|
Wiggly posted:Great thread, just spent the last few days going reading through it all. What is your opinion on this traffic circle? As we now know, smaller roundabouts work better than large ones. This one is pretty big, which isn't really necessary, since it only has 4 legs. There are slip ramps on two legs, but not the other two, which makes some sense given the geometry. Multi-lane roundabouts really benefit from lane markings in the roundabout itself, especially when you channelize it a little bit. The yield bars here are substandard; they should be "shark teeth." It looks like "YIELD" is printed on the ground before the bar, which is rather redundant and should be replaced by roundabout turn arrows to put people in the proper lanes. Here's a good example from the proposed MUTCD to show what I mean:  The outer traffic circle is two-way, which really defeats the purpose of calling it a 'traffic circle.' California loves screwing up its road semantics, though. Take Boulevards, for example. 'Boulevard' comes from the old Dutch word 'Bolwerk,' meaning a city wall. When Haussmann tore down half of Paris in the 1850s-1870s, he replaced the obsolete city walls with wide, tree-lined roads called Boulevards. If there wasn't a wall there before, it's not a Boulevard. Stop calling them that!
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2009 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 14:43 |
|
|
Dude, this thread has been a fantastic read. I caught myself rubbernecking at a crew working on some signals down the road from me a few days ago. Do you have any experience in evacuation planning? If so, how would you evacuate a city like New Orleans?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 07:04
|
|
|
grillster posted:Dude, this thread has been a fantastic read. I caught myself rubbernecking at a crew working on some signals down the road from me a few days ago. When I worked in Rhode Island, I attended a big meeting about emergency evacuation. The state's in a hurricane risk area (one in 1938 hit with 180 mph winds) and evacuating the coastal regions is a big issue. Katrina had hit the year before, and RIEMA started wondering what they would do in a similar situation. Rhode Island is pretty lucky, because there's an assumed 48-hour warning for any major hurricane. What works there wouldn't work so well in the Gulf, where warning might be only a few hours. The first step was setting up traffic models of the state. Then, they looked at the elevation of the land and saw which TAZ (Traffic Analysis Zones) would need to be evacuated. Rhode Island has, not surprisingly, a rather large island. There are only three bridges, two of which are perpetually under construction. Despite this, and the fact that some parts of the island are high enough that they don't need evacuation, the entire island would be evacuated. There was talk of the third bridge continuing to collect tolls while the evacuation was in progress, which would be rather silly, don't you think? Another island, farther offshore, would need some serious evacuation help, but the residents all voted to batter down and stay at home. Brave, eh? Some of our roads (Interstate 195, for example) are in low-lying areas, and couldn't be used as evacuation routes. Others, like Route 24, would be clogged with traffic from other states. Anyway, the next step was doing a traffic analysis to see if the roads could handle the evacuating traffic. Those that could handle plenty had "Evacuation Route" signs posted pointing in the proper direction. One option was to make major roads one-way heading out of the evacuation zones, which requires quite a bit of coordination. Our job in the TMC was to maintain a 24-hour observation and command center, with the power to coordinate signals, contact emergency services, and change signs to guide people to high ground. We had emergency rations, a generator for backup, and plenty of connections. A big city like NOLA should have its own TMC to keep things moving and, especially since Katrina, coordinate with police, fire, and rescue services to work on problem areas. What are some challenges to evacuation? For one, people don't get enough gas. Evac routes tend to get very congested, and congestion wastes a lot of fuel. If your car runs out of gas in the middle of the only route out of town, that's really not going to help anyone. We set up public service announcements to tell people to tank up when a hurricane was coming. Another problem is packing. It takes several hours, and if the storm warning comes late at night on a weekend, people might not even see it until the next afternoon. The EMA analyzed several different scenarios, and ensured that, no matter when it was announced, people would have adequate time to prepare. As I said, down in the Gulf, that would be much more difficult. A third problem is finding a place to go. The EMA analyzed all the hotels inland to see what they could take, and the result was rather grim. About the only option was for people to find friends or relatives that lived in safe areas and go visit them. Hurricane shelters were planned out, as well. That's probably a more thorough explanation than you were expecting (I'm surprised I remembered that much; the meeting was 3 years ago.) If you have any more specific questions, as always, I'm ready to answer them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 16:03
