|
Cichlidae posted:That's how things work throughout the Northeast. Most addresses here are under 100, and anything in the thousands indicates a very long road. Roads frequently change names as well, since they have been built and revised for hundreds of years. There was no central planning agency back in the 1600s.
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2011 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
bear shark posted:It's also important to note that many areas have roads that are so short, and in towns so small, that coming up with a common geographic reference would probably be more confusing. Imagine trying that in Windham county! And almost none of them are orthogonal. It's rare to find a route that doesn't have a few bends; even some of our state routes are shaped like a giant L, so North/South/East/West is pretty arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2011 12:33
|
|
|
Sir Davey posted:We have roughly the same marking and signing standards, with different fonts and our freeway signs are green and roads are blue, opposite to France which has blue signs for freeways and green for roads. Oh, that's not weird. I can show you the exact reason.  That's the reason. The dreaded Environmental Impact Assessment. You see, in order to build a new highway, or expand an existing highway, you have to write an Environmental Impact Assessment, adjust your plans to that assessment, compare the assessment to the new plans, and then go through the entire political process. Repeat until infinity. Now, most highways that require expansion are already congested pretty bad, so what you want is a quick solution. Someone came up with the solution you described. You're not building any new roads, so you don't need an Environmental Impact Assessment, so there's barely any delay. It's not a sustainable solution, but it tends to work. Except when they forget to open the bloody thing for over three years. Dutch Engineer fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Mar 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
I dunno what's worse, waiting 3 years for a lane to be opened or waiting 30 years to finish a highway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2011 21:49
|
|
|
jeoh-kun posted:I dunno what's worse, waiting 3 years for a lane to be opened or waiting 30 years to finish a highway. Difference is, the former was already finished. I don't understand how nobody involved with the project didn't figure that out sooner. (We have several highways here that've been incomplete for 4+ decades)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Difference is, the former was already finished. I don't understand how nobody involved with the project didn't figure that out sooner. It's a bit like potholes. Everyone sure knows how to bitch about them, but nobody knows who they should call about them, so usually the engineers know about the problem only after some newspaper editorial calls them a bunch of incompetent monkeys.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
Nesnej posted:How often do people from your department go out to check whether as road has been opened? As far as I could understand (google translate isn't working and my Dutch is pretty rusty) it resulted from the ministry thinking the road was already open while the agency waited for the ministry to process the necessary paperwork. A lack of mutual trust in the competence of the other party goes a long way. We have big press events on the opening day, and at least a few of our engineers are bound to live in the area and take the route to/from work to make sure it's looking good. We expect to field complaints, questions, and newspaper reporters' nagging inquiries. It's a pretty significant part of the process.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
Nesnej posted:How often do people from your department go out to check whether as road has been opened? As far as I could understand (google translate isn't working and my Dutch is pretty rusty) it resulted from the ministry thinking the road was already open while the agency waited for the ministry to process the necessary paperwork. A lack of mutual trust in the competence of the other party goes a long way. It also helps that situations like this are fairly common, finished roads that cannot be used for some reason. The tunnels in the A2 by Utrecht Leidsche Rijn have been done for quite some time but won't open until 2012. The Schwalbe tunnel in the A73 has been open/closed/open/closed again and again. And driving through the country there are a lot of pieces of road that seem to be waiting for the permit open. So i can imagine everyone assumed it was another piece of finished road waiting for a permit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 10:18
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:It also helps that situations like this are fairly common, finished roads that cannot be used for some reason. The tunnels in the A2 by Utrecht Leidsche Rijn have been done for quite some time but won't open until 2012. The Schwalbe tunnel in the A73 has been open/closed/open/closed again and again. And driving through the country there are a lot of pieces of road that seem to be waiting for the permit open. Interesting, sounds much more bureaucratic than it is here. Our procedure's much less formal: after the semi-final inspection, if there are no major items left on the punchlist, the contractor turns on the signals / removes the barriers, and the new road is open. If it's a big project, a mayor or possibly governor will come out to symbolically cut a ribbon, but the road will often be open before the ceremony anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
