|
Cichlidae posted:We do ped phases quite differently in Connecticut. Our previous policy was to put ped buttons and ramps at every signal where ped crossing wasn't explicitly forbidden. Recently, we stopped building ramps where there weren't already sidewalks, and we can (very rarely) omit a ped button entirely. Unlike most states, Connecticut DOT doesn't put in a pedestrian signal head in concurrent walk phases, only in dedicated ped phases, which, while common in urban areas, certainly don't come in every cycle. Most of the peds don't even hit the buttons and just cross when they see a gap. Also, I would hate to deal with exclusive peds everywhere. We do a ped jumps. Walk starts before vehicle phase and when it goes to flashing don't walk, then bring in the vehicle phase. Gets the peds out in the street to keep assholes from not yielding to peds.
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2009 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 02:52 |
|
|
Nexis posted:Nope, pretimed. Peds come up every cycle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2009 00:42
|
|
|
Nexis posted:We put ped ramps, push buttons, and peds at pretty much every location, sidewalk or not. The reasoning is planning for the "future." TxDOT does some of the same things. However, the intersections that they maintain are often high speed rural roads. On Beltway-8 East, they had diamond interchanges with peds. The ramps at most of the locations just stubbed into a field. Even when I was younger I thought "what a waste of money." It was, because now we are rebuilding them, and except for one or two locations, there is still reason for peds to be there. We had a guy from Texas up here last week yelling at us to make our streets more ped-friendly, so I certainly understand how important that is down there. The thing is, though, there's no way we could run exclusive ped phases on every signal, especially in CBDs. A large percentage of our signals are over capacity already without ped phases, and there's nothing cheap we can do to fix that. Walk movements on a big street can take a good 20 seconds to clear*, which is plenty to completely gently caress over the cycle and knock an intersection down by two levels of service. Texas' traffic engineering situation is very different from CT in many other ways, as well, but that's a very broad topic. I could go on and on about multi-lane stop-controlled approaches and arterials with three through lanes and 420 peak hour volumes and lagging lefts and going 30 miles without a stoplight, but it's easy enough to say "we don't have those here." Edit: * Blame Granny McGee for that again. The elderly walk much slower than the rest of us, meaning that it could take them 30 seconds or more to amble across the intersection. We have to design for the slowest person!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2009 02:57
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Edit: * Blame Granny McGee for that again. The elderly walk much slower than the rest of us, meaning that it could take them 30 seconds or more to amble across the intersection. We have to design for the slowest person! Could you post a 'review' of the Big Dig? What was done especially well, what was horribly botched (on the planning and layout side, that is; we all know about the bureaucratic fuckups). Thanks a lot, this thread's really interesting!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2009 04:53
|
|
|
Large Hardon Collider posted:There's a 4-way intersection at my uni I have to cross pretty often, and its ped phase lasts, literally, about 5 seconds. I guess they assume there's not too many little old ladies ambling about the campus. Despite living in New England, I don't know enough about the Big Dig to do it justice. I had an awards ceremony the day one of its engineers came to give a talk about it, so I missed out (got free pizza, though.) I'm sure there's another goon who could give a great description of the whole project.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2009 12:12
|
|
|
jammyozzy posted:Nope, large parts of Coventry were destroyed during the Blitz, giving planners an almost clean slate to work with. England went ring road crazy for a couple of decades after the war, for example at one point London was supposed to have 4 concentric ring roads rather than the one and a half it has today. There's an awesome article about the London Ringway plan on the CBRD website I linked earlier. https://www.cbrd.co.uk
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2009 14:22
|
|
|
I don't want to see this thread die! Cich, I don't have any specific questions right now, but what do you think about this intersection? We affectionally call it the Yooper Loop, one of the hosed up roads up in Michigan's UP. I personally love it, but most people have NO idea how to work it and either stop before entering the intersection or drive really slowly. It's a college town, everyone drives like assholes, but for some reason this intersection is always full of old people who don't know how to drive. Click for Google Maps.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 07:12
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:Huh, even at intersections between a major street and minor street? If the street is minor enough that its green light shouldn't/wouldn't be long enough for a pedestrian to cross, why have a signal there at all? The very nature of a series of timed signals is going to result in regular gaps in traffic that should make a stop sign no problem for the minor street. Granted, that does leave the pedestrians with no signal at all either. Cichlidae, why do you guys use exclusive ped phases so much? I would assume it's safer, but it seems less efficient if you can only cross every other cycle (even if you do the diagonal-crosswalk thing that only barely cancels out, and only for those people who would have needed to cross both streets previously) plus it seems like a huge pain in the rear end to vehicular traffic. But I've never really experienced them myself (short of one brief walking trip through part of Denver).
