|
Dick Trauma posted:Is there a name for how when a lane is ending drivers gravitate toward it, at the last moment cutting off drivers in the open lane and slowing it down, encouraging more people to use the ending lane because it looks faster? Grover's right, it's game theory all the way. The more people cheat, the bigger the incentive to cheat. Unfortunately, we can't count on this effect when we really need the two full lanes worth of storage. nm posted:Why do they curve sidewalks? I believe I speak for all pedestrians when I say they suck. I got to imagine they're even more annoying in wheelchairs. I believe they're only curved for aesthetic reasons. I don't like them, either. They encourage people to walk on the grass and they're a royal pain in the rear end if you've got mobility impairments or poor vision. Or tripping, I guess. The stamped concrete should easily last 10 years, provided they didn't gently caress up the rest of it as well. It'll fade to grayish-red after a time as the cement wears away and the aggregate shows through. I imagine it won't chip too much, since it's on a sidewalk and not a road. I'm guessing the slabs will crack from tree root growth within 15-20 years, making a very uneven surface, and then they'll be replaced.
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Grover's right, it's game theory all the way. The more people cheat, the bigger the incentive to cheat. Unfortunately, we can't count on this effect when we really need the two full lanes worth of storage. On a similar subject are there any standards for putting up signs about lane closures? I've seen very good usage of signs and cones but I've seen far more bad usage, doing things like putting up about 10 feet of cones right in front of a lane closure, or just on the far side of an intersection obliging people to change lines in the middle of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 04:31
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:I got to see another demonstration of it this week on a two lane urban street. Plenty of signs warning that the right hand lane was closed up ahead, I stayed in the left hand lane. Impatient people stayed in the right hand lane, sped up as they approached the obstacle and then cut off drivers in the left hand lane. Using both lanes all the way up to the closure is the most efficient method of handling lane closures. On a congested road, ideally everyone should be zipper merging, alternating one car from each lane. I always go for the lane with the least traffic in this situation, there's no reason for me to be stuck when traffic is moving along in the adjacent lane. There's no such thing as "cheating" in traffic, no rules prohibiting you from jumping ahead by overtaking. Being a dick by aggressively forcing your way in at the merge is another thing entirely, that's a total dick move. Just as much as not letting people merge because you think they "cheated" by going in the faster-moving lane.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 10:26
|
|
|
I've been reading this book: http://www.amazon.com/Big-Roads-Visionaries-Trailblazers-Superhighways/dp/0618812415 I'm about half way through, it's pretty informative and well researched and easy to read.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 11:07
|
|
|
 Well, that shouldn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 11:54
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Being a dick by aggressively forcing your way in at the merge is another thing entirely, that's a total dick move. Just as much as not letting people merge because you think they "cheated" by going in the faster-moving lane. This is what I was talking about. Not merging, but cutting people off by simply playing chicken with the drivers in the open lane. I think of it as cheating because it requires dangerous driving behavior. When traffic is flowing lane closures aren't an issue but here in L.A. due to volume you often see the open lanes get very slow and the speed disparity quickly gets high. For the last few months I've been walking to work and the change in perspective is interesting. Compared to the 1980s and 1990s when I spent alot of time as a pedestrian hardly a day goes by when I am not almost run over in a marked crosswalk with traffic signals. The level of driver distraction is frightening. Dick Trauma fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Aug 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 15:16
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:On a similar subject are there any standards for putting up signs about lane closures? I've seen very good usage of signs and cones but I've seen far more bad usage, doing things like putting up about 10 feet of cones right in front of a lane closure, or just on the far side of an intersection obliging people to change lines in the middle of it. Yes, there are. A lane taper on high-speed roadways must be W*S long, where W is the width of the lane being closed and S is the speed, in mph. For a slower speed, 40 mph or below, the formula is W*S^2 / 60. For a typical urban street, 12-foot lane with 35 mph speed limit, the taper should be at least 245 feet long. There is more info here: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part6/part6h.htm#table6H03 KozmoNaut posted:There's no such thing as "cheating" in traffic, no rules prohibiting you from jumping ahead by overtaking. Not entirely true in this case. Signs like "lane ends merge left" and the end of the lane skips mean you're not in one lane. If you continue treating it as two lanes after that point, you're breaking the rules. Some places even put "no passing" signs up in work zone tapers to make it a legal offense to cut the line. Vanagoon posted:
Lightning strike? Dick Trauma posted:For the last few months I've been walking to work and the change in perspective is interesting. Compared to the 1980s and 1990s when I spent alot of time as a pedestrian hardly a day goes by when I am not almost run over in a marked crosswalk with traffic signals. The level of driver distraction is frightening. I've found this to be the case, too. Just goes to show you that, no matter how much money you spend on bright markings, tons of signs, and ped signals, people will start to ignore them once they get used to them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 15:58
|
|
|
Speed bumps at stop signs - has this ever been tried? I have fantasies of cars bottoming-out when they refuse to even slow down when they reach the intersection at the end of I-84 off-ramps. A man can dream.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
Crackpipe posted:Speed bumps at stop signs - has this ever been tried? It would cause more logistical problems than it solved, I'm afraid, most of them related to perceived right-of-way and having to get over the speed bump from a dead stop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 17:21
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Lightning strike? Found it on imgur, don't know the backstory, if any.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcPby71TNC0 This is the kind of signage that should be used in any congested area with a construction-related 2 to 1 lane reduction. I remember seeing this on I-694 near St. Paul last summer and it seemed to work really well. Unfortunately, Minnesota is one of the few places in the country where people would actually do what the signs told them to instead of just being dicks like normal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 19:49
|
|
|
When writing up a construction project that requires one-way alternating traffic, do you provide directions to the flaggers? There was a construction project near me, and they were doing almost 10 minutes at a time for each direction. It was about 1/2 a mile of one lane at most. Does that seem right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 20:05
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcPby71TNC0 A related video was one about this project http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/169/ That's one hell of an interchange redesign And they seem to be cheaping out on a EB to NB movement. Joe 30330 fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Aug 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:Unfortunately, Minnesota is one of the few places in the country where people would actually do what the signs told them to instead of just being dicks like normal. Example: The merge on I-94 WB from I-35E NB: Signed multiple times, "DO NOT CROSS DOUBLE WHITE LINE" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSZLMN9N-Bg (Not my video)
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 22:39
|
|
|
Millstone posted:A related video was one about this project There's US 212 about 2 miles to the west that people use for EB to NB movement. That interchange was redesigned about 10 years ago and it was better, but still sucked. It used to be a diamond w/ lights on 169, then it was a 3/4 cloverleaf (no EB to NB "leaf") with stoplights for the residential areas, which was still bad because the 3 lights stalled traffic a lot. Its finally being designed to be something that: has no stoplights, and gives access to the residential streets. nm posted:Example: The merge on I-94 WB from I-35E NB: I-35W NB I go through that about one a week, and yes I do cross the double lines on occasion. It's kinda hard to stay on I-94 without going onto I-394 otherwise. no go on Quiznos fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Aug 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 01:40
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:When writing up a construction project that requires one-way alternating traffic, do you provide directions to the flaggers? We provide some general directions, nothing about how long each direction should take. Ideally, something near 30 seconds is good, but we usually limit alternating one-way to 300 feet. If you're dealing with half a mile, 2 minutes or so would be appropriate. 10 is way too long. Millstone posted:A related video was one about this project What's the extra lane on the loop ramp? Some kind of bizarrely placed bus stop? nm posted:Signed multiple times, "DO NOT CROSS DOUBLE WHITE LINE" The only things that will keep people from crossing a line are the imminent threat of a ticket or physical damage to their vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
Silver95280 posted:I-35W NB I lived on Hennepin there for years. It is very easy to not get on 394 doing it right, there is plenty of merge space. It really messes up traffic when people merge before the double white as they're moving far too slow. If you ever watch how it is supposed to work, you'll get it. The entire backup in that area is due to people screwing up that merge by merging too early. For the record, State Patrol's position is you get to change lanes in the tunnel, but no crossing the double white line. (Yes, that is W though) nm fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Aug 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 03:12
|
|
|
nm posted:Bull. If it's so important that no one cross the double white line, why don't they just put a jersey barrier there?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 04:08
