|
GWBBQ posted:10 car lengths? Quit whining http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=...,39.59,,0,11.82 Yeah, the cloverleaf there is currently the worst interchange in the state, in terms of violating modern standards. It even has a road coming in from the side to intersect 2 of the ramps. Luckily, that's all getting fixed in a few years, along with adding full access to the new US 7! Don't get your hopes up, though; it's never getting extended past Norwalk. Wilton's got the route completely blocked. PDF of the planned interchange. It's not pretty, but it works.
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 05:51 |
|
|
There is an intersection in my town where there are three lanes at the signal: a left turn only, a straight, and a right turn only. I was wondering why the signal for the right turn lane has two green bulbs, a green ball and a green arrow? When the straight lane has a green then the right turn signal has both the ball and the arrow lit, other wise it only has the green arrow (or the red ball). Just as an aside, as someone who checked out the Green Book from the library to read for fun, this is a cool thread. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 02:29
|
|
|
cheque_some posted:There is an intersection in my town where there are three lanes at the signal: a left turn only, a straight, and a right turn only. I was wondering why the signal for the right turn lane has two green bulbs, a green ball and a green arrow? When the straight lane has a green then the right turn signal has both the ball and the arrow lit, other wise it only has the green arrow (or the red ball). If there are three signal heads at that signal, then it's because the MUTCD requires two sets of signals for the through movement. The green ball on the right is actually for the through lane, weird as it may seem. It's not a very good idea, though, because if it confuses you, it probably confuses lots of people. Traffic signals should be self-evident. And the green book is a surprisingly good read. Much better than the MUTCD, at least. It's got some nice drawings and photos, too! For anyone who's interested in urban design, I have a great book to recommend. Anything by Kevin Lynch is good, and I specifically liked his urban planning manifesto, Good City Form. He works in a very broad sense, describing the essence of urban planning more than the details, and gets to the very heart of what makes a city work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 02:41
|
|
|
OK, that makes sense I guess, although it's interesting because it has always been three signal heads, but the extra green ball was only added recently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 03:05
|
|
|
cheque_some posted:OK, that makes sense I guess, although it's interesting because it has always been three signal heads, but the extra green ball was only added recently. If they added it along with other work nearby, it was probably because the feds refused to give funding if the signal was substandard. It seems whiny, but that's often the only way to bring something up to modern standards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 03:18
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I80 between auburn and reno (the sierra nevada stretch) is basically repaved every 2-3 years because of the snow and the volume of truck traveling it. The road is consistently horrible. Heavily loaded trucks are not good for roads. IMHO, a lot of transport should be done by rail and weight limits should not only drop but be more strictly enforced. Rail can handle tonnage much better and cheaper than even the most heavy duty road designs. Trucks, more often than not will destroy roads without contributing much to their upkeep costs. Day after day I see the damage that large semi-tractor trailers do to pavements, walks, and curb and gutters. Minor settling on concrete pavement panels will receive a jack-hammer effect from heavily loaded truck tires traveling at freeway speeds shattering pavement within months. Cichlidae posted:There are some pretty neat innovations that have come up in the last decade to fight snow. Embedded pavement sensors can detect when the pavement temperature drops below freezing, and notify the plows to come get rid of the snow/ice. Additionally, some states have been experimenting with nozzles that automatically spray anti-freeze solution onto the pavement once it hits freezing. Generally those are used on bridges and only in problem areas due to the obvious high costs. A good DPW will know their roads and weather so it isn't hard to keep on top of plowing and ice control. Western states in the mountains may have to deal with more variable conditions over a greater area which may require that type of system along some stretches but again, only in problem areas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 04:24
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Luckily, cloverleafs are very easy to fix! Take out a couple loops and make a partial cloverleaf, or take them all out and make a stack. What you need depends on volume. Here's a pretty nice design that would eliminate all the weaving, put the interchange perfectly up to modern standards (except no median, that's hard to get these days), and cost not too much, since it only introduces a couple new bridges. This is what we have connecting the 91 to the 15 in Corona area California (I have no clue what city it is). The best part of the setup is that I can see the cross-over from a mile away and decide if I should bother taking it or not. I'd say 4 hours a day traffic is backed up over it and slows the Northbound 15 down considerably. (In our case East on this map is North) iceslice fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Aug 7, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 04:39