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 09:48
|
|
|
60 Hertz Jig posted:I don't want to see this thread die! Cich, I don't have any specific questions right now, but what do you think about this intersection? We affectionally call it the Yooper Loop, one of the hosed up roads up in Michigan's UP. I personally love it, but most people have NO idea how to work it and either stop before entering the intersection or drive really slowly. It's a college town, everyone drives like assholes, but for some reason this intersection is always full of old people who don't know how to drive. It's not particularly complicated, but the design could be somewhat removed by doing this:  It eliminates one conflict point, though it also adds a weaving zone, but that's not a big deal when it's not a freeway. I can see how it could be tough to follow on the ground, but from the air, it's quite straightforward. The thread can't die just yet; I have to tell you all about signal warrants! I just haven't had time yet because of all the overtime I've been working. Speaking of which, it's time to head off to work, I'll answer Choadmaster's question in about... 12 hours. Edit: 11 hours, and I asked my boss about the Yooper Loop. Turns out he actually went to school at Michigan Tech. He used to get kegs at the Downtowner bar near the bridge, which he calls the "Portage." Small world, eh? Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Oct 16, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 12:20
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:The thread can't die just yet; I have to tell you all about signal warrants! I just haven't had time yet because of all the overtime I've been working. Speaking of which, it's time to head off to work, I'll answer Choadmaster's question in about... 12 hours. Don't forget get to include Warrant 0: Mayor, Commissioner, etc, wants it (because his campaign pockets are lined) and engineer is a huge flaming pussy. Also, overtime be damned, studying for the PE sucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 15:02
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:It's not particularly complicated, but the design could be somewhat removed by doing this: You're right, from the air it doesn't look complicated at all. I wish people would realize that! I'm always looking forward to more lessons.  They're always really informative and awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 19:18
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:If the street is minor enough that its green light shouldn't/wouldn't be long enough for a pedestrian to cross, why have a signal there at all? The very nature of a series of timed signals is going to result in regular gaps in traffic that should make a stop sign no problem for the minor street. Granted, that does leave the pedestrians with no signal at all either. Most people don't actually use the ped buttons, so the volume doesn't take as much of a hit as you might expect. The alternatives, as you might guess, are very unsafe, especially for the visually impaired. Either you have a concurrent ped phase, which would involve dodging turning cars (and in a CBD, turning traffic is significant), or no ped phase at all, which is imprudent and difficult to legally defend. In my mind, safety overrides capacity. If keeping the occasional ped from getting creamed means making everyone else wait longer, so be it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 23:17
|
|
|
Nexis posted:Don't forget get to include Warrant 0: Mayor, Commissioner, etc, wants it (because his campaign pockets are lined) and engineer is a huge flaming pussy. That's Warrant 6 Really, though, most of the warrants aren't based on science. I can't wait to get into that, but like I said, I really don't have time at present. We'll shoot for late next week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 23:25
|
|
|
Hey check out the Traffic Engineer love from a cycling association. You gotta figure if that was going to happen anywhere, it would be Portland. My favorite part of that article is the backhanded "innovative (for America)".
