|
smackfu posted:I've also heard of this happening with one-way car or moving van rentals, and there being cheap rates the other way. Although I'm not sure what kind of routes would have that kind of asymmetry. Routes from college towns to anywhere outward from the start of fall move in season into a month or so before move out. Especially when it's a college town that's hours away from large cities, but still gets a lot of out of state students.
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
ArcMage posted:How do you actually do it, though? Know pilots? Companies like these have contacts with charter jet operators to set up flights with you: http://www.ellejet.com/featured-empty-legs.php http://www.emptylegmarket.com/ https://www.stratosjets.com/one-way-charter/ Sometimes, a charter jet operating company will directly market their empty legs themselves even. One thing you'll notice is, many of them are having you fly in or out of smaller regional/general aviation airports even though the other end is at a standard major airport - so when trying to save money using them you'll also need to factor in getting out to some weird airport that probably isn't on any convenient route.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
You'd be amazed how fast people who were still ranting about how the rail is going to being professional robbers from the city to steal their tv, also cause all the houses to collapse, a day before the rail line opens, mysteriously shut up as soon as the property values start rising. And some have the gall to pretend like they were for it all along.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:I always wonder if people who say that know you can rent a uhaul for like 20 bucks. Or considering what they're scared of, that you can steal a car for free, instead of carefully planning out a robbery based on the transit schedules.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:This kind of argument happened when the River Line (light trail between Camden and Trenton) was planned, so it's not just bus lines. Well yeah that's what I was referring to. It's taken a lot of load off the roads for people commuting down to Philadelphia, and in the northern half also up to New York City/North Jersey (thanks to the PATCO link in Camden and the NJTransit/Amtrak link in Trenton). And since they opened the transfer station between the River Line and the Atlantic City Line, it's taken a decent amount of shoregoers. There's also been commercial, retail, and residential redevelopment near almost all the stations, which has added jobs on the line, as well as attracted people commuting elsewhere from other places. It manages over 9000 passengers each weekday, which is pretty decent improvement over the original goal of 5500. And separately since it opened and even though the light rail service restricts freight traffic to 10 pm to 6 am on most of the line, freight traffic is up a good deal, including some spurs to industrial parks becoming reactivated that weren't used for years. And the industrial park they built behind the Florence station has freight service to most of the major buildings. Many of these business are also accessible for commuting by rail plus a shot walk, or county circulator buses.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Well that and also typically there's not much that anyone can do to prevent suburbs from being built up, since developers will just go right outside of whatever growth boundary or zoning ordinance might try to block them. No one gets to vote on it and so people just shrug their shoulders and ignore it. Except that in many states there's no way to get "outside" of zoning or growth boundaries. Because those states implement comprehensive region wide planning, or failing that, there's not just no unincorporated county land, there's also county level zoning decisions which the various municipalities composing the county can't throw away on a whim. And sometimes, with county government dead, you have all the towns being NIMBY as hell about having the random growth stuff in their town - and by the time you get to the towns willing to not give a gently caress you're so far out from the main city, that no one's going to bother to sit behind a lesser city's traffic as well to live in your development and commute to where they work.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Having driven it yesterday, there's no reason the I-290 designation should still exist. poo poo should just be 395 the whole length, although really 395 should probably be an even numbered auxilliary since it effectively joins 95 and 495.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
I'm personally in favor of renumbering it to 895 because it, in coordination with the tie-in to 495, provides a route from eastern CT to NH/Maine, which starts at 95 and eventually ends at 95. And there's also no ongoing chance that a different 895 would be built given current right of way considerations and road planning within CT and MA. I don't really think it'd deserve a 2di. Sure, I-97 in Maryland is just 17 and a half miles long but that was just a dumb decision. The actual length from 95 in CT to 495 in MA is only 86.8 miles. Incidentally the state of the exit renumbering on 395 in CT is extremely confusing at the moment. Sometimes all the signs for the exit have been renumbered to the correct mileage exit, sometimes the only sign renumbered is the exit sign itself with all lead-up signs using the old number. Sometimes it's a mix of both!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:There is ongoing discussion about the redesignation of the MA 24 Expressway from Fall River to Randolph. Most think it will be designated I-895, though right now there is debate as to whether it will be 895 or 493. The only other available number would be 695, given that the inner belt highway in Boston will never be built. Well to be honest an x93 makes a lot more sense, considering it ends at 93 at the north end. Plus through its entire length 93 only has two auxiliary routes, so why not make it 3 total?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:They've been calling for an interstate upgrade for MA 24 for decades, but the reality is that it would cost more than the Route 3 widening because it would require the reconstruction of most of the highway. The 895 versus 493 comes from the fact that the cancelled 895 would have used some of MA 24, but 493 is probably the more modern designation. There's been two studies in the past 20 years (which I can't find online but I'm pretty sure are in the state transportation library) about it. What stuff needs to be upgraded for MA 24 to meet interstate standards? I've driven on it a few times, albeit only to Stoughton from 93, and in that section it seems perfectly fine (although it would be nice to not have completely standard cloverleafs for every interchange).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