|
|
|
Great thread, I even got my dad to read it. A story just hit slashdot today about using solar panels with LEDs for road surfaces. There were a lot of potential issues brought up, but I'm hoping to hear your take on it. http://green.autoblog.com/2009/08/28/solar-roadways-get-prototype-funding-from-dot/
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 17:56
|
|
|
tarehart posted:Great thread, I even got my dad to read it. Hmm, my first impression is that those are incredibly expensive. Even if the cost goes down by a factor of 100, by that article's estimate, it would take $5 trillion to pave all the roads with this, and that's just materials cost, not labor, transport, and maintenance. I'm also rather dubious that glass could provide the same structural stability as asphalt or concrete. What about vandalism? Wouldn't it be pretty easy to go smash a glass panel? It would be pretty awesome to have solar panels everywhere, but it introduces a lot of problems that asphalt doesn't have. Wouldn't you need an exceptionally smooth sub-base to support it? Wouldn't you need someone to keep it clean, scrubbing the dust and dirt off? How often would it need to be replaced? I'll be looking forward to the results of the study, because if we can pull off something like that, it would revolutionize our road networks. I'm pretty skeptical, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 18:55
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Hmm, my first impression is that those are incredibly expensive. Even if the cost goes down by a factor of 100, by that article's estimate, it would take $5 trillion to pave all the roads with this, and that's just materials cost, not labor, transport, and maintenance. I'm also rather dubious that glass could provide the same structural stability as asphalt or concrete. What about vandalism? Wouldn't it be pretty easy to go smash a glass panel? My first thought was no way it can be strong enough, but then I thought about bulletproof glass and cinderblock type glass, so maybe it could? The thing is those can't be cheap, and the traction thing freaks me out. Wet glass is going to provide the same amount of traction as wet asphalt/concrete?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 18:58
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:My first thought was no way it can be strong enough, but then I thought about bulletproof glass and cinderblock type glass, so maybe it could? The thing is those can't be cheap, and the traction thing freaks me out. Wet glass is going to provide the same amount of traction as wet asphalt/concrete? I really doubt it. Concrete is too smooth by itself, that's why we rough it up with a brush. It's possible to make glass rough, but that would really lower the visibility of the lights beneath and collect a lot of dirt. Asphalt also provides a smooth ride because it's not completely rigid. We call it flexible pavement for a reason! If you were riding on a pane of glass, you'd feel every crack, bump, and dip in the road.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 19:30
|
|
|
A CT question: From a traffic engineer's perspective, what is it about RT 8 in Seymour that makes it drive so fast? You can have your cruise control on 65 and be doing fine for the rest of RT 8 and then you hit this section and go, "oh gently caress, I'm going too fast". http://maps.google.com/maps?client=...6,0.038624&z=15
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 20:45
|
|
|
smackfu posted:A CT question: From a traffic engineer's perspective, what is it about RT 8 in Seymour that makes it drive so fast? You can have your cruise control on 65 and be doing fine for the rest of RT 8 and then you hit this section and go, "oh gently caress, I'm going too fast". That spot is one of the 10 most dangerous spots in the entire state (I can't go into too much detail, that info is actually not released to the public). The shoulders reduce to a practically nonexistent degree, the lanes are a little narrow, the on-ramp from CT 67 has an extremely short acceleration lane, the curve is quite tight, and the fact that it's elevated above the ground makes you more than a little nervous. All these factors serve to reduce the freeflow speed, which is good. Unfortunately, they also make it very difficult to recover from a swerve or a minor collision, and the sharp curve itself can cause accidents. There were some REALLY tight constraints on building CT 8, especially through downtown areas like this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 21:30