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2009 23:29
|
|
|
predictive posted:Hey check out the Traffic Engineer love from a cycling association. You gotta figure if that was going to happen anywhere, it would be Portland. My favorite part of that article is the backhanded "innovative (for America)". That's pretty cool! Reminds me of the bike lanes in Strasbourg. Same green color. I'm glad to hear they're working out, and I wish we had some extra space here to build them. $80,000 is really a drop in the bucket when it comes to the DOT. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 00:00
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That's pretty cool! Reminds me of the bike lanes in Strasbourg. Same green color. I'm glad to hear they're working out, and I wish we had some extra space here to build them. $80,000 is really a drop in the bucket when it comes to the DOT. So what is that green stuff actually made out of? I assume not green epoxy as I've found epoxy to be extremely dangerous to bike (or walk) over when it's wet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 01:21
|
|
|
Lucid Smog posted:So what is that green stuff actually made out of? I assume not green epoxy as I've found epoxy to be extremely dangerous to bike (or walk) over when it's wet. It's hard to tell from memory. Epoxy isn't necessarily slippery; if there is some grit or crumb rubber embedded, the texture is more like that of a running track. Most pavement markings have glass beads in multiple sizes, but a large swath of green probably wouldn't need that, so we'd be able to put all sorts of stuff in the epoxy. Maybe someone in Portland can get a close-up shot or at least describe the texture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 03:55
|
|
|
All over my town (USA), we have left turn lanes which are offset by a median such that two opposing left turning vehicles are not directly in front of each other, but offset in such a way that the line of sight into oncoming traffic is pretty much blocked for the other car. It makes it pretty dangerous to turn as you cannot see approaching traffic if you are across from a turning truck or SUV. Why on earth would they do this? What would this be called in traffic engineer jargon?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 06:39
|
|
|
What will the traffic system of the future look like, given flying cars, jetpacks, jet trains, jet buses, jet pets, etc., etc. Dream big on this one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 06:59
|
|
|
chef posted:All over my town (USA), we have left turn lanes which are offset by a median such that two opposing left turning vehicles are not directly in front of each other, but offset in such a way that the line of sight into oncoming traffic is pretty much blocked for the other car. It makes it pretty dangerous to turn as you cannot see approaching traffic if you are across from a turning truck or SUV. Why on earth would they do this? What would this be called in traffic engineer jargon? They're called offset left turn bays. Putting them the way you've drawn it is less than ideal for that very reason, and we have a couple ways around it. First off, we can make the left turn signal protected only, which means that left turners don't have to worry about oncoming through traffic and potentially dangerous permissive left turns are prohibited. The other option is to cut further into the median and have the left-turning cars directly opposite one another so that they don't block sight lines. That said, we still design a lot of left turn bays like that. I think the assumption is that, given enough time, the left-turning car will be pretty sure whether or not there's a car hidden behind the opposing turner. It just requires some extra prudence that, unfortunately, is not always present. In new construction, the tendency here is to use protected-only left turns in any place with a median turning bay and heavy volumes, so that mostly solves the problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 12:13
|
|
|
El Kabong posted:What will the traffic system of the future look like, given flying cars, jetpacks, jet trains, jet buses, jet pets, etc., etc. Dream big on this one. Hmm, let's see... how about 150 years hence? Hopefully we'll have a launch loop and get space exploration off the ground by then. There will still be a need for hauling lots and lots of goods across the world. Air travel The old dream of transporting people and goods entirely by air is looking less and less feasible as the cost of petroleum goes up. While electric cars are certainly feasible, electric airplanes would be pretty heavy and slow with current technology. Flywheel energy storage is pretty interesting, but I think the massive angular momentum inherent in a flywheel system could hurt maneuverability and acceleration. Nuclear batteries are an excellent storage solution, though it's likely that public opposition would prevent their use in aircraft. Hydrogen powered planes might work, though I've yet to hear of even a proof-of-concept hydrogen airplane engine. There is one way out, though. With the development of genetically engineered organisms that take in atmospheric or sequestered carbon (presumably along with sunlight or heat) and produce petrochemicals, we could see a resurgence in fossil fuel vehicles. Of course, there's