|
Kaal posted:Pretty much this. Also, this problem is pretty much part and parcel with the problems of sprawl - so establish commercial districts and urban growth boundaries and halt annexations. Alternatively, start testifying at manslaughter trials that the business' refusal to install necessary traffic improvements constitutes partial negligence. Exactly this. Sprawl won't be stopped by happy bike lanes and appeals to walkability, it's only going to be stopped when it's economic unsustainability is jammed in people's faces.
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:06 |
|
|
Oh, alternatively your department could try optioning a municipal levy to voters, with a full-court press media workup saying that this levy is for cost-saving system upgrades that will save the public tens of millions of dollars over the next 20 years. This kind of targeted fundraising can often be more effective than attempting to increase departmental budgets wholesale.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
CT already has the 3rd highest gas taxes, behind CA and NY, and just raised them another 3.6 cents in August. The government here is just notorious for spending them on non-transportation uses, especially when gas prices spike and there's "extra" money vs. what was projected. And even when it's transportation, there's a lot of under-maintained commuter trains in CT that can always use a lot of funding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
The ultimate (moral) failing lies with government here: they have massively divested from their spatial and infrastructural responsibilities, and business has to take up the slack. Even when it can't necessarily carry these newly internalized costs!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
While I agree that we need to tax the poo poo out of everyone and build a socialist utopia, the correct answer is to reevaluate your cutoff so that it tells you to build left turn lanes roughly where you were before. Can't rock the boat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Pretty much this. Also, this problem is pretty much part and parcel with the problems of sprawl - so establish commercial districts and urban growth boundaries and halt annexations. Alternatively, start testifying at manslaughter trials that the business' refusal to install necessary traffic improvements constitutes partial negligence. Getting a constructive dismissal sounds like a great way to fight the system. So, the current scheme right now is woefully inadequate, but doing it correctly is politically unfeasible. This actually sounds like infrastructure in a nutshell. Realistically, I'm sure that there are many things that you could be doing right now that would make things safer, and which would have a net negative cost, but which cost money RIGHT NOW and therefor won't be done. Short of convincing the state to go bond crazy, I don't think there's a lot you can really do. Since there's no way you can get to the standards that you WANT, can you at least recommend an improved standard as a compromise? Rather than requiring 100 vehicles per hour to warrant a lane, or whatever the current volume is, can you make it 90, or 80? Publish your recommendation that it be 10 so that you can wave that around when you want to, but push to the legislature for a much higher number. You may not be able to get mom & pop stores to pay, but you might be able to get a TGIF required to have a lane. Realistically, I'd say make friends with a Poli Sci professor somewhere, and take him out for drinks every time you have a political issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
(E: Woah, I didn't read to the end before replying. sorry if I'm repeating what everyone said) Tricky. Consider who will be recieving the recommendation, if you recommend the progressive option but the Governor or whoever nixes it on ground of short term cost, the report could be used to support for further attempts at a later date. 'This was recommended but the last guy couldn't do it at the time'. If the extra lanes are approved, might the expense cause greater lapses in safety due to neglect of other areas? Are other states adopting it? if others are finding it worthwhile, it might be easier to make a case for it. If you do find yourself forced to do the third option can you compromise and recommend staying the course until such time as funding is more available? Frankly if this decision has such wide reaching consequences why is a mid-level traffic engineer taking it? It may be that you can recommend the progressive option and the real decision-makers will ,er, make the decision. Jaguars! fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Oct 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Cichlidae, what is the deal with trucks running into bridges? I imagine most highway bridges are high enough that it doesn't matter, but people being unaware of their vehicle size just going to keep being a problem unless this somewhat extreme solution can be installed at every bridge ever?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 06:44