Meanwhile, in Denmark. Inspectors have concluded that this winter, with the temperature trailing below and above freezing point, have caused 10 mil dkk worth or damage in Copenhagen, while the city only have 4 mil to work with. Patchwork ohoy! They might even use gravel in places.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 10:14
|
|
|
SniHjen posted:Meanwhile, in Denmark. Woo!  So instead of busted suspensions all over the place, we get busted paintwork and windshields. Thank you for slashing budgets like it was going out of style, right-wing government. Now gently caress off and let's get some responsible politicians (ha!) in charge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 12:22
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Woo! Can't wait to see what they decide on when your bridges start to fail!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 12:31
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Can't wait to see what they decide on when your bridges start to fail! Given their current track record, they'll probably blame it on immigrants and muslims somehow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 12:45
|
|
|
I saw a billboard yesterday that was put up by some Concrete industry group that basically said potholes are Asphalt's fault. This is in Minnesota, where freeze-thaw is brutal. 1) I think you've touched on this before, but is there any truth to that claim (I'm guessing no) 2) Who could the billboards possibly be targeting? It won't sway any engineers, is it supposed to turn public opinion so they get mad when engineers say they're going to use asphalt?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 14:56
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I saw a billboard yesterday that was put up by some Concrete industry group that basically said potholes are Asphalt's fault. This is in Minnesota, where freeze-thaw is brutal. The worst potholes I've ever seen in my life were in Minneapolis on the interstate. Milwaukee has some good ones but the highway is patched well. The deepest, nastiest are typically on concrete roads that are poorly maintained. Tarring joints has to be a regular program and have to be done well. Too many tarred joints are pulled up by plows in the winter and by spring are ready for ice damage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 19:52
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I saw a billboard yesterday that was put up by some Concrete industry group that basically said potholes are Asphalt's fault. This is in Minnesota, where freeze-thaw is brutal. It's about as true as saying fiberglass cars don't get door dings. You really can't fight the weather; it's going to get you one way or another. quote:2) Who could the billboards possibly be targeting? It won't sway any engineers, is it supposed to turn public opinion so they get mad when engineers say they're going to use asphalt? The public, definitely. Engineers do their research; the public call their state reps and get laws drafted that the DOT shall pave with concrete. Municipalities could also be a target. They often don't have the staff or resources to really choose, so they go with whoever's louder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2011 22:28
|
|
|
Welp:quote:Gov Dannel P. Malloy on Monday threw his support behind construction of a $567 million New Britain-to-Hartford busway that he said could begin operating in 2014. It just sounds like a gigantic waste of money to me. Is there actual support outside of the governor's office?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
Neutrino posted:The worst potholes I've ever seen in my life were in Minneapolis on the interstate. Heh, saw the sign on I94 W just as I entered Minneapolis. That's never been to bad for me, but the streets outside my apartment (also Minneapolis) are just terrible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
bear shark posted:Welp: Aww poo poo. I was hoping they'd kill that useless waste of money and time. I'd much rather see them double track the Amrak lines and put up some light rail!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
bear shark posted:Welp: There is still a lot of political support. I saw the Governor today at a press conference and the Busway got a mention there as well. My guess is that he just is being misled about the whole project. The guy in charge of design told him it's 99% done (I'd say it's more like 60%, with major chunks yet untouched). I suppose if you think it's 99% done, there's really no reason at least not to finish the design, even if you're going to can it once it's done. If you go with the more realistic "$50M more, plus our construction cost estimate is at least 30% low," I don't see how it could've been allowed to continue. So, um, pretty much a gigantic waste. Most of that money is just going to out-of-state consultants anyway. Ridiculous. At least I have something to charge my timesheet to for the next five years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2011 21:49
|
|
|
I didn't realize there were still wooden bridges in CT. This is in Middletown on West St. There's no code that says this kind of thing has to be replaced by now? (The approaches are steep enough and the bridge is narrow enough that it needs Stop signs on both ends to make sure people don't blindly fly through it and collide head-on.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 16:07