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:If it's so important that no one cross the double white line, why don't they just put a jersey barrier there? It really does improve flow when followed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
nm posted:I lived on Hennepin there for years. It is very easy to not get on 394 doing it right, there is plenty of merge space. It really messes up traffic when people merge before the double white as they're moving far too slow. If you ever watch how it is supposed to work, you'll get it. The entire backup in that area is due to people screwing up that merge by merging too early. Thanks, I'll have to remember that. Last year they changed the striping after the tunnel a bit, so now I have to merge left 2 lanes to stay on 94.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 05:54
|
|
|
nm posted:It would defeat the purpose, which is to allow people to get up to speed an merge like a zipper by obscuring views. Also, you'd probably have to widen it to allow for a breakdown lane. This makes sense given that in my travels to the midwest, it seems that drivers are scared to use the skinny pedal. In AZ, open pavement is all the incentive someone needs to get up to merging speed (and then cut someone off like a motherfucker)
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 08:48
|
|
|
I always found Minnesota drivers to be terrible, and it's a terrible place to drive in general (and I'm from So Cal!). Mostly due to the insane number of cloverleafs with a tiny amount of space for cars to weave on/off.nm posted:It would defeat the purpose, which is to allow people to get up to speed an merge like a zipper by obscuring views. Also, you'd probably have to widen it to allow for a breakdown lane. Cichlidae posted:The only things that will keep people from crossing a line are the imminent threat of a ticket or physical damage to their vehicle. LA came up with a decent solution to this problem (apparently it doesn't stop everyone though, since a number of those things are missing/broken at any given time):
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 10:48
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:since a number of those things are missing/broken at any given time): Not to mention the pavement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 18:03
|
|
|
In a typical city intersection with curb-side parking, what's the minimum distance from the intersection with "no parking" signage/paint ?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:I always found Minnesota drivers to be terrible, and it's a terrible place to drive in general (and I'm from So Cal!). Mostly due to the insane number of cloverleafs with a tiny amount of space for cars to weave on/off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 22:39
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:This makes sense given that in my travels to the midwest, it seems that drivers are scared to use the skinny pedal. In AZ, open pavement is all the incentive someone needs to get up to merging speed (and then cut someone off like a motherfucker) Yet they still drive the speed limit. It felt so strange doing my usual 20-over and passing people left and right. Maybe that's just Phoenix? Choadmaster posted:LA came up with a decent solution to this problem (apparently it doesn't stop everyone though, since a number of those things are missing/broken at any given time): We can't afford to keep those things in place. Even our Opposing Traffic Lane Dividers get beat to poo poo and broken within weeks, and you've really got no reason to drive near those:  Baronjutter posted:In a typical city intersection with curb-side parking, what's the minimum distance from the intersection with "no parking" signage/paint ? The MUTCD doesn't specify any given distance. It's up to the physical limits of the No Parking Zone, which is usually defined in the local traffic commission regulations. Generally, a No Parking Zone in advance of an intersection should be long enough to accommodate the queue of right-turning vehicles or provide a clear line-of-sight, depending on the type of control present (stop sign or signal). Of course, all that good engineering sense gets thrown out the window when a local business owner wants a couple more parking spaces.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 23:46
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:We can't afford to keep those things in place. Even our Opposing Traffic Lane Dividers get beat to poo poo and broken within weeks, and you've really got no reason to drive near those: Not to mention we're talking Minnesota, it snows a lot more there than it does in SoCal. I imagine the plows would have a field day on them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Yet they still drive the speed limit. It felt so strange doing my usual 20-over and passing people left and right. Maybe that's just Phoenix? Was the last time you were here before or after they turned the cameras off? The cameras scared everyone into doing almost exactly 9 over; the longer since they went off, the faster everyone gets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 01:17
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Was the last time you were here before or after they turned the cameras off? The cameras scared everyone into doing almost exactly 9 over; the longer since they went off, the faster everyone gets. It was in June, and I was the only one going more than ten over. Freeways 7 lanes wide, and people going the same speed in all of them...