also fanatical resistance to genetic engineering, so who knows how long it could take to build that industry? Sea travel Shipping things in gigantic tankers is currently extremely efficient, and new technologies can improve it even more. More accurate weather predictions could cut losses, and there are lots of cool shipping technologies, like a giant kite that uses the wind to help tug a tanker. Of course, oversea shipping is relatively slow, and I don't expect that to change, especially when just-in-time shipping is more important than ever. Unless trans-oceanic tunnels or bridges were built (which would be awesome, but super expensive), sea travel will continue to be very important. Niemand weiß was die Zukunft bringt, but I'm betting on ships that take advantage of ground effect, more efficient engines, and hopefully some new/bigger canals to facilitate things. Rail travel The future of rail worldwide is quite bright, as it's extremely efficient and quick. The biggest factor in how successful rail can be is land use. If we can keep a lot of our farmland suburb-free (I certainly hope so, because we'll need it all to feed our growing populations), and try to consolidate humans to cities, then a point-to-point system begins to look really really nice. New high-speed lines will be built throughout the civilized world, and eventually into developing areas. High-T superconductivity may make monorails cost-effective, but I'm still betting on conventional linear electric motors on conventional rails to be the most cost-effective. Road travel Now here's the tricky one. As I mentioned under air travel, energy storage technology could take one of several different paths. Just knowing what I know, I'd say that, in 50 years or so, cars should be self-driving. At that point, provided a new source of gasoline isn't found, electric motors will be the most cost-effective. Since 90% of trips don't include any passengers, small "pods" with one seat will dominate the roads, clumping together in packs to increase aerodynamic efficiency. The roads themselves wouldn't require much modification; a single 12' lane could hold two pods side by side. Speed limits would be pointless, as the vehicles would all talk to each other and determine the most efficient routing and speed. Even children could be trusted with a pod, since they wouldn't be driving. That would eliminate "taking the kids to work/the pool/soccer" types of trips. The bulk of the pods would be safety equipment meant to keep the 'driver' (rider?) safe in the event of a crash. But we still have the issue of carrying large loads! Obviously, with a dense rail network, most freight could be carried on rails. For the last 15 miles, the modern semitrailer would give way to driverless trailers, similarly arranging themselves into packs to save energy. A family moving to a new house could rent one, load it up, and tell it where to go, then tell it to return to base when complete. Cool! It's time to go back to work, but I hope that's a decent view of the future of transportation. I hope I live long enough to see this all bear out, because, honestly, the future is pretty awesome!
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 17:50
|
|
|
According to the wiki article on flywheels, mounting one inside two gimbals would eliminate those rotational forces. I wonder how willingly people will give up their transportation autonomy by using this pod system. I'm looking forward to something like this as I loath the actual act of driving but not "car-trips." All in all it's really interesting to think about. Thanks for the great writeup! What kind of traffic control system do you imagine would be implemented in a world of flying cars?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 19:54
|
|
|
El Kabong posted:According to the wiki article on flywheels, mounting one inside two gimbals would eliminate those rotational forces. The only traffic system that COULD be implemented in a world of flying cars (which I doubt we'll ever see) would have to be complete automation with "skyways" that your car drives on itself. Even then, the possibility of problems is too great. Imagine if someone hacks an automated highway system with the pods that were mentioned. It'd be a nightmare. Now, imagine that in the air...
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 20:48
|
|
|
El Kabong posted:According to the wiki article on flywheels, mounting one inside two gimbals would eliminate those rotational forces. Actually, I love the act of driving itself. I would hope that the future pod system does allow for manual control, at least sometime. It's the same with being a motorcyclist. Sure, there are practical elements to riding a bike; they're cheaper, they pollute less, you can always find a parking space, but the real reason to ride a motorcycle is because it's FUN.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 20:52
|
|
|
