|
Volmarias posted:New Zealand is a relatively small island nation, with only a couple of large cities. Does this impact your focus? It sure does! As you said, New Zealand is quite isolated, and it's population is concentrated in cities - particularly Auckland, which is home to about a third of New Zealand's population. This is made awkward by the fact that our funding and decision making processes are quite centralised - the local councils have little actual power. Auckland's transport needs are very different to the rest of the country, so it can be difficult for Auckland to get the funding and planning that is best for it, if local and central government aren't on the same page. At the moment. Auckland has a left leaning mayor who is very much pro public transport, while the central government is a right wing party which is pro roads and private transport. So Auckland is currently deadlocked with central government, trying to get what it wants. As nm alluded to, Auckland is one of the most car dependant cities in the world, and has the traffic congestion to prove it. The mayor has some very good ideas to fix that, but not a whole lot is being done because he simply does not have the money or the power to do what Aucklanders voted him in to do. It's quite frustrating.
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 11:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
What's this? The culmination of about two hours' work.  Four freeways, worst-case positioning, full access, zero weaving. I don't even know where to go from here. I could make it more compact, in theory, but something like this would never in a million years get built.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
Now do it with side streets.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
Cichlidae, you continue to post things that will haunt my nightmares. You are a true master of horror.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I don't even know where to go from here. Simulate unfavorable terrain, and then simulate budget restrictions. 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
Do this with Sim City to simulate terrible drivers 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
I think we need to tie in some median running heavy rail lines.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I think we need to tie in some median running heavy rail lines. Running in the median is too easy, try just being by the side of the road with no protection at all: 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
Introduce this restriction: a) Interchanges shall be routed only on the outside of the square delineated by the four freeways. And you'll have fixed Los Angeles, if you keep the full access, zero weaving. mamosodiumku fucked around with this message at 01:51 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
.
sincx fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
Speaking of games, I miss Nutmeg. 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I think we need to tie in some median running heavy rail lines. Since there are no left exits/entrances, it's super easy to do that. mamosodiumku posted:Introduce this restriction: a) Interchanges shall be routed only on the outside of the square delineated by the four freeways. If the freeways are far enough apart (~1 mile), you could just stick a quadrant interchange between each of them. Problem solved. kefkafloyd posted:Speaking of games, I miss Nutmeg. Yeah. I wish I'd planned it better from the beginning. Don't worry, though - at some point, I'll make a whole new thread just for Nutmeg, and have a ton of stuff ready from the start to get rid of all the growing pains.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Yeah. I wish I'd planned it better from the beginning. - Motto of every Department of Transportation ever.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
I tried to make an twelve legged interchange. I could only get halfway through making the connections.  I think I have drifted off into madness making this because suddenly every interchange I see in this thread or on Google Maps I can follow along now. Actually, I do have a question, why is it a bad thing to have exits or entrances on the left side of the road? Or are the rules more like guidelines and there are exceptions to the rules?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
Sovy Kurosei posted:
Because you're supposed to stay to right and because most exits on most roads are already on the right side - if we had decided from the start that exits should be on the left side and 95% of the exits on our roads were left side, then it would be bad form to put in right side exits.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
Sovy Kurosei posted:Actually, I do have a question, why is it a bad thing to have exits or entrances on the left side of the road? Or are the rules more like guidelines and there are exceptions to the rules? There are lots of reasons! - Route priority: If you're staying on the same route, you'll want to stick to the median, because you can keep your speed nice and high and encounter minimum curvature. - Right-of-way: By keeping the main line tucked in the middle and ramps on the right, you can get by with a minimum of ROW. You need a lot more land to curve those high-speed roadways than the low-speed ones. - Interchange configuration: You couldn't get diagonal ramps in without either adding extra structures or entailing a ton of weaving. Imagine what a cloverleaf would look like with left exits and entrances. - Trucks: You don't want the slowest users decelerating in the high speed lane, nor getting dumped into it at ramp speeds. - Frontage roads: Are you going to stick them in the median? That'd be dumb.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 12:21
|
|
|
Sovy Kurosei posted:Actually, I do have a question, why is it a bad thing to have exits or entrances on the left side of the road? Or are the rules more like guidelines and there are exceptions to the rules? I saw an rear end in a top hat in an Acura blast across four lanes of traffic on 836 Westbound because they wanted to go North on LeJeune instead of South. If LeJeune N was part of the exit instead of its own left exit that wouldn't have happened.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 12:36
|
|
|
