on the city. the highspeed traffic is kept out of the blockface of one street in the town that is built in an urban format that allows walking (buildings set against the narrow street with a diverse set of businesses with maybe some residential above them). Pedestrians don't really have anywhere to go across the street besides where the crosswalks are. I guess it's less of an arterial critique, but a criticism of trying to build a town on the arterial as opposed to the smaller roads. What city are you talking about? There's no city there, and there's no urban format, that's just a small town. It's standard small town design. There was also no intention to separate traffic from that part of the town either, the railroad was there first, and when they wanted to expand US 23 to a 4 lane road they simply couldn't place it right up against where the buildings are - unless the state wanted to pay the railroad to move. By the looks of things, they might have taken out a block of buildings instead to extend it. And they didn't have any choice but to build the town along the road that later became a major arterial? The bay access seems to be the primary reason the town exists, and roads that skirt the edge of major water features tend to become major roads over time. The bulk of the town is quite a few blocks in from the arterial road though - the road's position basically requires that it be the edge of development. Just as the railroad makes sure that the arterial couldn't be 10 feet over and have the 4 lanes right up against the building. Eskaton posted:I really don't know why there's a problem of saying the road layout has somewhat of a boulevard effect. I didn't just pull that out of my rear end. You did just pull it out of your rear end, is the thing. It's just a road that happens to be next to another road. That happens all the time , especially when there's railroads in close proximity. Eskaton posted:I'd much rather walk along the smaller road, but there's still a place for car traffic and small business in parallel. Dude that isn't doing anything for small business. They'd do just as well right up against the arterial road, especially since without the railroad in the way they'd probably still have parking lanes alongside.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 14:52 |
|
|
Kill access to arterials that aren't other roads and streets and move businesses and other activity to smaller roads is maybe what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 18:47
|
|