El Kabong posted:According to the wiki article on flywheels, mounting one inside two gimbals would eliminate those rotational forces. Unfortunately, I'm a civil engineer, not a mechanical engineer. Mounting a flywheel like a gyroscope is one thing, but how could you make a linkage to actually get the power from it? I'm sure it's possible, but I imagine it's pretty complex. The idea of mounting two flywheels spinning in opposite directions is pretty cool, though. quote:I wonder how willingly people will give up their transportation autonomy by using this pod system. I'm looking forward to something like this as I loath the actual act of driving but not "car-trips." All in all it's really interesting to think about. Thanks for the great writeup! As Fizzle says, you'd need skyways and automatic control. Flying cars would almost necessarily be fly-by-wire, probably more akin to helicopters than airplanes, and the potential for danger is too great to let humans control them. If I were designing the system, I'd arrange the sky in vertical layers. Computer-controlled merging in three dimensions would be awe-inspiring, I'm sure! That would make traffic signals obsolete, as each intersection could be grade-separated. Pagan posted:Actually, I love the act of driving itself. I would hope that the future pod system does allow for manual control, at least sometime. In order to be safe, an automated driving system would have to be automatic-only. Due to the much higher speeds and densities involved, the consequences of a human driver falling asleep, having a heart attack, or being careless could be several lost lives. With automated cars, traffic signals, signs, and pavement markings would be poorly maintained or even removed altogether. That's not something a human driver can deal with easily. Of course, there could be roads set aside just for manual control, somewhat like modern speedways. Drive any way you like, but at your own risk. If there's a market, then why not?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 21:53
|
|
|
I'm currently having a course that touches on these problems, so I'll also try to offer some suggestions on what the future may hold. Air transport is extremely sensitive to fuel prices, so stuff transported by air will reasonably soon start rising in price. High speed intercity rail spells the death to short-haul flights, so expect to fly on trans- and intercontinental trips only. The planes operating the surviving routes will be humongous beasts (The reason being the bigger, the more efficient. the A380 is only the beginning.) and probably run on fuel produced with the Fischer-Tropsch process from coal gas and perhaps in the long run biomass. Sea Transport changes terribly slowly because ships are ridiculously expensive to build and have a very long lifespan if maintained even half-decently. Trans-Oceanic shipping will probably not change much, except perhaps the addition of kite sails to save fuel when the wind is suitable. Short-sea shipping will however become much more exciting. Sea and port traffic control systems are becoming much more integrated, resembling air traffic control more and more. Together with more integrated transport planning this will allow stuff and people to be loaded on and off the ship much faster than before. Ferries operating really short distances will however most likely die off due to humankind having this strange obsession with building longer and longer bridges. The future developments of Rail transport depends on where you live. Americans need to get a bit more "big government" and have the government build, own and maintain rail dedicated for passenger transport (like it does now for roads). The current situation where the freight companies owning the rails can just milk Amtrak for all it's worth while providing low timetable priority is simply not a feasible plan for the future. Europe on the other hand needs to get its poo poo together on the freight transport side of things. An average speed of 18km/h (~11mph) for freight across Europe is simply not acceptable. Some railway lines need highway style bypasses so that freight can get around towns where rail infrastructure expansion is impossible due to surrounding structures. In general slow and fast rail traffic shouldn't share tracks unless absolutely necessary. Having said that, flexibility and backwards compatibility with existing infrastructure is so valuable that tech-wise I don't have very much faith in Maglev. The idea is neat but economically hard to justify when most people are just fine with normal propulsion systems. Also expect to see subways and/or light rail everywhere. Road traffic is a hard one to predict. I myself believe that suburbia is heading towards bankruptcy, because it's a way of life based on cheap energy. Even though cities will continue growing population-wise they will have to stop expanding at some point. We'll probably see the resurgence of streetcar suburbs and because of this fewer urban people will actually own cars. Delivery vans on the other hand will be everywhere, because people have gotten used to getting stuff delivered to their door right now right now and not next week. On the countryside people will continue to own and use cars. I'm guessing hybrids because they have good combination of long range combined with torque at low revs which is good for pulling and hauling stuff. Driving a car just for the hell of it will probably become a pastime similar to riding horses recreationally. Given the way things are developing, flying cars and other transportation systems even more energy intensive than those of today are simply infeasible unless we construct a Dyson swarm to supply Earth with energy and find some place to dump all the waste heat. Until that we'll need to either ride slow or ride together.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 01:17