|
|
|
SlapActionJackson posted:
Cichlidae posted:There's the cost, they'd have to be dug up and replaced with each resurfacing, and any recessed areas tend to get filled with sand very quickly. They also tend to turn into puddles, hampering their reflection and causing pavement deterioration. It'd be possible to make the entire dome flush with the surface, but then it would just be a circle, and why not just use stripes if you're going through all that trouble? They're the greatest thing on earth and as far as I can tell really improve safety. Ok, so I'm currently in Canberra. After driving here all I can say is what the gently caress? http://maps.google.com/maps?client=...83&z=12&iwloc=A There's minimal traffic. Which is good because this is just about the worst place to walk ever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 01:48
|
|
|
nm posted:No, most states don't have this. Most states make it a standard strict liablity crime to do over XX mph.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 02:25
|
|
|
nm posted:No, most states don't have this. Most states make it a standard strict liablity crime to do over XX mph. I can appreciate Canberra's design, considering it was supposed to act as a metaphor for the design of the government altogether. The execution, though, leaves quite a bit to be desired. Capitol Circle (assuming Google's misspelled it) isn't a full circle, the city's filled up with suburban mid-density development, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a central railroad station. What interchanges do exist are missing ramps, and the areas northwest of the city seem to be lacking direct access. Oh well, at least there are a lot of parks! v  v
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 02:28
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I can appreciate Canberra's design, considering it was supposed to act as a metaphor for the design of the government altogether. The execution, though, leaves quite a bit to be desired. Capitol Circle (assuming Google's misspelled it) isn't a full circle, the city's filled up with suburban mid-density development, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a central railroad station. What interchanges do exist are missing ramps, and the areas northwest of the city seem to be lacking direct access. Oh well, at least there are a lot of parks! v Knowing most governments, it seems to have succeeded in its goal quite admirably.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 06:46
|
|
|
Great thread. I'm from Connecticut and travel on Route 8 and I-84 everyday, so this really hits home for me. How do you feel about the proposed changes to Waterbury's mixmaster? I've been hearing for a couple of years now that there is a plan to bring the whole structure down to ground level. I know the costs of maintenance are high, but it seems the money that will have to be spent in eminent domain appeals and inconvenience to anyone looking to cross through the Naugatuck Valley would be pretty extreme. I included a couple of pictures to set the scene for those not familiar.  
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 12:48
|
|
|
Sock The Great posted:Great thread. I'm from Connecticut and travel on Route 8 and I-84 everyday, so this really hits home for me. Hey, that first picture is of the 95/91/34 interchange in New Haven, not 84/8! The latest study for the 84/8 replacement shows three alternatives, including what amounts to a no-build with some very minor improvements. It's hosted on the project website, I84wins.com, which seems to imply that Route 8 is the loser in this arrangement. The existing interchange has massive problems. Weaving areas, too many exits and entrances, only 2 through lanes, left exits, inadequate curve radii, inadequate shoulders, and massive maintenance costs due to its age all make the replacement a necessity. However, we did check a no-build alternative, which turned out to be so much more expensive than rebuilding (humongous maintenance costs, remember) that it wasn't even considered in the final refinement of alternatives. Instead, Alternative 6 is a de facto no-build, involving the removal of one ramp and some signal timing changes. Still operates at LOS F, still super expensive.  