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Cichlidae, what is the deal with trucks running into bridges? I imagine most highway bridges are high enough that it doesn't matter, but people being unaware of their vehicle size just going to keep being a problem unless this somewhat extreme solution can be installed at every bridge ever? That bridge is very old and was built when there were no clearance minimums. Overtime this should happen less and less since we have those minimums now. And yep, there's a lot of ignorance about how tall your own vehicle is. It's not something people think about much. For that particular bridge there probably isn't an easy to to fix it since raising railroad grades is a long process since it has to cover such a vast distance to get it to work - very pricy and time consuming. The 11foot8 page also says there's a sewer at an almost minimum depth just under the roadway which would also take a lot of cost to fix, and require either installing a force main/pump to move it or completely redoing the grades of the gravity sewer on one side of it - it's never as simple as just make the span deeper.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 13:56
|
|
|
Sloober posted:That bridge is very old and was built when there were no clearance minimums. Overtime this should happen less and less since we have those minimums now. And yep, there's a lot of ignorance about how tall your own vehicle is. It's not something people think about much. For that particular bridge there probably isn't an easy to to fix it since raising railroad grades is a long process since it has to cover such a vast distance to get it to work - very pricy and time consuming. The 11foot8 page also says there's a sewer at an almost minimum depth just under the roadway which would also take a lot of cost to fix, and require either installing a force main/pump to move it or completely redoing the grades of the gravity sewer on one side of it - it's never as simple as just make the span deeper. Yeah, the part of Durham its at is right in the middle of the old warehouse district -- and the bridge is probably about as old as it -- so good luck getting anything done to it. In that area, the tracks are raise up above street level for a good bit, and stuff built along them would probably get in the way of raising them more (which would also screw up the parts on either end that are at ground level). To be slightly fair, the bridge can sneak up on you; the first set of signs about the height are right at an intersection and could be easy to miss, and you don't get another warning until you're right at the bridge. I wouldn't be surprised if those videos are mostly of people not familiar with that area, and aren't expecting to have to worry about height.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
Yeah, here's the FAQ, which covers most questions: http://11foot8.com/faq/ The crashes are impressive on video, but it doesn't look like there are any injuries, so the cost/benefit probably doesn't work out very well if it's only once a month. Especially when you would have the railroad protesting any shutdown of their tracks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That third option is probably what's going to happen, and honestly, I think it's the worst of the three. At least the other two save lives. Help me folks, what do I do?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Honestly they should probably just barricade it off to through traffic or something. I don't think it's really that essential to have that crossing right there and if they really need extra capacity they should make a level crossing further up the road from the level crossing thats a block away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Honestly they should probably just barricade it off to through traffic or something. I don't think it's really that essential to have that crossing right there and if they really need extra capacity they should make a level crossing further up the road from the level crossing thats a block away. I was going to say the same thing. If your bridge is totalling a truck once a month and you can't afford to fix it, close the road. And I can't believe that they don't have an overhead clearance bar. There's a similar bridge in my area - but it's no big deal because they set up a clearance bar ahead of the detour. That thing is a deathtrap in comparison. It's all fun and games when a rental truck hits the bridge and strips the roof off, but eventually it'll be someone carrying hazardous materials and ends up dead. Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Oct 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
I love the one where a truck hits the bridge then a taller truck follows and hits the bridge as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Honestly they should probably just barricade it off to through traffic or something. I don't think it's really that essential to have that crossing right there and if they really need extra capacity they should make a level crossing further up the road from the level crossing thats a block away. Speaking as someone that drives under this very bridge at least once a week, yeah, no. It's north-bound partner (also one-way) has a level crossing, but this road it a bit lower, and since everything around it is built at that level you can't lift it, and you can't close it because it's a not-insignificant road and there's no place to route around it. Here's where we're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
