|
EoRaptor posted:So this got proposed. Fully-separated bikepaths like these seem to work best when given two different roles: either as a trunk route that carries cyclists to and from major destinations and connects to an already-established network, or as more of a recreational trail. Obviously, this plan is meant to be the former. It could very well end up as a benefit, depending on how well it's designed. The placement of exits is very important, since having to backtrack several blocks in order to reach your intended street is never fun. Making sure that grades on said exits are kept to a minimum is also important, since it takes more effort to pedal up a hill than it would be to drive. If they get those aspects right, and improve London's surface-street bike routes, then this could be a great thing for the city to have.  fake edit: Are the trains that run on those lines electrified, though? If they're diesel, then their exhaust is probably not something that people should be breathing in as they engage in moderate cardiovascular exercise.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 09:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
Opals25 posted:Ok, so I just saw this for the first time, but wtf is going on here! a stack interchange built before directional flyovers. There were several interchanges designed like that along 495 and 95 around DC. Plus there does not appear to be enough room either to upgrade to a big stack.. will_colorado fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Dec 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 10:09
|
|
|
Opals25 posted:Ok, so I just saw this for the first time, but wtf is going on here! Varance fucked around with this message at 12:32 on Dec 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 12:14
|
|
|
People have been talking locally about approval just happening for a third Cape Cod Canal Road Bridge. Where can I find out if that's true and where it's going and all that? Seems like a horrible idea. Googling just talks about discussions for a new bridge adjacent the Sagamore and each one taking one direction of traffic. Curious if that's it or if there's a public resource of approved poo poo somewhere. Either way, what a horrible idea, even if you had 10 lanes each way across the bridge you're still dumping people onto lovely, 55mph 2 lane each way Rt 6 which closes to 1 land each way further down. It feels like the problem is the bottom of a funnel, and the solution is a bigger top of the funnel will solve everything. Elendil004 fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Dec 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
The Bourne and Sagamore bridges are both getting up there in age as well. I would imagine that discussion would be going on for their replacement regardless of expansion concerns. What you might be thinking of is the Southside Connector extension of MA-25, which comes and goes as a proposal now and then. I haven't heard anything about any actual projects going into motion beyond a design phase. Double-spanning the Sagamore would make good sense from a safety standpoint. Both for evacuation and traffic safety. But you would have to 3-lane route 6 at least to Chatham, and the people on the Cape would rather spite anyone who doesn't live there year round than work to relieve traffic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:People have been talking locally about approval just happening for a third Cape Cod Canal Road Bridge. Where can I find out if that's true and where it's going and all that? Seems like a horrible idea. I don't know why more people don't just take the tunnel. You need to get a Resident Pass, but they're pretty cheap online. For real, though, the traffic going to the Cape isn't going to get any better. The residents don't want any additional traffic, and will shoot down any capacity improvements. EoRaptor posted:So this got proposed. If you build it, they will come! You can't build your way out of bike congestion! Not in my backyard! Will Skycycles be the next freeways? Am I going to have to dig through plans in 60 years to try to fix them? ~Speaking of which~ Let's look at the original I-84 plans through downtown Hartford! You probably already know that the current roadway sucks, but the original plan was even worse. Before 1990, most movements between I-91 and I-84 had to be made via local roads. The Asylum St ramps weren't built until around that time, either, nor were the ghost ramps to I-484 removed. There was also a trio of ramps between Broad Street and I-84 EB/WB that was removed a few decades ago (and replaced by the current Broad Street on-ramp). What you may not know is that there were three ramps in Hartford that were in the construction plans, but were never built. One touched down on Asylum Street right in front of Union Station (across from today's ramps), pulled a sharp U, and merged into the left side of I-84 WB roughly 150 feet before the left-hand exit to I-484. This explains why the westbound barrel is a good 20 feet below the eastbound barrel in this area. The other two unbuilt ramps would have added a partial interchange at Park Street. Think of them as a counterpart to the Flatbush Ave interchange. The irony of it is that the Park Street ramps were probably canceled because the adjacent interchanges would've provided full access to other local roads. Neither of those two interchanges was ever completed. The original plans are really awful. Don't take my word for it, though!  Easy: Find a railroad track! (Hint: T) Hard: Figure out which pairs of rails go together! SUPER ENGINEER BONUS: This is the only profile plan for the Aetna Viaduct. Now go build it.  In order to minimize paper use or something (probably since everything was hand-drafted), the plans were ridiculously busy. Multiple profiles on one plan, as seen above, everything just slapped on top of each other, and almost no hard reference points. "Hey, where do I install this catch basin?" "Uhhh... halfway between SHED and BLDG." While you have the picture blown up, take a look at the construction notes in the lower right corner. "FILL EXISTING RIVER."  Like I said, these were all drafted by hand. When you get to the bottom corner of a plan that's taken you weeks, and you spill the ink, sometimes you just have to mop it up and pretend it didn't happen. The adjacent pages are all inky, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