Cloverleaf with left exits/entrances? Not quite like that but in Dallas, the I-35E and 635 interchange, to get from northbound 35E to 635 westbound, you exit from the left, but still a cloverleaf ramp that goes over the 35 mainline. Pretty terrible looking and you have to slow way down to get onto it. They are doing interchange improvements too in the sense they are adding tolled lanes but still for now keeping that awful ramp. What pisses me off though is when they spend many hundreds of millions to completely rebuild an interchange, and still design in left exits. Case in point when they rebuilt the Grandview Triangle, the EB 435 to NB 71 left exit ramp, that used to kill many many people, was still kept in there, and still feels extremely dangerous to drive on. Granted the budget for that was tight (as it always is with MoDOT), but still, that same feature killed a ton of people in accidents. The result still is that slowpokes crowd the left lane of 435 for like 5 miles or so to the west because they intend to use that left exit to get to 71.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
The UK seems to do left exits/entrances just fine. 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
Silver95280 posted:The UK seems to do left exits/entrances just fine. I've not seen many outside of the M8, and on there they're dodgy as gently caress and on a 50mph urban motorway.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 13:37
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:I've not seen many outside of the M8, and on there they're dodgy as gently caress and on a 50mph urban motorway. No I think you will find them everywhere 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
Gat posted:No I think you will find them everywhere Oh whoops I'm silly! I think I've just learned to switch my brain into right-hand drive mode when I read this thread now.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:I've not seen many outside of the M8, and on there they're dodgy as gently caress and on a 50mph urban motorway. Well the M8 was designed after the urban designers went to LA in the 60s so there's that!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
Cichlidae, question from someone who against his will is increasingly mired in civil engineering in the Southeast: what does the concrete-vs-asphalt ratio look like up where you are? Or in neighboring states, for that matter. (Asphalt's big in Florida because crushed limestone is ludicrously cheap down there, so concrete can't even THINK about competing in price. For example.)
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:(Asphalt's big in Florida because crushed limestone is ludicrously cheap down there, so concrete can't even THINK about competing in price. For example.) The I-275 and I-4 projects are considered "Ultimate" configurations because they're built way, way, way beyond any current freeway standards and designed for megacity capacities (we're going to need that, as everything along the I-4 corridor is growing into one huge metro area). Both of them are going to give Toronto's 401 a run for its money for the title of widest road in North America (4 lanes in each direction + 3 express lanes in each direction + double lane exits and entrances that fly over each other = 22 lanes). All concrete, four city blocks wide.  And they have artistic decorations on pilings near interchanges to help you figure out what part of town you're in. If you can't read English, take the next exit after you see the windmills.  GWBBQ posted:It's almost all asphalt aside from bridges. There are a few areas with old concrete roads (which are still around because the concrete has lasted a lot longer without needing to be replaced,) but it's 80% asphalt, 20% potholes where asphalt used to be. 
Varance fucked around with this message at 04:14 on May 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Cichlidae, question from someone who against his will is increasingly mired in civil engineering in the Southeast: what does the concrete-vs-asphalt ratio look like up where you are? Or in neighboring states, for that matter.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
Some of the most durable road concrete was used up here on Route 5 in West Springfield, the original stuff laid down in the mid-50s was still in use until fairly recently. But in general concrete is bad for roads up here because of frost heave. Aside from a rare few, I can't think of very many.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
Varance posted:words about Florida  That's actually really interesting to hear. I know some ex-FDOT folk who are pretty thoroughly on the asphalt side (benefit-cost wise), and while I'm following the general course of the Pavement Wars, I wasn't aware there was that issue about the concrete surface course calculation. I'll bug my contact for some non-summary literature on the topic. To my understanding, what makes asphalt relatively advantaged, assuming you don't mind doing upkeep work on a regular basis, is the ability to lay umpteen inches of crushed limestone under three or four inches of asphalt, rather than other states using a less uneven ratio, while the concrete industry is noting (correctly) that A) concrete is competitive in other southern states, which is true but not entirely relevant because other states use non-ludicrous asphalt thicknesses; and B) concrete virtually never has to be upkept (barring procedural fuckery or forgetting to keep the joints sealed), which is absolutely true and why something like 15% of heavy truck traffic goes on Florida's ~3% of concrete roads, because shutting down a major freight arterial constantly for asphalt maintenance kinda sucks. Edit: heck yeah, I-4. Even our most stodgy asphalt grognards think it's pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
BTW, I forgot to mention Causeway and Dale Mabry serve Port of Tampa and Port Tampa/Tampa International Airport Air Cargo, respectively. They're truck routes, so it absolutely makes sense to keep them concrete. If there are two things not hosed up about Tampa, it's the truck routes and port design. We've got a world class airport (single terminal airside-landside superiority!), a world class seaport (peninsular!) and some of the best freight routes in the country (concrete! zero grade mainline rail!). FDOT District 7, Tampa Port Authority and the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority have done a good job over the years at keeping passenger and freight traffic running smoothly. If only we had a transit grid to better fix the local/regional commuter congestion problem...