Alternative 7 basically fits in the footprint of the existing interchange. The northbound CT 8 lanes are shifted across the river, and many of the left exits are removed. I-84 gets an extra through lane, and most of the curves get smoothed out. There are relatively few property takes. Unfortunately, since it uses the existing footprint, there would be MAJOR traffic impacts on both 84 and 8 for the duration of construction, including some lengthy closures. If you're on 84 and you can't go through Waterbury, what do you do? Take US 6 around to the north? It's only one lane in each direction. Basically, this would cause miles-long backups in every direction, every day. That's expensive, AND bad for the environment.  Alternative 8 really redoes the whole thing. The interchange itself is shifted across the river, taking out a good number of warehouses in the former railyard. To make up for it, it opens up the left bank for redevelopment, which I'm sure Waterbury would love. That city needs urban renewal as badly as any. Three through lanes on I-84, no left exits or entrances, and collector/distributor roads on Route 8 get rid of the weaving. Exits on I-84 are consolidated, providing better access to city streets with less disruption to mainline traffic. Since Route 8 will be built on a new alignment, impacts to existing traffic operations would be minimal. As for the cons, it does take a lot of land, and I can see there being some environmental issues. At this point, though, the air quality impacts of the existing interchange are so bad that rebuilding the whole thing could actually improve the environment. Most of the property takes are in low-income areas, which could lead to some lawsuits. All it takes is one guy to say, "Waterbury hates minorities!" and the poo poo really hits the fan. So, now we hit the big issue: cost. Let's take a peek at what these will take to construct in 2025 dollars (yeah, if you were expecting it to happen anytime soon, you're sorely mistaken): code:There are some rather mediocre renders of what the site would look like for alternatives 7 and 8 on pages 70 and 71 of the white paper, if you want to look. Personally, I like Alternative 8 the best. It leaves our options open for future improvements, opens a lot of opportunities for Waterbury, and has the best traffic flow. I don't work in that district (yet), but, if I did, Alternative 8 would be the easiest for me to design the Maintenance and Protection of Traffic. Besides, the original cost estimate was $3 billion, and we've managed to shave nearly 30% off of that. Yay engineering!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 17:05
|
|
|
Does chip sealing actually do anything to improve roads, or does it just leave them dangerous to bicycles, and coated in oil once the rocks get worn away after a year? The town I grew up in back in CT started chip sealing everything back in the early 90s. Even a fresh repaving job would get that poo poo dumped on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 17:24
|
|
|
Crackpipe posted:Does chip sealing actually do anything to improve roads, or does it just leave them dangerous to bicycles, and coated in oil once the rocks get worn away after a year? I don't know, that's really not my jurisdiction. Neutrino might be able to help you with some specifics. If you're talking about the spray-on crack sealant, that's put in to keep water from getting into the cracks and prevent them from expanding due to freeze/thaw. They do tend to get rather slick after a time, but it's better than the alternative, which is ending up with an inch-wide crack the length of the road or spending a few million on partial depth reconstruction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 17:47
|
|
|
I think he meant chip seal in terms of actual road surface: http://www.slurry.com/cont_chipseal.shtml I've seen it commonly used (albeit less so in recent years) to turn a gravel road into an actual paved surface, or to recondition an asphalt road on the cheap. It's alright for cars, but it can ruin your day if you're on a bicycle/motorcycle, and don't even think about it if you're on rollerblades or a skateboard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 18:09
|
|
|
Simkin posted:I think he meant chip seal in terms of actual road surface: http://www.slurry.com/cont_chipseal.shtml Oh yeah, I've seen that. It seems to peel off after a couple years, making mini-potholes all the place. If we had the cash to actually repave roads every 7-10 years, then we probably wouldn't have to use that stuff. Of course, if we had that kind of money, we wouldn't have crumbling bridges or giant potholes, either. An extra 10 cents per gallon in gas taxes would go so far...