I know the one thing cyclists love is having to ride up loving 3 story hills every time they want to start a trip. What the gently caress are they thinking, one of the best parts of cycling is having a speed close to a vehicle, but with the almost total flexibility of a pedestrian. Cycling infrastructure needs to be right there on the ground where you can get on and off it easily not unlike getting on and off a sidewalk as a pedestrian.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I know the one thing cyclists love is having to ride up loving 3 story hills every time they want to start a trip. What the gently caress are they thinking, one of the best parts of cycling is having a speed close to a vehicle, but with the almost total flexibility of a pedestrian. Cycling infrastructure needs to be right there on the ground where you can get on and off it easily not unlike getting on and off a sidewalk as a pedestrian. Why would you have to ride up? You can just walk, and walking up that isn't exactly a problem. And since these are over naturally very slow elevation change rail lines once you're up there you'll have even less elevation change to deal with then you'd have on paralelling roads and such.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Why would you have to ride up? You can just walk, and walking up that isn't exactly a problem. And since these are over naturally very slow elevation change rail lines once you're up there you'll have even less elevation change to deal with then you'd have on paralelling roads and such. Bike trays!  I'm guessing there will also be elevators for handicapped people, or people who don't feel compfortable walking their bike up/down. Ramps don't seem like they would be practical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Devor posted:Bike trays! that looks like effort https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j1PgmMbug8
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I don't know why more people don't just take the tunnel. You need to get a Resident Pass, but they're pretty cheap online. Word on the street is that the Governor said "build it" and has been shoving it though approvals. I have no idea if this is true and reeks of lies since that doesn't seem like a think the Governor can do, but who knows...either way, even a 10 lane bridge wont help if they're dumping people onto poor infrastructure. The tunnel? Nah...I've always had a Jump Permit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:that looks like effort How about we just hire some big guys to carry us around on their backs like the giant babies we are
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:that looks like effort Oh my god it's like a ski lift for bikes! I would ride that thing just for the hell of it, so I could go right back down the street, then right back up 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
I want bike lifts everywhere   [note: The two flyover lanes (outer lanes) were the newly built ones, along with offramps at those intersections] So this project happened in Melbourne a few years ago (2008-2010) and I just came across a nice tiltshift photo of the intersection today. Google maps still has it as under construction but street view has it completed. https://www.google.com.au/maps/preview?hl=en#!data=!1m4!1m3!1d493!2d144.9475409!3d-37.8263035!2m1!1e3&fid=7 It makes driving quite easier, with destinations separates by lanes, although you have to be in the correct lane a kilometer or three early for some exits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Gate_Freeway#2008_Upgrade The difficulty is that there are two toll roads at either end,m one bridge going north towards the airport and then the two tunnels in the east.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Some good news for my Salem roundabout project: http://www.theday.com/article/20140106/NWS01/301069975/1017#.UsqS2B1KZWQ.email Salem - Although some people still express trepidation about the roundabout that came to Salem Four Corners in late 2012, traffic data indicates that the new pattern has fulfilled its promise of making the busy intersection safer. There has not been a single car accident with injuries at the intersection of Routes 82 and 85 since the construction on the roundabout began, according to data from state police. The roundabout "might be one of our most successful projects ever," said Will Britnell, principal engineer at the Connecticut Department of Transportation. The old intersection was averaging around 24 crashes a year, nine of which resulted in injuries, said Britnell. There was also a fatal accident at the location.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Good work, you're saving lives!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
So you're saying that none of the fatalities at the roundabout have been reported. Roundabouts: the Silent Killer
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Down with Cichlidaecare. He said we could keep our intersections 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:that looks like effort The fact that there aren't any more of these in existence is quite sad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Man there was a video compilation of mostly american tourists trying to use that thing and failing amazingly but I can't find it. It's tricky to use the first time. I live somewhere pretty hilly which makes riding a bike sort of lovely sometimes and so wish we had some things like this. But I just can't see it ever happening, not for the cost but just all the bullshit lawsuit culture we have here. Someone sticks their finger in the rut and turns it on. Someone ties their dick to it. Someone rips their rear end off trying to sit on it. Europe for some reason seems to get away with a lot more cool infrastructure that we just can't handle over here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Eh from what I can tell it's a bit of a one-off gimmick right now, infrastructure is at its most successful when it's ubiquitous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Working on the most realistic VISSIM model New England has ever seen.  ... EVER.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Working on the most realistic VISSIM model New England has ever seen. Are those unused ramp stubs, or intentional cop lying-in-wait places?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