xergm posted:Suddenly the scene in "The Italian Job" where Seth Green hacks the traffic center doesn't seem so crazy. Yeah, but it still wouldn't work in real life... because a couple of the signals would fail to work with the remote system correctly. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Texas road infrastructure is great, it's just everything else around the roads is horrible,and what they're doing with that infrastructure is also real bad.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Speaking of road facings, is there a name for this pattern/style of interlocking things, and is there any particular reason it gets used? The street view link is here if that helps https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9570726,-75.1431056,3a,75y,200.5h,80.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sR7pGND5OMMh6xNhQQv8o6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Must be a state produced Standard panel then, because I've only seen that particular pattern on roads in Pennsylvania.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
There are a bunch of street intersections in lower Manhattan where these days semi-trucks are simply barred from making one or more of the turns, even though they're allowed on both streets involved.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:And they still try of course? Probably they still do. I was trying to find it because I know I've seen it before, but all I was able to find was the general section of information on truck usage and routes within NYC http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/motorist/trucks.shtml
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
"Intruders" is some really stupid framing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I was mostly referring to people hit at actual crosswalks still getting victim-blamed. "well just because you had a walk signal you still have to look!" you hear every time. Well then that's a weird thing to say in response to someone talking about jaywalking and in a post with a video about jaywalking? You cannot jaywalk in a crosswalk. Also some places more like nearly all places. And many of the places that road areas don't belong to cars instead belong to bikes or trains or trams or buses!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Jaywalking isn't illegal in a ton of places, it's merely a bad idea if a street's busy. I don't think there's even a single state where every area within it has jaywalking illegal, but maybe a tiny state like Rhode Island does. And in a lot of places it's practically meaningless: Boston, Massachusetts and most of the nearby towns and cities have the punishment for jaywalking set at $1.00. And if you get caught jaywalking 4 or more times in a single year, the fine ups to a whole $2 for that and each subsequent offense til the next year starts. Absolutely no potential for jailtime or anything,
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Seems stupid to not have a light when biking at night if you'll at any point be somewhere with poor/no street lighting. Not for "someone might hit you" reasons but for seeing things ahead of you reasons. Especially these days when an LED practically as bright as motorcycle headlights used to be can be had dirt cheap, and run for weeks on a easy to recharge battery.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
To be willing to put up with the extra pedaling effort of dyno lights, versus just using disposable or rechargeable but non pedal connected lights... that seems like the opposite of "barely a thing". Maybe you meant something completely different from the way people usually use "barely a thing" but as it stands it's pretty self-contradictory.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Oh come on, don't be silly and don't talk about the Netherlands like you know it if you don't live there. This makes a lot more sense, especially as you can't all be living places with streetlights galore.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Is there anywhere to see the VMT data split out among the states or metropolitan statistical areas?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Right now it says "The service is unavailable." I guess everyone's trying to view the VMT data! 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Varance posted:The main problem there is that many of the developments from back then used to anchor interurban lines would not be viable as high volume destinations today (parks, swimming pools, movie theaters, etc.). Our modern streetcar line was built along the same premise, and is struggling to stay alive. Well there's always the last major trolley line terminus attractor which was a theme park. But it's not exactly practical to build a modern one in a constrained space!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
less than three posted:Just over a month ago Ontario's first cable stayed bridge opened. How the heck did that happen? This is hardly brand new technology...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Please share! Is it ridiculously long, or ridiculously short? Although it's slightly shorter in driving time and distance, you have to factor in hours spent waiting at customs control at least twice:
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
smackfu posted:If you just want to cross the bridge, this detour is even worse. It's debatable whether this route is even passable too, since it goes pretty far North into nothingness. Once you leave the Trans-Canada highway, it looks like a gravel road. Apparently this shot is on a part of that alternate route, at the "town" of Armstrong Station, population 220:  And most of the other "towns" on the route aren't even big enough for someone to have taken a picture..