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 18:27
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Oh yeah, I've seen that. It seems to peel off after a couple years, making mini-potholes all the place. If we had the cash to actually repave roads every 7-10 years, then we probably wouldn't have to use that stuff. Of course, if we had that kind of money, we wouldn't have crumbling bridges or giant potholes, either. An extra 10 cents per gallon in gas taxes would go so far... My town slurry seals every street every five years or so. It's a very thin layer (quarter inch, maybe even less). They just close off the street (residential) or close off a lane or two (larger roads), run through with a street-sweeper, then run through with the slurry truck; it's all dry and drivable in a few hours. They seal up any cracks/potholes a week before hand and repaint the lane lines a day or two later. I'm guessing the city has one or two crews who just do this nonstop, kind of like the people who paint the Golden Gate Bridge from end to end over and over again. Supposedly it's cheaper than doing a more serious repaving less frequently. I don't see how it could cause mini potholes, given that it's a quarter inch thick or less. Never seen any, and I've never seen it peel off either. I also have zero trouble riding my bike on it, it's no different than any other asphalt surface as far as I can tell. The nice thing is pretty much all the roads in town look brand spanking new because of the frequent slurrying. There's always some kind of trenching project or other poo poo that gets roads torn up and patched, lane lines start to wear away, etc., but around here you almost never see it because the road is resurfaced so often.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 19:54
|
|
|
The only really positive side that I've found with chip/slurry sealing, is that when it gets really, really stinking hot out (like 30*C and up), the tar will actually bubble to the surface, making hilariously long and smoky burnouts
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 20:06
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:My town slurry seals every street every five years or so. It's a very thin layer (quarter inch, maybe even less). They just close off the street (residential) or close off a lane or two (larger roads), run through with a street-sweeper, then run through with the slurry truck; it's all dry and drivable in a few hours. They seal up any cracks/potholes a week before hand and repaint the lane lines a day or two later. I'm guessing the city has one or two crews who just do this nonstop, kind of like the people who paint the Golden Gate Bridge from end to end over and over again. Cool, thanks for the info. I haven't seen any projects that did this, probably because it's so minor that maintenance can handle it, and there are no real traffic effects. What I meant by the mini potholes was places where the overlay has worn off (usually on top of the lower layer's pavement markings, since they don't provide as much friction). This leads to, basically, blisters in the road that break and peel up. 1/4" isn't very much, and you can barely feel it, but it doesn't look too pretty and generates some debris. Simkin posted:The only really positive side that I've found with chip/slurry sealing, is that when it gets really, really stinking hot out (like 30*C and up), the tar will actually bubble to the surface, making hilariously long and smoky burnouts This guy's got the right idea 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 20:23
|
|
|
Simkin posted:The only really positive side that I've found with chip/slurry sealing, is that when it gets really, really stinking hot out (like 30*C and up), the tar will actually bubble to the surface, making hilariously long and smoky burnouts It's been over 90 (32° C) most of the week, and our slurry is rock solid. I've never seen anything soften or bubble up. Perhaps your town uses some shittastic quality asphalt..?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 20:41
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Supposedly it's cheaper than doing a more serious repaving less frequently. I don't see how it could cause mini potholes, given that it's a quarter inch thick or less. Never seen any, and I've never seen it peel off either. I also have zero trouble riding my bike on it, it's no different than any other asphalt surface as far as I can tell. You must live in a nice town. I've noticed that there are two different ways that roads get chip-sealed in CT. The first way dumps tar on the pavement and then a shitload of chips and then calls it a day. The second way involves doing the same but either uses finer chips or has a steamroller come and flatten everything out afterword. Nicer towns use the second method and everybody else in the Northeast part of the state uses the first. Right before my street was chip-sealed about three or four people bought new cars. It was a big deal. Then the town chip-sealed our road using the first method and several people were not happy. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 23:54
|
|
|