|
|
|
smackfu posted:I didn't realize there were still wooden bridges in CT. This is in Middletown on West St. There's no code that says this kind of thing has to be replaced by now? (The approaches are steep enough and the bridge is narrow enough that it needs Stop signs on both ends to make sure people don't blindly fly through it and collide head-on.) If that's a local road over a railroad, don't expect much. As long as it doesn't fall down, it'll be there forever. Wooden bridges may not be as rare as you think, but usually they have asphalt over the top so you can't tell you're driving on rotted planks of plant matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
 This is the intersection that I pass through every day. I travel from the west of the image heading east, turning south (The lower red line). The red circles are signs that say "Begin Continuous Lane Yield to Bicycles", and are the only signage. The green lines are bike lanes. The problem is people either 1) Come to a full stop after the crosswalk, waiting for no traffic in Lane 2, then proceed into Lane 3 2) Not stop, almost get side swiped by people not using their turn signals and/or people who don't know that's my lane, not theirs What would you do to improve it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
fusionpit posted:
Better striping, definitely. I don't know whether it's been painted recently, but in that aerial photo, the pavement markings are terrible. Some sharrows would help, too. As for signs, just sticking more signs in there will only work up to a point. If people are ignoring the pavement markings and the bicyclist himself, then they won't be seeing a 18"x24" panel on the side of the road. Enforcement would be great. Get some bike cops out there and start writing tickets, and people will learn to pay attention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 00:06
|
|
|
What are your thoughts on dummy lights? Are they worth keeping around in their present limited quantities as historical curiosities or should they all be removed as dangerous relics? Have you visited an intersection that's controlled by a dummy light? I've attempted to glimpse the signal in Canajoharie, NY from the NYS Thruway (I-90), but have done so quite unsuccessfully.grover posted:The coolest lane shift I've seen is on the Coronado Bridge in San Diego which is a chain of concrete barriers and two bus-sized contraptions that drive the bridge twice a day, shifting the barriers to optimise the bridge for AM/PM rush-hour (no HOV, though). They have it configured such that they don't even have to stop traffic to do it, it's pretty slick. Also, kind of an old topic, but I saw it when I was cruising the latter portion of the thread and I wanted to add that around my area the Walt Whitman Bridge and Ben Franklin Bridge between Philadelphia and NJ have machine-movable barriers that they use to control flow during peak hours. They may be present on all of the bridges crossing the Delaware River in southeastern PA, but I traverse those two with the most frequency. Great thread, Cichlidae. Simply epic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
FourDownMagic posted:What are your thoughts on dummy lights? Are they worth keeping around in their present limited quantities as historical curiosities or should they all be removed as dangerous relics? Have you visited an intersection that's controlled by a dummy light? I've attempted to glimpse the signal in Canajoharie, NY from the NYS Thruway (I-90), but have done so quite unsuccessfully. I'd be ok with seeing them disappear from the roads, since they are obvious crash hazards and can obscure visibility. There's nothing wrong with keeping a few around for historical reasons, but they should be put in pedestrian-only areas. Sticking one in the middle of a park would be a great way to let people see a dummy signal up close, and avoid the hazard. FourDownMagic posted:Great thread, Cichlidae. Simply epic. Thanks! If I don't get laid off this summer, I hope to keep it going for some time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 15:59
|
|
|
There is a stop sign on the complex at work, where the word STOP!, well, is like that. The funny thing is, the signs in the warehouse/factory for the fork trucks are normal stop signs, but the one outside is some bizzaro sign. I've been meaning to take a picture but there are always people around and it would be weird.Cichlidae posted:Thanks! If I don't get laid off this summer, I hope to keep it going for some time. If you get laid off, you will just have more time to post!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 17:14
|
|
|
Can you describe what conditions would warrant a separate "truck" speed limit? The New England Thruway in Westchester has a speed limit of 55 and a truck speed limit of 50. To me, that seems less safe than having one speed limit for all vehicles, as you are actively encouraging mixing of different speeds. It also seems completely unenforceable. When calculating speed limits, have you ever seen a manual that recommends truck speed limits? I'm curious what the parameters would be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 02:09
|
|
|