This ramp is a stub. You can help Connecticut by expanding it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:Are those unused ramp stubs, or intentional cop lying-in-wait places? So many ramp stubs! http://goo.gl/maps/15FvX (You need to disable the 45 degree view to see the cop.) Edit: I think this was supposed to be for this, which doesn't really seem like a necessary road: http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/woodsriver.html smackfu fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Jan 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
smackfu posted:So many ramp stubs! That was an original plan for the corridor, but the ramps were specifically built for Route 9 (and later Route 189). The original plans showing that stretch of Route 9 carrying as much traffic as I-84 through downtown, which is why they're all direct ramps. I need to edit the cop car models to put a tiny Dunkin Donuts cup inside. That'll be a cute little Easter egg, but I'll have to deal with "ERROR: 3Dmodel not does matchin with 3Dmodel" every time I load the file.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:This ramp is a stub. You can help Connecticut by expanding it. Bravo  Looking good so far, Cichlidae
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
I don't guess the professionals here will learn anything from this video, but the rest of us might enjoy this piece of highway philosophy. "How to break up stop-and-go traffic" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGFqfTCL2fs
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
I remember that vid being posted here half a year ago or so. The consensus was that this 'idea' won't help at all, but in a lot of cases it makes things worse because traffic gets horribly clogged behind you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
The best thing you can do is to deftly take a detour route around the issue if at all possible, reducing the overall load on the congested roadway slightly. I do wonder sometimes how the rise of average drivers knowing where the traffic is combined with access to an easy way to find alternate routes, both from high end GPSes as well as smartphones, has changed the way traffic affects roads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:traffic gets horribly clogged behind you. That seems counterintuitive. Why does traffic behind a car doing 5mph clog up worse than behind a car doing 10 mph then 0 mph then 10 mph then 0 mph etc.?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
I usually drive the same way that the guy in the video does, and it works well at converting stop-and-go traffic into a constant speed. It reduces the number of drivers that are changing lanes, as well as the reaction time dedicated to stopping and starting, and discourages accidents. All of which serve to increase overall traffic speeds. It also has the side benefit of increasing your gas mileage and saving your brakes (and that of everyone else on the road with you).
Kaal fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
I do it too, just because driving a standard transmission in stop and go traffic is awful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 00:05
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
This is why I hate driving outside of the city. Detour up ahead? Just go down the next block. Traffic hosed? Just go around it. On a highway? Oops you're stuck until the next exit 3km down the highway. Highway actually blocked? Enjoy sitting there for hours! No flexibility, no robustness. Grids4life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:This is why I hate driving outside of the city. Detour up ahead? Just go down the next block. Traffic hosed? Just go around it. On a highway? Oops you're stuck until the next exit 3km down the highway. Highway actually blocked? Enjoy sitting there for hours! No flexibility, no robustness. Grids4life. That's more because Canada isn't very developed outside the cities. Most places in America you'll have one or two paralleling older routes close by a freeway that you can dodge out to if something's blocked up. And even when the place you're going only has a surface highway, there'll usually be a lower hierarchy route that's fast enough to beat sitting through 6 miles of stopped traffic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
What you mean not everywhere has every city connected by a single highway without even back-roads or anything to detour on because it's going through such rugged terrain and said rugged terrain mixed with idiot drivers seem to produce weekly accidents that shuts the whole rout down for hours or longer??? Although even on a well connected highway, you still need to go like 1+ km to the next exit and if poo poo is a stand-still that can be a very very long time. You can't just pull a U-turn on a highway and go back the way you came a block.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
You also can't just pull a u-turn on a clogged up city street and expect to get around either...
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:This is why I hate driving outside of the city. Detour up ahead? Just go down the next block. Traffic hosed? Just go around it. On a highway? Oops you're stuck until the next exit 3km down the highway. Highway actually blocked? Enjoy sitting there for hours! No flexibility, no robustness. Grids4life. The most important part of this post is that everyone should build square grids.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:You also can't just pull a u-turn on a clogged up city street and expect to get around either... Sure you can, just honk harder. I have seen lots of times when travelling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:52 |
|
|
Mandalay posted:The most important part of this post is that everyone should build square grids. gently caress your square grid bullshit.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 00:38
|
|