Winter Light posted:You must live in a nice town. I've noticed that there are two different ways that roads get chip-sealed in CT. The first way dumps tar on the pavement and then a shitload of chips and then calls it a day. The second way involves doing the same but either uses finer chips or has a steamroller come and flatten everything out afterword. Nicer towns use the second method and everybody else in the Northeast part of the state uses the first. Liquid asphalt is REALLY nasty. It smells nasty, is sticky like nothing else, worse than honey, even... and it can be pretty corrosive, considering it's often cut-back with gasoline, kerosene, or naptha. If you let it drip, it turns into long strands of black liquid that stick to things like a spider web and won't come off with anything less than a wire brush. I can only imagine that anyone getting that on his car would be TREMENDOUSLY upset.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2009 00:38
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Oh well, at least there are a lot of parks! v http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Canberra_bushfires
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2009 02:30
|
|
|
Great thread! I'm an urban planner specializing in land use so it was cool to read a more informal approach to traffic engineering (which I always found really stuffy and bleh)
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2009 07:15
|
|
|
apathetic poster posted:Great thread! I'm an urban planner specializing in land use so it was cool to read a more informal approach to traffic engineering (which I always found really stuffy and bleh) The job is a lot more fun than the classes would imply. Going over hot mix asphalt design or peak hour calculations over and over without any way to apply them really is boring. I didn't even consider specializing in transportation until I had my first internship, and then I realized how cool it could be. Nobody at the office is going to quiz you, and all the important formulas are online or in our bookshelf. That said, the job's not for everyone. It requires a very good sense of spatial orientation and a mind well suited to problem solving. That's not too different from any other branch of civil engineering, really. If you don't mind me asking, where did you study urban planning and what kind of classes did you take? I'm thinking about going to grad school for that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2009 17:34
|
|
|
Simkin posted:I think he meant chip seal in terms of actual road surface: http://www.slurry.com/cont_chipseal.shtml
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2009 18:52
|
|
|
Great thread. What do you think of this interchange in Birmingham, AL? http://maps.google.ca/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=33.520199,-86.821861&spn=0.013381,0.027874&t=k&z=16
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2009 19:29
|
|
|
Winter Light posted:You must live in a nice town. I've noticed that there are two different ways that roads get chip-sealed in CT. The first way dumps tar on the pavement and then a shitload of chips and then calls it a day. The second way involves doing the same but either uses finer chips or has a steamroller come and flatten everything out afterword. Nicer towns use the second method and everybody else in the Northeast part of the state uses the first. Absolutely true. Love the piles and piles of chips forming miniature dunes along the side of the road, while the nearby vegetation is covered in oil and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2009 19:53
|
|
|
Crackpipe posted:Absolutely true. You nutmeggers really can't complain until you've taken a good look at Rhode Island's asphalt. It has the worst pavement quality in New England, and last time the Projo did an article about it, it was second-worst in the country after Hawai'i. In Middletown, the sidewalks are covered in asphalt chunks torn up by plows and sweepers. Stripes are invisible at night, signs are missing, there are hardly any lane use arrows, the curbing is a crumbled mess, bridge decks look like a patchwork quilt... I WORKED for the Rhode Island DOT and I still can't overlook the horrible paving there. Take a trip out to the island sometime, and not just Newport. You'll see what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2009 21:54
|
|
|
crest45 posted:Great thread. What do you think of this interchange in Birmingham, AL? Huh, it's basically a diverging diamond interchange, but with a freeway instead. It avoids bridges and extraneous curvature on the ramps, at the expense of extra bridges and curves on the mainline. It also introduces four left exits and four left entrances, and you know how we feel about those. There are two exits instead of one, which is a no-no these days. It also seems to take more right of way than a traditional stack would, because of the separation of the through lanes. Overall, it's quite aesthetically appealing, but it'd never be built today due to the substandard design. A standard 4-level stack would push through the same volume in a smaller space and with only one structure instead of 7. It'd also take the kinks out of the mainline. Now the question is, why was it built this way? Were they trying to be fancy? Was there a design contest? Did someone think it was a good idea, traffic-wise? Thanks for pointing it out; that's the first time I've ever seen that design.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2009 22:07