Varance fucked around with this message at 04:50 on May 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Cichlidae, question from someone who against his will is increasingly mired in civil engineering in the Southeast: what does the concrete-vs-asphalt ratio look like up where you are? Or in neighboring states, for that matter. On the surface, New England's almost entirely asphalt. However, a lot of our high-volume roads are composite pavement: asphalt on top of concrete. You can tell when driving over those because of the lateral cracks at regular intervals. Off the top of my head, I-95 in Rhode Island and the Berlin Turnpike are both built this way. Sometimes, when we do full-depth reconstruction, instead of just replacing the concrete, we reduce it to rubble (rubbleizing) and pave over it. There are a few extended stretches of road where there's a concrete top course. CT 9 in New Britain is this way, built back in the 70s. I-84 in Manchester is also concrete, built (I think) in the late 80s. They've both held up moderately well, and the occasional diamond grinding to restore the surface seems to do a good job. There are advantages and disadvantages to each side of the battle, and I discussed them (much) earlier in the thread, but now that recessed pavement markings are becoming the norm nationwide, there's one more "con" in concrete: it's a pain in the rear end to remove pavement markings on concrete. Now that we're putting them in grooves, every time we change our markings, we have to resurface. On concrete, when the surface is supposed to last 50 years, that's not gonna happen. To conclude, the asphalt lobby here is definitely very strong, and I don't see us switching to concrete anytime soon. Full disclosure: the ACPA gave me a free umbrella once.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 12:29
|
|
|
I've only ever seen a concrete road once in my life while in the US and it was horrible to drive on, I thought the car was going to vibrate it self to death. Based on that one anecdote I've declared concrete roads bad.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
I love cement when done well, but it's loving horrible when done poorly. A series of expansion joints that have lifted a little is just a minor ba-bump ba-bump ba-bump in a car, but in an unloaded heavy truck, it turns you into a pinball in the cab.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
In other news, Massachusetts is set to go to open-road tolling early next year. http://boston.com/metrodesk/2013/05/20/mass-transportation-secretary-people-are-going-need-pick-zpasses/fhhxtQAQRx5RulYGpv1zcI/story.html To which I say "Finally." This will have repercussions, though, as many turnpike interchanges were not designed for higher speed movements.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
kastein posted:I love cement when done well, but it's loving horrible when done poorly. Added bonus: those joint issues, like other roughness developments, aren't too great for vehicle operating costs. Fuel efficiency a bit, repair and maintenance of [sensitive parts of the vehicle, presumably especially the bits connected to the axle] and the tires. Not that user comfort isn't also an important factor, but it's hard to quantify and therefore confusing.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I've only ever seen a concrete road once in my life while in the US and it was horrible to drive on, I thought the car was going to vibrate it self to death. Based on that one anecdote I've declared concrete roads bad. I remember there being concrete highways when I was a kid. Then porous asphalts were applied everywhere from the mid-90s onward and the people rejoiced, for their travels were smoother, and they drove unhindered by the rains, and the Lord saw it was good.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Varance posted:The I-275 and I-4 projects are considered "Ultimate" configurations because they're built way, way, way beyond any current freeway standards and designed for megacity capacities (we're going to need that, as everything along the I-4 corridor is growing into one huge metro area). Both of them are going to give Toronto's 401 a run for its money for the title of widest road in North America (4 lanes in each direction + 3 express lanes in each direction + double lane exits and entrances that fly over each other = 22 lanes). All concrete, four city blocks wide. And to think that people here freaked out when the proposed I-5 replacement bridge was going to have twelve lanes. Dear god.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:And to think that people here freaked out when the proposed I-5 replacement bridge was going to have twelve lanes. Dear god. , so we need to compensate. Like this.ULTIMATE!  I really think the light rail was thrown in as a decoration and placeholder for more lanes. As for Orlando...  SPUI! Just like Hooters, Clearwater has the first one ever built. 
Varance fucked around with this message at 04:50 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:And to think that people here freaked out when the proposed I-5 replacement bridge was going to have twelve lanes. Dear god. Not sure if "here" is the same, but it looks like a replacement I-5 bridge is in the making. http://www.king5.com/news/local/Report-I-5-bridge-collapses-over-Skagit-River-cars-in-water-208758631.html I hope they start spending more on infrastructure repair/maintenance/upgrade  and that no one died.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
Knowing, of course, that Reddit isn't the most reliable source, here's the thread from /r/Seattle/ about it: http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1ey32g/i5_bridge_in_burlington_has_collapsed_infoupdate/ According to the updates there were no fatalities. I'm looking forward to reading the engineers report on this one.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 08:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
kastein posted:Not sure if "here" is the same, but it looks like a replacement I-5 bridge is in the making. I'm amazed at how detailed that witness' description is. Connecticut's percentage of bridges that are structurally deficient continues to grow. Despite the Governor's directive to hire more bridge inspectors, we still have a massive (and growing) backlog of maintenance memos. Fortunately, despite the structural deficiencies, we've been replacing fracture-critical bridges with more modern designs, so the consequences of a failure shouldn't be as bad as the Mianus River Bridge collapse.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 12:21
|
|