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Single Point Urban Interchange So is that what this is?  http://tinyurl.com/kt2ddx All I know is that it's one HUGE intersection with one set of lights. It also makes for a fun highspeed U-Turn from I40W to I40E if you catch a green light
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 06:10
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazy interchanges I was going to ask if any of those actually get put into production, but someone's already gone ahead and posted one. That three level one is awfully artistic, and I'm sure if it had a nice backdrop, it'd be just perfect as a setting for some future/dystopian sci-fi film.  quote: Cichlidae, you're the best OP ever.That photo would really make an awesome av for you... 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 08:54
|
|
|
cheque_some posted:OK, that makes sense I guess, although it's interesting because it has always been three signal heads, but the extra green ball was only added recently. Are you sure it's not because the right arrow is so you can go right without stopping when the adjacent traffic is turning left?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 09:06
|
|
|
Would you be able to improve this interchange? http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...027595&t=h&z=15
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 10:04
|
|
|
Neutrino posted:Heavily loaded trucks are not good for roads. IMHO, a lot of transport should be done by rail and weight limits should not only drop but be more strictly enforced. Rail can handle tonnage much better and cheaper than even the most heavy duty road designs. Trucks, more often than not will destroy roads without contributing much to their upkeep costs. Yeah, the weight limits on trucks have gone up significantly over the years. Highway advocates thump their chests and say that trucks carry 80% (by value) of the products in the country, but they also cause the VAST majority of the pavement wear. A lot of the freeways in France are owned privately, and they prohibit trucks, which makes maintenance much much easier. The downside to that is that the trucks end up driving on local roads through villages. Edit: In your experience, does CRCP (Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement) live up to the hype? Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Aug 7, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 12:13
|
|
|
FakeUsername posted:So is that what this is? Yep, that's a SPUI in the wild! They're starting to pop up all over the country. I remember the first one I drove over was in Phoenix, SR51 at Bethany Home. SPUIs are huge, and have this kind of aura over them. You get the feeling you've entered a desert of pavement, and the cars are cacti.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 12:17
|
|
|
Simkin posted:I was going to ask if any of those actually get put into production, but someone's already gone ahead and posted one. That three level one is awfully artistic, and I'm sure if it had a nice backdrop, it'd be just perfect as a setting for some future/dystopian sci-fi film. In a world... ruled by engineers... A concrete jungle of overpasses... Becomes the gateway... To a hell never before imagined. This summer... THE SPUPCLO Rated R. quote:
I can't believe I've gone so long without a custom title. Would it still be legible at the appropriate size?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 12:20
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I like how there are two extra ramps (I can't see the cross street's name, but it goes from that to Pager Pass Rd, and from Pager Pass to 80). Those ramps take a lot of traffic off the already-busy intersection on the right side of the picture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 17:32
|
|
|
dexter posted:Are you sure it's not because the right arrow is so you can go right without stopping when the adjacent traffic is turning left? That's what the right arrow is for. He's referring to the ball, which is the circular indication that we figure is for the through vehicles. JackBoCracken posted:Would you be able to improve this interchange? Huh, you have a busway. We're trying to build one here in Connecticut, but there are so many unforseen issues... anyway, we also have an interchange like that here! The plan is to spend about $2.5B to fix it up, adding some capacity and knocking out the substandard ramps and left entrances/exits. I'm on lunch break, so I don't have too much time, but here's a concept of what it would look like if you used a similar design in Seattle:  Red is the busway, blue is ramps, green is mainline. Revamping such a huge interchange is always terribly hard, because you have to find somewhere for cars to go while it's under construction. You might just want for Mt. Ranier to blow and "accidentally" channel the resulting mudflow into downtown Seattle. You know, for urban renewal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 17:42
|
|
|
Speaking of, what's the deal with that CT busway. Really, billions of dollars? Does it really make more sense than adding bus lanes to existing highways.?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 20:22
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Speaking of, what's the deal with that CT busway. Really, billions of dollars? Does it really make more sense than adding bus lanes to existing highways.? Its benefit to cost ratio was something like 25:1. There were a lot of assumptions that many of us don't agree with, though. How many people are going to stop commuting and switch to the bus? Will the transit division actually buy the buses or just say "oh dear, budget crisis, let's stick with what we have"? Will politicians stop trying to pile on pork and get more improvements in their towns? That estimate was before the cost overruns, too. The original study, the West Side Access Study if you can get your hands on it, assumes that the railroad ROW is wide enough to fit a bus lane. Turns out the answer is "no". It didn't take into account the MASSIVE pain in the rear end that the alternating one-way section under the Aetna Viaduct would be, or the horrible trouble we're having closing Flower Street. That's a rant for another time, though, because I'm too drat happy from my new custom title! Thank you, mysterious donor! Now, any thread in which I post will be blessed with a "mentally differently abled" signal controller.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 21:47