|
|
|
Nesnej posted:I'm currently having a course that touches on these problems, so I'll also try to offer some suggestions on what the future may hold. Thanks for your input. I'm hoping for the death of suburbia, personally, but there are so many variables. The last 50 years in the USA have been pretty predictable, energy-wise, with coal power staying a firm #1. I'm worried that, without some environmentalist intervention, coal could become even more important in the next 50. I'm really expecting to see the USA backing biologically generated petroleum or offshore methane deposits in a couple decades when oil dwindles; it's really the only way to maintain the American status quo. This country seems to be much more reactive than proactive when it comes to energy. Of course, I'm a traffic engineer, not an energy expert, so I'll leave that to the pros. In other news, my overtime is gone, so I'll have time to explain signal warrants soon! Be prepared for a swarm of BS and loopholes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 01:47
|
|
|
Finally reached the end of the thread, started reading some 2 days ago when it was mentioned in the ongoing SimCity 4 LP. It's been great so far! Going to pick up a bit on some of the old topics... On the subject of roundabouts and driver's education, thought I'd point out this one in the vicinity of Copenhagen. My driving instructor specifically led me through that one several times, and I also was asked to pass through it during my first examination try. (I failed, released the clutch too fast and the engine stopped, in the middle of the roundabout.) Note that it's light regulated, also while going round. Nesnej posted:Indicators for trains are old as the hills and I can hardly imagine a world without them, but they've recently been installing those on bus stops too. Cichlidae posted:
Choadmaster posted:What's with all the really long, thin, snaking buildings like the one near the intersection of Rolighesdvej and Falkoner Alle and then north of there? Finally, I'll just throw out a small intersection here. This one is supposedly one of the most hazardous in my municipality. I can't determine exactly what makes it that, but it is uncomfortable to cross by bike. (I usually arrive driving west on Vigerslev Alle and turn left crossing the bridge.) Also make sure to check out the Copenhagen Metro! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 03:03
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Finally reached the end of the thread, started reading some 2 days ago when it was mentioned in the ongoing SimCity 4 LP. It's been great so far! I almost got in an accident at a similar roundabout in Orléans. First I hit this one, which is a bit complicated:  One of the approaches yields to traffic in the roundabout, and traffic in the roundabout yields to the other two, plus a tram line and a tunnel. Whatever, right? Then I hit this one.  You can't tell from the photo, but there are signal heads in the roundabout. No stop bars, though! One of the heads is even in the pavement. When I saw the signal turn red, I just stopped where I was (in the roundabout), which I guess was the wrong move. Oh well! Any Loiret goons want to explain this one? quote:I guess maybe some kind of cloverleaf interchange. (I think I got most four-way motorway interchanges in Denmark there.) Ah, your traffic engineers are cool. They put collector/distributor roads on almost all of those to help with weaving! quote:Finally, I'll just throw out a small intersection here. Wow, are the yellow pavement markings for bicycles? Hmm, can't be, there's a car in that lane. I've seen yellow stripes used in Germany for construction zones. I have to admit, if I were driving there, I'd have no idea what to do! One weird thing about this intersection: the stop bars are way far back. Normally, ours are about a meter behind the crosswalks, otherwise cars are tempted to crawl up past them and block the crosswalk. When we have stop bars so far back here, it's because of truck turning radii; if cars stopped farther forward, they'd get clipped by turning trucks. quote:Also make sure to check out the Copenhagen Metro! Driverless trains, $6 rides to the airport, and 2-minute headways downtown? Awesome!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 03:32
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I want SimCity 5 so badly I've actually been pondering the idea of making a Traffic Engineer Sim. You control the road system, the computer places buildings and zones and oh hey I bet you want a football stadium on this corner right? What's that, insufficient road capacity? I can't hear you, have a football stadium! I think it could be pretty sweet, but I don't really know where to start with the traffic-engineering part. Is there, like, a textbook I could read to get a vague working knowledge of the basics? I can obviously guess wildly, based on this thread, but who knows how accurate that would be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 10:01
|
|
Why, Maxis, why did you have to contract out your franchise to some imitator? I want it more complex, not simpler! I want to place ramps, customize interchanges, set lane widths and signal phasing... but I'm probably the only one who would appreciate the micromanagement.