excitebike1 posted:Can you describe what conditions would warrant a separate "truck" speed limit? There was a brief discussion of truck limits back on page 45. The conclusion seems to have been that there are certain small benefits (saving money by designing the road for a lower speed) but that reducing the truck speed limit compared to other traffic causes accident rates to skyrocket, so in the balance they're a bad idea. I suspect that whomever's setting the truck limits may also be thinking "they're huge, they can't possibly be safe going at the same speed as my sedan", when really all that happens is that they either pile up trying to obey the speed limit or just go 90 anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
I can confirm that there are definitely seizure-inducing strobes at Walden Ave SB over I-90 in Cheektowaga NY.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
excitebike1 posted:Can you describe what conditions would warrant a separate "truck" speed limit? Besesoth did a great job explaining. They only encourage a higher speed differential, which isn't very helpful. In my opinion, the only way you can safely put heavy vehicles at a different speed is if they're physically separated from normal traffic. Climbing lanes are one example: trucks can drive well below the speed limit without risking accidents, since they're in their own lane. Some freeways (New Jersey Turnpike, for example) have lanes that are either exclusively reserved for trucks, or heavily used by them, though that takes a tremendous amount of right-of-way. Millstone posted:I can confirm that there are definitely seizure-inducing strobes at Walden Ave SB over I-90 in Cheektowaga NY. One lawsuit and they're all gone. Once something is a "shall not" in the MUTCD, it's nearly indefensible in court.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 03:43
|
|
|
excitebike1 posted:Can you describe what conditions would warrant a separate "truck" speed limit? Oregon's freeways have a max speed of 55 for semi trucks or, really, anything pulling anything. 65 for anything else. As far as I can tell, it mostly serves to try to keep trucks in the right lane. The only time it really becomes an issue, at least in experience, is when a truck going 56 MPH tries to pass one going 55 MPH and backs up the small vehicle traffic, or when a truck utterly ignores the speed limit and blasts down the the freeway at 70 MPH - most drivers aren't used to a semi gaining on them in Oregon. In any particularly hazardous situations, the speed limits tend to end up with a lower and equal limit for both. For example, 55 on the Banfield going through Portland, or 45 on curves on Cabbage Hill outside of Pendleton.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 03:47
|
|
|
Blue Moonlight, the one time I drove through Oregon it drove me crazy, it seemed like everyone up there was a real stickler for obeying the speed limit. Every other state I've ever driven through (which is most of them*) freeway traffic goes ~10MPH (if not more) over the limit pretty consistently. Did I just have bad luck or is that actualy normal for Oregon? In California we also have a 55MPH truck/trailer limit. If I remember correctly they aren't allowed in the fast lane at all, with exceptions for passing and stuff if there's only 2 lanes. I've never noticed any problems arising from this (I bet most trucks are doing 65 anyway) but I can see how an enforced speed differential would be dangerous. * Do people in Iowa routinely get out of their cars and play frisbee when traffic stalls, or did I stumble onto yet another weird occurrance?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 04:31
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Blue Moonlight, the one time I drove through Oregon it drove me crazy, it seemed like everyone up there was a real stickler for obeying the speed limit. Every other state I've ever driven through (which is most of them*) freeway traffic goes ~10MPH (if not more) over the limit pretty consistently. Did I just have bad luck or is that actualy normal for Oregon? It's not just you. I feel like an rear end in a top hat every time I drive there because I'm doing my usual 10+ over and almost everyone else isn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 06:22
|
|
|
smackfu posted:I didn't realize there were still wooden bridges in CT. This is in Middletown on West St. There's no code that says this kind of thing has to be replaced by now? (The approaches are steep enough and the bridge is narrow enough that it needs Stop signs on both ends to make sure people don't blindly fly through it and collide head-on.) Wood bridges can be much longer lasting and cheaper than concrete or steel. Wisconsin has actually built quite a few timber bridges in the northern part of the state in the last several decades which are used in areas with lots of logging operations. One of the most impressive highway bridges I've seen is the Keystone Wye Bridge built in 1968 on US16 in South Dakota. It used glulam arches on the upper span which crosses the lower glulam span. In college I took a wood design and engineering class which taught us many impressive properties of timber and glulam.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 17:27
|
|
|
Neutrino posted:Wood bridges can be much longer lasting and cheaper than concrete or steel. Wisconsin has actually built quite a few timber bridges in the northern part of the state in the last several decades which are used in areas with lots of logging operations. But how does it hold up to chainsaws?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
Coasterphreak posted:But how does it hold up to chainsaws? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