|
|
|
Would there be any sense in complaining to my local municipality about sensors that just absolutely refuse to recognize motorcycles? There's a few intersections that I now just avoid, unless I know that there will be other traffic to trip the sensors - I really would rather not have to run red lights, even if there is no traffic around, and it's 2 in the morning. :/
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 21:52
|
|
|
Simkin posted:
Yeah. I talk to the guy in our office in the traffic section and he changes the sensitivity on the loops. It helps to center the bike over the corner of the loop where the line runs to the curb. Usually it is visible which makes it easier. If you have to wait more than two cycles, the loops aren't picking you up, so you have a legal right to go through the red. Cops will be understanding because surprisingly many own bikes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 21:58
|
|
|
Oh, I know all about that little trick with the center of the induction loop. It's getting better around town, especially with sensors that are good enough to pick up bicycles. Yeah, I roll onto those to trip the lights as well. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 22:01
|
|
|
Simkin posted:Oh, I know all about that little trick with the center of the induction loop. It's getting better around town, especially with sensors that are good enough to pick up bicycles. I hosed with my coworker a few weeks ago when we were setting up a new signal. It was running two-phase, which means first the main street goes (2&6), then the side street (4&8). He wondered aloud whether the loops were working, as the contractor had done a horrible job and they looked really sketchy. I smiled and told him to go stand on them, and we'd see if a call came in. The joke is that he's kind of fat. Being a good sport, he stood on the loop, and I watched the cabinet to see if the call went through. Of course, humans don't do a very good job of triggering detectors, so XYZZY. He walked back to me and grinned. "Well, the light didn't change. I'm not as fat as you think." "Oh? It did register you, but you were standing on the right-turn loop, and it has an 8-second delay. Go stand on it for a few more seconds." My coworker rolled his eyes and walked back to the loop. What I knew and he didn't was that a car was on the opposite side street approach, triggering the detector. It turned right before the light turned green, but sure enough, after my coworker had stood on the loop for a couple seconds, the light turned green! He looked up at it in shock, then across the street to see that there were no cars there. "What the gently caress? No way!" "Back to your diet, fatty..." I won't tell him if you don't tell 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 23:08
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I won't tell him if you don't tell It's a deal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 00:10
|
|
|
That's the best thing I've read all night.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 07:33
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I80 between auburn and reno (the sierra nevada stretch) is basically repaved every 2-3 years because of the snow and the volume of truck traveling it. The road is consistently horrible. It is rutting
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 10:15
|
|
|
nm posted:Truck traffic with chains. Well, they could repave the whole thing with pure diamond, but resurfacing it every 2-3 years seems like the much cheaper option. In cases like that, you're just fighting a losing battle. So, what would you guys like to learn about now? We've got plenty more to discuss. I can keep fixing up interchanges, or we can discuss signs and stripes, both of which we've barely touched. I can talk for days about specs and standards, though they're pretty boring. How about some construction talk? Wonder how we pave roads? I'm well versed in urban design, as well, so don't hesitate to ask about that. One of my biggest dreams has always been to plan a city from the ground up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 15:33
|
|
|
What's your opinion of the fused grid as a form of urban design?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 15:38
|
|
|
Soap Scum posted:What's your opinion of the fused grid as a form of urban design? That's a system very well suited to America's automobile-driven lifestyle. Unfortunately, this also contributes to low-density development. It also doesn't have a real sense of character; there is little to distinguish the different sectors. There's very little opportunity for development short of ripping up buildings. I've already discussed why I'm not a fan of low-density development, but it bears repeating: it's very inefficient from a transportation perspective. The growth of suburbia in this country has been the main cause of the massive congestion in the last 30 years. If we'd had the foresight to build upward instead of outward, then our hinterland would be in better shape, and there wouldn't be as much congestion. From an inhabitant's perspective, though, the fused grid is pretty nice. Other than the lack of identity and the long commute time, it provides many positive aspects, like a large yard, quiet streets, and a ped-friendly atmosphere. Of course, being a traffic engineer, I might be a little biased toward optimizing traffic flow...