They installed a steel bar just in front of the bridge, so trucks drive into that instead of into the bridge. That way the bridge doesn't get damaged as often and the railway can keep functioning. Also, the 11foot8.com FAQ notes that supply trucks need to reach the side street right before the bridge, and closing off streets would make businesses unhappy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
smackfu posted:CT already has the 3rd highest gas taxes, behind CA and NY, and just raised them another 3.6 cents in August. The government here is just notorious for spending them on non-transportation uses, especially when gas prices spike and there's "extra" money vs. what was projected. And even when it's transportation, there's a lot of under-maintained commuter trains in CT that can always use a lot of funding. The 3rd highest gas taxes in the country with gas taxes about a fifth of what they are on average in other OECD countries are still not very high. That said, low gas taxes seems to be almost sacred in US politics, and woe betide any who try to raise them. Cichlidae posted:That third option is probably what's going to happen, and honestly, I think it's the worst of the three. At least the other two save lives. Help me folks, what do I do? Eh, one of your issues is that the benefit is a future externality (unless the entire $8 million is borne by the state government), while the cost is immediate and direct. That all said, if the crappy decision gets made (which if it is a case of immediate cost vs externalities is a near-certainty given modern US politics), and you feel really strongly about it (and brave), you could try going to the press anonymously. You have some pretty choice sound bites there (e.g. the value of life in Connecticut). Or you could use those choice sound bites on the politicians above you who will be making the decisions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:Speaking as someone that drives under this very bridge at least once a week, yeah, no. It's north-bound partner (also one-way) has a level crossing, but this road it a bit lower, and since everything around it is built at that level you can't lift it, and you can't close it because it's a not-insignificant road and there's no place to route around it. It looks to me like it'd be pretty doable to close the road at Peabody and then extend Wilkerson to Buchanon. But at the very least they should be hanging chains and a clearance bar in the block ahead of the bridge. Not doing that is a negligent waste of taxpayer dollars. The chains don't damage the trucks, and it looks like the supply trucks would be perfectly capable of avoiding them anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It looks to me like it'd be pretty doable to close the road at Peabody and then extend Wilkerson to Buchanon. But at the very least they should be hanging chains and a clearance bar in the block ahead of the bridge. Not doing that is a negligent waste of taxpayer dollars. The chains don't damage the trucks, and it looks like the supply trucks would be perfectly capable of avoiding them anyway. Extending wilkerson will make it go straight through a building, so probably not an ideal fix. It would be more likely/possible to extend pettigrew through the property as it's already basically a driveway. But again you would have to acquire the land there in order to do it - the bus company that seems to be there presently probably wouldn't like that. The headache of acquiring right of way through a developed property is also not entirely inconsequential.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
One easy "fix" would be to add a stop sign at the crossing right before the bridge. That would really slow down the trucks, then other options would be more feasible, like putting chains right before the bridge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It looks to me like it'd be pretty doable to close the road at Peabody and then extend Wilkerson to Buchanon. But then you're routing all of the Gregson traffic that's going through down an already-busy Main St (one-lane each direction), down Buchanan (one-lane each way and rough), and then turning a glorified driveway into a real road. All to solve a "problem" that, while it happens more than it should, isn't very common. Seems to tie in nicely to Cichlidae's B/C conundrum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:But then you're routing all of the Gregson traffic that's going through down an already-busy Main St (one-lane each direction), down Buchanan (one-lane each way and rough), and then turning a glorified driveway into a real road. All to solve a "problem" that, while it happens more than it should, isn't very common. Seems to tie in nicely to Cichlidae's B/C conundrum. Rerouting isn't really the answer here, nor is digging the road deeper, since the dip under would require additional storm drainage and the systems nearby may be too shallow to allow a connection to that point. More warnings or education is really the only thing that won't suck up vast quantities of dollars. e; oops! Sloober fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Oct 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:But then you're routing all of the Gregson traffic that's going through down an already-busy Main St (one-lane each direction), down Buchanan (one-lane each way and rough), and