|
Cichlidae posted:Wow, are the yellow pavement markings for bicycles? Hmm, can't be, there's a car in that lane. I've seen yellow stripes used in Germany for construction zones. I have to admit, if I were driving there, I'd have no idea what to do! One weird thing about this intersection: the stop bars are way far back. Normally, ours are about a meter behind the crosswalks, otherwise cars are tempted to crawl up past them and block the crosswalk. When we have stop bars so far back here, it's because of truck turning radii; if cars stopped farther forward, they'd get clipped by turning trucks. It's not unusual here in Denmark to see the last 20 or so metres of a bicycle lane being utilised as a turning lane for cars turning right. It usually works decently well, since drivers know that cyclists going straight have priority, but there have been many cases of bicyclists being crushed under trucks because they were waiting for a green light in the blind spot of the rear-view mirrors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 10:05
|
|
|
ZorbaTHut posted:I've actually been pondering the idea of making a Traffic Engineer Sim. You control the road system, the computer places buildings and zones and oh hey I bet you want a football stadium on this corner right? What's that, insufficient road capacity? I can't hear you, have a football stadium! I have yet to read a good traffic engineering textbook. All of mine have ended up incredibly vague and filled with buzzwords, or too focused on equations and theory to show the practical aspects. I'd play a traffic simulator all day long, but I'm not sure how big the market would be. Once you get down to signal phasing, turn lanes, and progression, it can get downright boring. Any good game maker can avoid the tedium somehow, but leave the complex micromanaging in there if the player wants to try it. But a bad game maker can ruin the genre for a decade! Nesnej posted:I think the inner one demarcates the progression of a bus lane and the outer one a bike lane. What are the diagonal yellow lines on the left side of the intersection?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 12:21
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:What are the diagonal yellow lines on the left side of the intersection? I pass by the place when shopping so I snapped some photos of it today: (Edit: Okay I confess I did take a longer trip to snap pictures for this thread.)   First picture is facing south-east, second is facing north. It's hard to tell from the photos, but on the north-east corner there's a railing and the sidewalk is consderably lower than the rest of the road. I'm not sure if this was done to improve pedestrian safety, but I feel it's one of the things that makes the intersection feel less safe on bike. And also another feature I don't think has been mentioned yet: A bus trap. I like the warning sign.  How common are they in the rest of the world? Do you think they cause more people to use public transit when the bus can take a more direct route? nielsm fucked around with this message at 13:38 on Oct 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 13:30
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Temporary lines painted during construction work, I just noticed they were doing work on the bridge when the aerial photo was taken. From the pictures, it doesn't look like you have handicap ramps. We put ramps at each crosswalk here so that someone in a wheelchair doesn't have to climb the curb. quote:And also another feature I don't think has been mentioned yet: A bus trap. I like the warning sign. I've never seen a bus trap, but some places have automatic bollards that sink into the road for buses and then pop back up when they've gone past. I doubt we'd build bus traps here, both for maintenance and liability reasons. No matter how many signs we put up, one drunk driver or police officer in a hurry slamming into a hole at 50 mph could bring us a lawsuit costing millions of dollars. I really don't think it would cause more people to use public transit here, just make them very angry and drive around the obstacle. There is some elasticity (bus travel might increase a couple percent), but the backlash wouldn't be worth it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 17:22
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I doubt we'd build bus traps here, both for maintenance and liability reasons. No matter how many signs we put up, one drunk driver or police officer in a hurry slamming into a hole at 50 mph could bring us a lawsuit costing millions of dollars. The only problem I see with it is that an ambulance might not have a wide enough track width to pass it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 17:55
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I've never seen a bus trap, but some places have automatic bollards that sink into the road for buses and then pop back up when they've gone past. Not entirely traffic related, so apologies in advance: My brother drives a bus and just told me something absurd last night. The local university has a couple of specific entrances in/out, and a long stretch abutting the neighboring town where the streets could continue into the university, but are just blocked off so that everyone has to go through the main entrance. For the sake of public safety, there's one that is blocked off by an automatic arm (like in a parking lot) that the police can wave an smart card in front of. So the university asks the transit authority to serve the students going in/out of town, and the transit authority points out the only way to get an efficient route is for the busses to go through this gate. The university sends them 30 of these smart cards along with a $1,200 invoice. Those loving things cost around fifty cents apiece! It's