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 16:00
|
|
|
I'd like some signage lessons. The signals just sort of fly over my head (I'm not a math guy) but signs seem like they'd be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 17:22
|
|
|
Der Metzgermeister posted:I'd like some signage lessons. The signals just sort of fly over my head (I'm not a math guy) but signs seem like they'd be interesting. Alright, let's see... a quick introduction about signs! There are three kinds of signs: regulatory, warning, and guide. You could consider construction and incident management as the fourth and fifth fingers on the signage hand, but they could also be considered warning signs. All of them serve to inform motorists, but the kind of information they carry is as varied as the 84 moons of Zeublon 7. Regulatory signs carry legal status. They are meant to stand out the most, and tell drivers that they could get in trouble if they don't obey. The most important regulatory signs are red: STOP, WRONG WAY, DO NOT ENTER, and YIELD. The last two of those, by the way, don't carry any words in many countries. Americans need it spelled out for them. Most other regulatory signs are black text on a white background: speed limits, no left turn, no passing on right, 2-hour parking, lane use arrows... there are hundreds of them. Regulatory signs should not be placed on the same post as any other kind of sign. In Connecticut, regulatory signs are designated 3-series, and the nationwide designation is R-series. Guess what the R stands for! Any regulatory signs on CT state roads here are required to have a sticker on them that says "STC" or "State Traffic Commission," which is the body that approves the signs and makes them legally valid. Similarly, R-series signs on town roads will have an analogous sticker with the local traffic authority's name.  Parking sucks anyway, right, guys? Warning signs are not legal restrictions, but rather warnings of dangerous conditions. They're yellow with black text. Some of them have speed advisories, which look deceptively like speed limits, but don't carry any legal standing. Other signs warn you about sharp curves, hidden intersections, merges, and dozens of other things. Nationwide, they're branded with the W-series designation. In Connecticut, they're called 4-series. (3, 4, can you guess what guide signs are called?) Here's a trivium: the intersection warning signs (shown below) are only used on intersections where you don't have to stop. If someone puts up a stop sign or a signal, they have to rip out the intersection warning sign.  Hey! Listen! Guide signs tell you where to go. They're green (Wasilla this way) or blue (service signs) or brown (Tourisme), or even other colors (route markers and street signs), and they are all over the place. If you can't tell where you're going, guide signs will get you out of a mess. The feds have a lot of names for guide signs: E-series, M-series, D-series... Here in Connecticut, we call them 5-series. There are literally thousands in the state alone, and millions across the nation. Every bridge, brook, military reservation, town, freeway, local road, and llama farm has its own sign.  It's simple, really! Construction signs are just like warning signs, except they're orange. Well, I call it orange, but there's something of an ongoing argument in my office as to whether it's more orange or yellow. Oh, those engineers! Incident management signs always make me laugh. They're just like construction signs, except they're put up in response to incidents (terrorist attack, bad accident) and are BRIGHT PINK. Yes, that's right! The MUTCD had that color reserved for years, and they decided to shame IM by dumping BRIGHT PINK on it.  "BUMP!!" The bright pink color here is misused. It should say, "Terrorist attack!!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 18:13
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That's a system very well suited to America's automobile-driven lifestyle. Unfortunately, this also contributes to low-density development. It also doesn't have a real sense of character; there is little to distinguish the different sectors. There's very little opportunity for development short of ripping up buildings. Whats a fused grid?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 18:30
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Construction signs are just like warning signs, except they're orange. Well, I call it orange, but there's something of an ongoing argument in my office as to whether it's more orange or yellow. Oh, those engineers! The people in your office must be colorblind, because they seem very clearly orange to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 18:46
|
|
|