Neutrino posted:One of the most impressive highway bridges I've seen is the Keystone Wye Bridge built in 1968 on US16 in South Dakota. It used glulam arches on the upper span which crosses the lower glulam span. In college I took a wood design and engineering class which taught us many impressive properties of timber and glulam. That's classy as hell. Awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
The bureaucratic complexities of planning and opening new roads have been getting very intricate here in the Netherlands for the last decades. Wrt the A1 rush hour lanes the highway agency (which is nominally the executive arm of the transportation ministry so luckily one less layer of paperwork there) interpreted a council of state ruling (the body which does the vetting of new projects on the basis of correct EIA-work and a whole slew of procedural nitpicking) as not allowing the rush hour lanes to be opened while the actual ruling merely stated they couldn't be used if the agency set the maximum speed during opening hours any higher than 80km/h. Since this was the first time a situation like this had ever come up (rush hour lanes being a relatively new concept) I'd rather classify it as a competency rather than an incompetence isssue. The things going on with tunnels are much weirder, road tunnels have been used for important water crossing for decades now but with a new set of rules and regulations it seems impossible to get any new construction done. On the A73 project the financial constraints were so heavy that the physical dimensions of the landtunnel were brought back to a cost-cutting bare minimum. As a result the tunnels have had to close many times because overheight trucks got stuck underneath the entrances. An even bigger problem, and this connects to every other tunnel project right now (A2 Utrecht, A2 Maastricht, A4MD), is the dicking around with new mandatory safety features and installations. Since the responsibility for road safety in case of major disasters lies with local authorities (mayors being the coordinators for fire departments and disaster management) every local authority which is 'threatened' by a new project boiling up in their back yard will get super activist and demand the most gold-plated measures to protect their risk assessment goals and potential backlash in case of a major problem. "No we don't want the standard sprinklers we want foam extinguishers controlled by an automated system, and cameras every 5 meters" etc. Since every possibility of standardizing designs is thrown out of the window each project has its own unique set of problems and when cutting edge safety systems are used stuff is prone to go wrong either way. The Roertunnel in the A73 had to be closed 2 more times after opening just to retest and reconfigure the safety systems, for three months each time. poo poo got really out of hand with the A2 near Utrecht, the highway agency could have learned from the A73 fiasco but they decided to just wait for local authorities to impose restrictions after all the design work was done. Now the agency has offloaded all their own engineering capacity since this wasn't deemed to be part of their core business so private firms did all the work. Some big municipalities however have still got pretty big design departments since this makes sense for them wrt their own projects (and without national government breathing down their necks in everlasting cost cutting rounds). Combined with other enigneering firms gladly servicing local government with their own advice concerning for example tunnel safety features you get these legislative battles where national institutions have been trumped by local ones on things like environmental impact from traffic noise, the highway agency botching traffic studies because they couldn't asses the results from third party models and last but not least the implementational aspects of road safety features and disaster management in tunnel projects. So now we've got this €1bn project for a tunnel on land, in one of the flattest countries on earth, meant to lessen the environmental impact of a new 2-3-3-2 freeway to replace the existing 2x3 one, lessen the impact on a residential area built decades after the original freeway was constructed that is, and with the project stalling they decide to expand the existing road to a 2-3+4 profile which apparently was possible all along, for an extra €50m. Hurr. If the powers that be even had a modicum of consistency we'd be closing every existing tunnel in the Netherlands by the way, stuff that's been built in the sixties hasn't been updated since. But wait, there's never been any problem with these existing tunnels. edit: look at the pretty video! http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/wegen/plannen_en_projecten/a_wegen/a2/maarssen_tot_knooppunt_oudenrijn/index.aspx Koesj fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Apr 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 12:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
Koesj posted:Now the agency has offloaded all their own engineering capacity since this wasn't deemed to be part of their core business so private firms did all the work. Some big municipalities however have still got pretty big design departments since this makes sense for them wrt their own projects (and without national government breathing down their necks in everlasting cost cutting rounds). Oh, how I wish that were true.  You're spot on about your other observations. You wouldn't happen to have worked for RWS, would you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 15:46
|
|