also worth noting that at least while I was at the university, the arm was broken multiple times per year by students just forcing it up. Once it's broke, it has to remain open until they fix it for obvious safety reasons. Why the university bothers anymore, I don't know. Also, for added hilarity and to point out how idiotic the students are (sorry UCSB goons): One of the busses recently was stopped in a left-turn lane at an intersection with a major (5 lanes across) road. Student rides up on his bike and stops in front of it, gets off, and starts putting the bike in the bike rack while this bus is in the middle of the street! (Every bus has a bike rack up front.) Meanwhile the bus has gotten a green left-turn light. As soon as the student starts walking around to the side of the bus, the driver hits the gas and drives off. At this point, the now angry student notices a police car stopped in another left turn lane (on the larger street). He dashes across four lanes of traffic and knocks on the cop's window.  I see you seem to be having some trouble. That bus stole my bike! Hop in the back, I'll get it back for you. Yay! Now that you're back there, you're under arrest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 21:15
|
|
|
Hey Cichlidae, I haven't bothered you in a while... I've got another question and my guess is that this might be a touchy subject: What's up with Connecticut's plow whenever/ocassionally sand/never salt policy? I've noticed that the towns in my area do not plow town or state roads during a storm. Ever. They wait until the storm is over and then do just enough to allow cars to start breaking down the ice. Back roads are covered in snow and ice all season. It seems like the towns and state are trying to get away with the bare minimum and that is creating dangerous conditions. Last year it was so bad I could never go to work during or several hours after a snowstorm. Compared to my experiences in Quebec, this is galling. People have no idea how bad of a service they are getting. I passed a fire station last year in the middle of a storm and the exit was barricaded with snow and the road was almost impassible. What would have happened if someone needed an ambulance or had a fire? Again, thanks for the thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 23:29
|
|
|
Nesnej posted:In the US I can very well see legal concerns blocking these, but would you, judging by your experience, be able to install one in France? The bollards are arguably neater but I'm really digging the trap because it's such a simple and reliable solution. France has bollards for that purpose, but I could see bus traps working. Maintenance may be a bit tricky. I know people would find a way around it, though; France has a long tradition of selectively ignoring road rules. Choadmaster posted:Now that you're back there, you're under arrest. Haha, that reminds me of a great story from my job. Last year, a bridge was under construction, and the sidewalk going across the bridge was closed. We put up signs saying as much, and naïvely expected that peds would get the hint. A couple weeks into the project, the following happens: 1) Bicyclist ignores the signs, rides onto the bridge. 2) Because of the traffic, bicyclist decides to ride between two opposing lanes of cars. 3) Bicyclist is run over, breaks leg. 4) Bicyclist tries to sue us. 5) Policeman shows up and serves the bicyclist a ticket for being a giant retard. Winter Light posted:What's up with Connecticut's plow whenever/ocassionally sand/never salt policy? Maintenance is in a really tough spot. Plow driving is a very seasonal job. Normally, they hire a bunch for the Winter season. However, as you probably know, the state has a hiring freeze. That means that the normal maintenance staff has to do all the plowing, and there just aren't enough of them to do it. Beyond that, last year we exceeded our plowing budget because of the bad weather, and this Summer, the DOT had to drastically reduce its fleet. If we get snow this Winter, it's going to be even worse than the last.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2009 00:50
|
|
|
Winter Light posted:I passed a fire station last year in the middle of a storm and the exit was barricaded with snow and the road was almost impassible. What would have happened if someone needed an ambulance or had a fire? You aren't thinking creatively enough. Maybe because you're Canadian, you aren't familiar with American ingenuity. Fire: Throw the overabundant snow at your home. Medical Emergency: Encase your injured friend or loved one in the snow. Some day in the future they can be thawed and reanimated, either by repairing any damage, moving their brain to a new clone body, or simply downloading their mental imprint into an android body or virtual reality computer system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2009 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 02:52 |
|
|
Choadmaster posted:You aren't thinking creatively enough. Maybe because you're Canadian, you aren't familiar with American ingenuity. But I am American! I was commenting on all the good plowing I have seen in Quebec. Being a lifelong Conneticutter I can tell you how CT rationalizes this situation: It's your fault. The State provides no guarantee about how fast it can deliver emergency services. Suck it up and cash in your over-priced and ratty homeowner's insurance policy if poo poo burns down. If you don't thank us enough even though we showed up an hour late the volunteer firefighters will bench your kid in Little League and let their kids key your car on Halloween. You people in big towns think I am joking. Firefighters are podunk royalty. To their credit most of them are outstanding people...
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2009 17:02
|
|