then turning a glorified driveway into a real road. All to solve a "problem" that, while it happens more than it should, isn't very common. Seems to tie in nicely to Cichlidae's B/C conundrum. You've got that Gregson traffic blocked on a regular basis by dumbasses in too tall vehicles in the first place. The road should be blocked off to anything that isn't local traffic at that bridge, possibly by just dumping some spare jersey barrier segments in there to turn it into something you have to drive carefully around and the tall vehicles wouldn't fit. Carbon dioxide posted:They installed a steel bar just in front of the bridge, so trucks drive into that instead of into the bridge. That way the bridge doesn't get damaged as often and the railway can keep functioning. Supply trucks that can't go through it. So closing that stretch of road, the part under the bridge, wouldn't affect them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Why not add a sensor that scans for truck height, and flashes "WARNING YOU ARE GREATER THAN 11 FOOT 8 TURN AT NEXT STREET!" At a nearby low intersection in Newport News, they have a similar function to prevent trucks from slamming into the highway overpass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:Why not add a sensor that scans for truck height, and flashes "WARNING YOU ARE GREATER THAN 11 FOOT 8 TURN AT NEXT STREET!" At a nearby low intersection in Newport News, they have a similar function to prevent trucks from slamming into the highway overpass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
Or better yet a scanner that activates a water-curtain that displays a giant stop-sign projected on it !! /\ gently caress you!! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
Found it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoTMC-uxJoo
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:Why not add a sensor that scans for truck height, and flashes "WARNING YOU ARE GREATER THAN 11 FOOT 8 TURN AT NEXT STREET!" At a nearby low intersection in Newport News, they have a similar function to prevent trucks from slamming into the highway overpass. It sounds like they have one of those, but it doesn't sound like it's adequate. You really need to put something there for the driver to run into, because otherwise it's easy to be confused about whether the lights apply to you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:Why not add a sensor that scans for truck height, and flashes "WARNING YOU ARE GREATER THAN 11 FOOT 8 TURN AT NEXT STREET!" At a nearby low intersection in Newport News, they have a similar function to prevent trucks from slamming into the highway overpass. If you check out the street view on the spot, they actually do have one. Just people not paying attention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:Why not add a sensor that scans for truck height, and flashes "WARNING YOU ARE GREATER THAN 11 FOOT 8 TURN AT NEXT STREET!" At a nearby low intersection in Newport News, they have a similar function to prevent trucks from slamming into the highway overpass. Also known as "Making an artificial concrete barrier of that height for the truck to slam into well before the bridge," which I think was mentioned is now also present.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Also known as "Making an artificial concrete barrier of that height for the truck to slam into well before the bridge," which I think was mentioned is now also present. Yeah, a mall where my wife used to work had this very solid metal arch/gate thing at the driveway into the mall's loading dock because if a truck was over that height it had a good chance of seriously damaging the roof. When dealing with truckers sometimes you have to get violent like that, flashing lights, things bumping their roof, not enough for a dude who hasn't slept for 24 hours and is all hopped up on what ever the gently caress drugs truckers use these days. You have to physically stop their trucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Sorry I've been so busy, folks. Work's exploding, people are moving up and out of Traffic, and those of us who are left have to deal with increased workloads.grover posted:If left turns on those roads are so dangerous, could ban left turns completely and replace them with protected u-turn lefts? Lot of streets in my area are this way; I've gotten used to having to make u-turns to get into local businesses. This would be on literally every road, mostly two-lane rural roads in the middle of nowhere. We'd have a harder time finding room for a U-turn crescent than a few feet of widening for a left turn lane. Lead out in cuffs posted:The 3rd highest gas taxes in the country with gas taxes about a fifth of what they are on average in other OECD countries are still not very high. That said, low gas taxes seems to be almost sacred in US politics, and woe betide any who try to raise them. Believe me, I'm all for raising them exponentially. It'd help us in the long run, which is exactly where engineers should be looking. Politicians only care about looking good 2-4 years out. Lead out in cuffs posted:Eh, one of your issues is that the benefit is a future externality (unless the entire $8 million is borne by the state government), while the cost is immediate and direct. That all said, if the crappy decision gets made (which if it