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 01:20
|
|
|
Pawnee and I-135 Why did they do this? If you look at the non-satelite view of the map, you can see that the land appears to be divided up into lots for housing or other construction. If you traveling east on Pawnee and want to get onto I-135 north you go right through a 20MPH loop with a steep incline, talk about fun merging into traffic. West bound traffic entering northbound I-135 takes it own seperate ramp on the other side of the road. Why couldn't they just use one ramp for northbound I-135?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 05:46
|
|
|
Colonel Sanders posted:Pawnee and I-135 Why did they do this? If you look at the non-satelite view of the map, you can see that the land appears to be divided up into lots for housing or other construction. If you traveling east on Pawnee and want to get onto I-135 north you go right through a 20MPH loop with a steep incline, talk about fun merging into traffic. West bound traffic entering northbound I-135 takes it own seperate ramp on the other side of the road. Why couldn't they just use one ramp for northbound I-135? Two ramps, at least in theory, results in twice the capacity. This sort of design is being slowly phased out nationwide. Despite the extra capacity, it's confusing to motorists and somewhat less safe. Your interchange there will probably be replaced by a SPUI or a diamond as it reaches the end of its operational life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 12:43
|
|
|
California does this thing somewhat often--instead of a lane just exiting, the exit splits off and then the lane abruptly ends. There's no "exit only" sign for the right lane because technically the right lane isn't exit only... it just ends very abruptly immediately after the exit. Is there any good reason for this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 13:32
|
|
|
Its really just a lane merge that happens to have an exit in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 14:41
|
|
|
What really annoys me about it is that there's no changing of the lane dashing to let you know that the lane is going bye-bye. It's rather startling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 18:01
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:California does this thing somewhat often--instead of a lane just exiting, the exit splits off and then the lane abruptly ends. There's no "exit only" sign for the right lane because technically the right lane isn't exit only... it just ends very abruptly immediately after the exit. I'm not sure how well this would work, or what purpose it would serve. People drive across solid lines they're not supposed to all the time anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
Millstone posted:I'm not sure how well this would work, or what purpose it would serve. People drive across solid lines they're not supposed to all the time anyway. Which, tangentially, is why I'm nervous about this new bike line / bus lane combo in Chicago's loop installed within the last few days: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chicagobikes/sets/72157627454737822
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:California does this thing somewhat often--instead of a lane just exiting, the exit splits off and then the lane abruptly ends. There's no "exit only" sign for the right lane because technically the right lane isn't exit only... it just ends very abruptly immediately after the exit. This is actually the preferred arrangement for lane drops. Rather than forcing people to leave the freeway if they're in the lane, causing them to make erratic maneuvers at the last minute, this lets them change their mind and re-join freeway traffic with less disturbance. I'm not sure how well it works in practice, but it's in the Green Book, so...
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
A situation like that actually causes (or at least is proximal to) one of the worst backups in town. http://maps.google.com/?ll=39.376374,-76.745443&spn=0.001816,0.004128&t=h&z=19&vpsrc=6 Going WB/SB on 695, prior to the 795 exit there's 5 lanes. Left 3 go through on 695, right 1 goes exclusively to 795, and the second-to-right lane splits between 695 and 795, despite there only ever being 3 lanes of thru-695 on either end of it. So the split lane on 695 ends up merging back in after about half a mile (street view here). To make things worse, the merge happens right before traffic exiting FROM 795 merges back in as well, so you effectively have 6 lanes going to 4 over a few hundred feet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
On a highway near me (MA-25, the road that extends 495 South to cape cod), the signs still say "Exit 2, Formerly Exit 1". I've been driving down here for probably around 10 years, and it's always said that. At what point do they take the sign down because nobody actually remembers the old exit number?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 13:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
The exits were renumbered on WB MA 25 around 2007, if I recall correctly. It wasn't THAT long ago that there were duplicate Exit 1s on the same stretch of road. I would not expect that sign to go away for a few more years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 14:53
|
|