|
|
|
Two things: 1) Don't you agree Long Island is hosed in case it has to evacuate? What's your feeling on the failed proposal of a Shoreham/New London crossing? 2) What the gently caress is Suffolk County thinking here? Montauk Highway and William Floyd Pkwy, Shirley, NY Suffolk County is planning to eliminate the left turn lanes from Montauk Highway to William Floyd, and turning traffic would have to use the various movements to get to William Floyd (I believe the movements they'll use are E -> N from Aletta Place to Mastic Blvd, and W - S from Camp Upton Blvd to McGraw Street - a bastard at-grade cloverleaf of sorts). Both roads carry substantial traffic, and the interchange to the north, railroad tracks to the south, and the lane merges to the east and the west gently caress this intersection something fierce. They are increasing the amount of lanes on Montauk, but still 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 00:15
|
|
|
Deranged Hermit posted:Two things: There have been several proposed Long Island Sound crossings over the years, including bridges, tunnels, and combinations thereof. The costs would be nearly prohibitive, but they could probably be paid off in the 50 years it would take them to crumble from hurricanes and constant seawater exposure. The real problem, though, is that nobody in New England wants more Long Islanders up here. Norwalk, Bridgeport, Old Saybrook, New London, and Westerly have all had a massive amount of public opposition to such a bridge, and I don't think it'll ever be built. As to evacuation, yeah, you're pretty much hosed. Even if 287 gets extended to the island, there's still no way you'd all get off. We're assuming something like an incoming nuclear/bio attack or accidental release or zombie horde, right? Because a hurricane's not going to do TOO much damage to Long Island. Just hop inland and wait it out in a high school or some tunnel at Brookhaven. I can just imagine New Jersey going up in a cloud of PCB-loaded smoke, and a swarm of personal boats trying to bridge the Sound before the fallout cloud hits. And chances are, if there was a big attack worth evacuating for, it would hit NYC and not LI. What I'm saying is, don't pack your bunker just yet. quote:2) What the gently caress is Suffolk County thinking here? That's basically a makeshift jughandle. The main object isn't making more through lanes, it's removing the left turn phase from Montauk Highway. This has the unfortunate effect of adding more through traffic to William Floyd, but that has three lanes, so it can probably handle it. Jughandles are a bit weird, but they have a lot of real-world experience that shows a marked improvement in traffic flow. If that's not enough, the next step is grade-separating the two and making a small interchange there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 01:01
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:If that's not enough, the next step is grade-separating the two and making a small interchange there. Hah, yeah, good luck with that one. The four corners there have a major amount of development (the Pathmark shopping center on the SW corner, 3 or 4 fast food restaurants on the SE corner, the Best Yet shopping center on the NW corner, and a shopping center with Applebees and Staples on the NE corner), and almost all of the jughandle routes were nothing more than side roads to the shopping centers before. But that town is white trash hell anyways, so whatever v v
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 01:42
|
|
|
Does anyone besides california have the magic "Sometimes I'm a lane and sometimes I'm parking!" lanes that we do? Do these actually help?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 02:02
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:Does anyone besides california have the magic "Sometimes I'm a lane and sometimes I'm parking!" lanes that we do? Do these actually help? These are why I hate driving in Los Angeles. There's nothing like driving along around a curve and all of a sudden gently caress THERE'S A CAR PARKED IN THE LANE <brake/swerve>. I avoid LA at all costs. If only there weren't so many good restaurants down there. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 02:18
|
|
|
As a Traffic Engineer, would you design facilities such as park and rides, bus loops, or ferry terminals? As far as ferry terminals or any other facility that has large volumes of traffic for short times only (stadiums etc) do you design to the peak traffic flow or only a partial bump? Do you prefer one way streets to two way streets in a downtown area? I didn't recall seeing it in the pages before. But besides licensing changes, would you like to see anything done in France introduced to the US or vice-versa? The urban-suburban balance is different between the two countries, but for something to make our (or their) traffic system better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 14:43 |
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:Does anyone besides california have the magic "Sometimes I'm a lane and sometimes I'm parking!" lanes that we do? Do these actually help? I've seen one of those before, in Lynn, near North Shore Community College. It never fails to baffle me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 05:33
|
|