is a case of immediate cost vs externalities is a near-certainty given modern US politics), and you feel really strongly about it (and brave), you could try going to the press anonymously. You have some pretty choice sound bites there (e.g. the value of life in Connecticut). It is an externality - that $8M is borne by society at large. If nobody pays for it, everyone suffers. We have no problem spending tens of billions to wiretap the world in the hopes of eventually saving a few lives that would've been killed by terrorists, but we could save hundreds of thousands of lives every few years for the same amount of money. The whole thing is really sickening... There's no point in going to politicians. Honestly, I'm thinking I might change fields. I tried contacting the media before about ethics, and they didn't even get back to me. I'll at least transfer out of Traffic and into Highways or Project Concepts. This ship is sinking, and it's time to get out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
The correct answer is: "most people are too self-absorbed to care enough to do something." Unless it's something like a 3 hour daily snarl commute, the average person simply does not care enough for anything to happen. The media knows this and isn't going to devote resources toward covering it. I'm getting really tired of going to community outreach meetings, only for it to be the same dozen or so people every time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
A couple pages ago people were talking about a monument in a grassy area in the middle of a road. That doesn't come close to what we used to have in North Andover, MA. We had a loving concrete horse trough from the late 1800s literally in the street freestanding. The Google Maps view is too recent to see it because they moved it after like 25 years this past summer, but here's a picture of where it was (the blacktop is where the base was mounted): And here's what the actual bastard looks like in it's new spot:  I used to wonder how nobody would come flying down that street right into it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
That seems insane. Did it have any reflectors or anything on it? How was it not hit like weekly at night?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
No reflectors, and no idea. The only thing I can think of is that the building in the background used to be the police station. Maybe people went slow enough by there to not hit it? I have no clue. It WAS insane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:It is an externality - that $8M is borne by society at large. If nobody pays for it, everyone suffers. We have no problem spending tens of billions to wiretap the world in the hopes of eventually saving a few lives that would've been killed by terrorists, but we could save hundreds of thousands of lives every few years for the same amount of money. The whole thing is really sickening... thewaronterror.txt There's a seriously weird thing that goes on in people's minds where they don't feel particularly afraid of dying in a car accident but do feel very afraid of dying in a terrorist bombing, even though the probability of the former is at least 2-3 orders of magnitude higher than the latter. Cichlidae posted:There's no point in going to politicians. Honestly, I'm thinking I might change fields. I tried contacting the media before about ethics, and they didn't even get back to me. I'll at least transfer out of Traffic and into Highways or Project Concepts. This ship is sinking, and it's time to get out. This probably won't make you feel better, but about 6 months ago somebody posted a poll in DnD which asked US citizens to decide which (non-military) government service they absolutely would not cut funding to. The options were social security, medicare/medicaid, education, and infrastructure. Guess which came out the lowest? By contrast, when I visited Sweden in the summer, they had a shitload of road infrastructure, and it was all immaculately kept, with fresh asphalt and nary a pothole to be seen. You live and work in a country where bridges sometimes have to actually fall down before money is allocated to maintaining them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
On a happier note, the City of Vancouver recently completed work on a major road crossing on my bike route, and did a really great job: One of the biggest conflicts on these kinds of intersections are between cyclists waiting on the right to go straight and motorists wanting to turn right (and only needing to wait for one lane of traffic to do so). By only allowing motorists to turn right, and creating a dedicated lane for cyclists going straight (with a push button on a central pole, rather than on the right), this conflict is eliminated. I'm really pleased with how they did this, and I really hope they adopt this design elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:06 |
|
|
Is that really a source of conflict? Cyclists are flexible, when you see that a car has their right turning signal on, you can go wait on the left side instead to avoid getting in the way. That's how people do it in the Netherlands anyway. It seems like blocking the way for motorists going in any other direction is creating a bigger problem than it solves...
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2013 23:33
|
|