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Cyclists will run into pedestrians, too. I wonder how well those No Right On Red signs that only light up on yellow/red do for compliance?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:This is Hartford. The City would shut them off to save electricity and they'd be dismantled for scrap the next morning. Sure, but I just mean in general. Do people obey them more or less than stationary signs? Especially since when you have the light up signs, they only activate in certain conditions, since most of the time the right on red is permitted.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:Yeah............ but cyclists running into pedestrians usually involves some abrasions, and contusions, instead of death, dismemberment, and lifetime disability. You know, most people hit by cars also don't end up with death/dismemberment/lifetime disability. Most people hit by cars only get abrasions and contusions, it doesn't make getting whacked by a vehicle any more pleasant.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:Sorry, gently caress off and die, but it's basic loving physics. A 200-300 pound object moving at 10-20 mi/hr versus a 2000-5000 pound object moving at 20-40 mi/hr. It's about the kinetic energy imparted into a collision, not some bullshit that you are spouting because it makes you feel better about driving a car aggressively against cyclists, you murderous piece of poo poo. It's basic statistics that most car - pedestrian collisions don't result in death, permanent disability, or dismemberment. And that getting hit by some jackass on a bike can easily cause one or more of those. Sorry you want to pretend that it's ok for bicyclists to injure people because they get slightly less hurt on average, I guess? Or you're being really weaselly and pretending bike knocks person into other object, other object causes the bulk of the injury, isn't a bike accident caused injury/death? Very guns don't kill people of you.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:I was talking clear physics equations. If you want to talk statistics, cite your sources, and then we'll talk. You're talking hosed up physics because you're apparently ignorant enough to think all car pedestrian accidents are at 40 mph. They don't work that way, so stop trying to defend reckless vehicle operators on any form of transport.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Chemmy posted:"Cars are only marginally more dangerous than bicycles" seems like a claim worthy of cited data. I never made that claim. But they both can kill if driven carelessly in the real world, so excusing those who operate either because they only hurt someone a little is hosed up. Next time, they could straight up kill, if they continue like that. osirisisdead posted:15 mpg x 200 lbs = 608.321799 m kg / s I'm noticing a severe lack of a point. Both of those can severely injure or kill a person, and both can only cause minor injury.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:Your intentional obtuseness doesn't negate my point. Your point has been bogus from the beginning, it negated itself. Bicycle collisions with pedestrians are actually very dangerous events and should never be treated lightly. But you just want to pretend it's all sunshine and flowers because there's lower chances of outright dying.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I never thought I had a violent fight of flight response, never actually hit anyone in my life, but the other day a car cut me off at a crosswalk while it was turning right but looking left. Nearly ran over my foot, so I punched the car in anger as my brain interpreted it as a thing trying to attack me. I managed to make the body panel bend in then out and made a good popping My sound. If I had left a dent would I have been in the wrong or would that be some sort of self-defense sort of case? In all honesty I think that kind of thing would go to small claims court at best.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:This is what I always assumed. Keep right unless passing doesn't work when you reach a certain point of congestion, so it's harder to make a ticket for that stick, as opposed to speeding where the magical velocity detector just gives an auditable speed. Yeah if people want the left lane to be truly kept as a passing lane, the traffic needs to either be quite low, or there needs to be a middle lane.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:If you want Amsterdam to be burned to the ground by rioting citizens yes, certainly. That sounds highly suspect. There'd been non cut-and-cover subway technology for decades at that point, including in horrible soil compositions. Although I suppose the people originally planning a subway might have been looking to make money somehow by doing the cheaper cut and cover method, and just pretended they had no other option because they stood to make money somehow (maybe in rebuilding contracts? It wouldn't be unheard of).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Entropist posted:It's not only soil composition, it's also the fact that Amsterdam is built on wooden stakes driven deep into the swampy ground, down to a sand layer. Tunnel through that, and all the buildings will just sink down into the soil in an instant. In addition, if the water table is altered in any way, they rot away and the same thing happens. Boston's also primarily built on that, due to a ton of the city being landfill thrown together with whatever cheap fill could be gotten in the 1800s, on top of shallow marshes and bays. As it turned out most of the existing rapid transit lines were able to be built cut and cover (primarily back in 1897-1919), but there have been periodic consideration of building a full heavy rail rapid transit line to replace the original 1890s-1950s built streetcar tunnel line. Which in some scenarios involves replacing all of the existing streetcar-quality track in the tunnels with rapid transit suitable track and the necessary high platforms, and other times has been considered as a roughly parallel line which would need to bore through extensive stretches of fill land with the very same style of wooden stakes holding up foundations. Many of the important buildings have had dams built into the ground out of concrete with water pumps running to ensure enough of the pilings stay soaked. As it turns out, neither project has been followed through on, because both would require scads of money, but they don't really have technical problems as well - the plans under the the section that's all wooden stakes holding up foundations was first proposed in the early 70s, and the appeal would be no need to build a way to transfer the streetcars at one of the branches (there are 4 existing lines that use the tunnels, one branches out early, the rest share a tunnel terminus station that can be operated with streetcars on one set of sides of the island platforms, and full on subway cars meeting high platforms down the middle sides)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
Cichlidae posted:There's a huge regional difference of opinion on tunneling, and I don't think it's all geotechnical conditions. Paris is built in an infilled swamp and they've got tunnels all over the place and are constantly building new ones. My old boss did construction management for some new Métro tunnels and, the way he talked about it, it seemed like it couldn't be easier. To be fair 70 years of the Second Avenue Subway delay are attributable to the depression, World War II, and then the MTA being pretty broke for a long time. If it started when originally intended in the late 30s,it might have been finished by 1980.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 05:27
|
|