Der Metzgermeister posted:The people in your office must be colorblind, because they seem very clearly orange to me. Several of them are, actually! You can imagine the implications of red-green colorblind traffic engineers. ilkhan posted:We have lots of land around our cities for suburbs to grow in, and sane people hate high density apartments. Like I said, from an inhabitant's perspective, a suburb is nicer. Sugar is nice, too, but I don't advocate eating it all the time. Suburbs are an extremely inefficient growth pattern geared toward an automobile-driven lifestyle, using up a lot of arable land and hindering mass transit. This is a fused grid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 18:56
|
|
|
Berkeley, california has something which is kind of like a fused grid or new urbanist design but a little simpler: It was originally built with a plain old grid, but afterwards, they blocked off certain movements to cars (only cars, bicycles can still use them). To a pedestrian, it's pretty much indistinguishable from a regular grid, but from a driver's perspective, it's much more like a hierarchy or fused grid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 19:44
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:Berkeley, california has something which is kind of like a fused grid or new urbanist design but a little simpler: It was originally built with a plain old grid, but afterwards, they blocked off certain movements to cars (only cars, bicycles can still use them). To a pedestrian, it's pretty much indistinguishable from a regular grid, but from a driver's perspective, it's much more like a hierarchy or fused grid. What method do they use to block motorists? Are there barriers, curbs, and grass, or do they just put up turn restriction signs and pavement? Obviously, the former is much nicer, and in areas that have already been built up, it seems like a great way to encourage other modes of transportation and lower speeds on minor roads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 19:55
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:What method do they use to block motorists? Are there barriers, curbs, and grass, or do they just put up turn restriction signs and pavement? Obviously, the former is much nicer, and in areas that have already been built up, it seems like a great way to encourage other modes of transportation and lower speeds on minor roads. here's an example
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 20:12
|
|
|
What do you think about one-way streets and the talk about them "dividing communities?" The city wants to turn a few of the roads here into one-way streets but there's a huge opposition from the people living here. Is there really a downside to it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 20:14
|
|
|
dexter posted:What do you think about one-way streets and the talk about them "dividing communities?" The city wants to turn a few of the roads here into one-way streets but there's a huge opposition from the people living here. Is there really a downside to it? One-way streets have both upsides and downsides, like pretty much anything else. They're generally put in when a two-way street can no longer handle the kind of traffic using it, and are generally done in pairs or groups. Positives: The road becomes a two-lane road, handling much more traffic in a single direction. Signals become more efficient, as there are fewer turns to be made. It can improve safety considerably in some cases. Negatives: It's harder to navigate for those unfamiliar with the network. People driving the wrong way can cause some major accidents. Local traffic has to drive farther to get somewhere. Emergency vehicles can have trouble reaching a destination. "Dividing communities" Basically, it's capacity vs. convenience. I really don't see what they're on about, complaining it'll divide the community. If they want a good argument to get it blocked, just say that it's not safe, it'll cause more accidents. A newspaper will pick that up right away and the project will die. Much easier than some wishy-washy "wah I can't go visit my neighbor anymore because he's two houses the wrong way and I'm too fat to walk."
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 20:50
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:"BUMP!!" The bright pink color here is misused. It should say, "Terrorist attack!!" How do they decide which landmarks get their own freeway sign?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 05:51 |
|
|
I think you briefly mentioned this earlier in the thread, but do you occasionally fire up SC4 just to torment sims with insane traffic extravagancies? The person running the current LP seems to be having a bit of fun with NAM, but I imagine that you could make the program really hum (or grind to a hilariously orchestrated halt ).
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2009 21:17
|
|