Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
devicenull
May 30, 2007



Grimey Drawer

Devor posted:

I see like 24 feet from the edge of the travel lane (which is what we would measure) if the below image is what you're talking about

It's almost certainly fine.



Ah yea, that's the right place. It's weird, they kept talking about 10ft during the zoning meeting. Seemed scary to have giant pillars 10ft off the road there.

Here's a fun nearby thing: https://goo.gl/maps/4XN1bMap9xTAQsPN8

See that lightpost on the ground? At least 50% of the time that is down... the county puts it back up, and then someone takes it out within a few weeks. I don't know what it is about that ramp!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

devicenull posted:

Ah yea, that's the right place. It's weird, they kept talking about 10ft during the zoning meeting. Seemed scary to have giant pillars 10ft off the road there.

Here's a fun nearby thing: https://goo.gl/maps/4XN1bMap9xTAQsPN8

See that lightpost on the ground? At least 50% of the time that is down... the county puts it back up, and then someone takes it out within a few weeks. I don't know what it is about that ramp!

Maybe they were discussing required minimum setbacks, or setbacks from the ROW (front property) line.

Also that light pole is "not" outside the clear zone (but it's almost certainly breakaway, and not an obstruction per the RDG). It should probably still be moved, though.

Carbon dioxide
Oct 9, 2012



"Oh no there's an obstacle next to the road"


I guess you guys have never driven in old European cities lol.

Lobsterpillar
Feb 4, 2014


There's already solid obstacles by the road: that whole row of power poles are likely to result in serious injury in the event of a runaway vehicle. They don't look particularly frangible. Ideally they'd all be set back further.

At a guess that big fencing might be privacy screening and a noise barrier - it can't be particularly quiet next to that road, and there may even be requirements for soundproofing from the local authority, depending on the nature of the development.

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

Lobsterpillar posted:

There's already solid obstacles by the road: that whole row of power poles are likely to result in serious injury in the event of a runaway vehicle. They don't look particularly frangible. Ideally they'd all be set back further.

Utility poles don't count as fixed objects under the RDG (It doesn't make sense, it's just a decision they made in the name of practicality), and they're typically set within the Right-of-Way to avoid having to purchase a utility easement where it doesn't already exist.

It doesn't mean that you can build an object that would present a hazard within the clear zone, just because there's utility poles that are closer - adding more objects makes the road less safe.

devicenull
May 30, 2007



Grimey Drawer

Devor posted:

Maybe they were discussing required minimum setbacks, or setbacks from the ROW (front property) line.

Also that light pole is "not" outside the clear zone (but it's almost certainly breakaway, and not an obstruction per the RDG). It should probably still be moved, though.

If they moved it, what would they do with the time they spend every month putting it back up?

Sage Grimm
Feb 18, 2013

Let's go explorin' little dude!


Speaking of roundabouts in places where they shouldn't be..

https://twitter.com/jimpagels/status/1380578057598214149
https://twitter.com/Yewhomstda/status/1381346409329401864

Lead out in cuffs
Sep 18, 2012

"That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."




FWIW, I don't think it even counts as a roundabout if two of the arms go straight through it. It's just a weird and overly-convoluted freeway interchange cargo-culting a roundabout.

It also looks extremely dangerous for everyone involved -- cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. It's a bit like the "before" picture for an intersection in Vancouver that was drastically realigned seven years ago to improve safety.

Before:


After:

https://goo.gl/maps/7nWGDpLGw9BGq8JW7

(Note the new bike off-street bike lanes in dark grey, and improved pedestrian paths in light grey.)

PittTheElder
Feb 13, 2012

Yes, it's like a lava lamp.



I mean it has traffic lights. That poo poo ain't no roundabout.

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

PittTheElder posted:

I mean it has traffic lights. That poo poo ain't no roundabout.

If it's not a yield-controlled circular roadway, it's not a roundabout, just a sparkling rotary

Carbon dioxide
Oct 9, 2012



Lead out in cuffs posted:

FWIW, I don't think it even counts as a roundabout if two of the arms go straight through it. It's just a weird and overly-convoluted freeway interchange cargo-culting a roundabout.

It also looks extremely dangerous for everyone involved -- cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. It's a bit like the "before" picture for an intersection in Vancouver that was drastically realigned seven years ago to improve safety.

Before:


After:

https://goo.gl/maps/7nWGDpLGw9BGq8JW7

(Note the new bike off-street bike lanes in dark grey, and improved pedestrian paths in light grey.)

That new situation looks quite decent. How are the traffic light phases? Do cyclists get their own phase/shared with pedestrians? And does it last long enough to safely cross from southeast to northwest in one go if necessary?

Lead out in cuffs
Sep 18, 2012

"That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."



Carbon dioxide posted:

That new situation looks quite decent. How are the traffic light phases? Do cyclists get their own phase/shared with pedestrians? And does it last long enough to safely cross from southeast to northwest in one go if necessary?

If I recall right, it's three-phase:

a. Cars, bikes and peds going straight north-south
b. Cars going east turning right as well as cars going south turning right, plus bikes and peds going east-west.
c. A much shorter phase just for cars going north turning left (which is one of the least common manoeuvres), with the bike/ped crossings red.

So although there's no dedicated bike/ped phase, you're never in the crosswalk/bike crossing at a time when motor traffic is trying to cross it. And it's not a long wait between phases if you do need to cross diagonally on a bike (or on foot). But also, because of the way the connections work with the bridge (one-way bike lanes on either side, two-way pedestrian sidewalk on either side), most people on bikes or on foot only need to cross one arm to get where they're going.

It's a very elegant bit of engineering, but a bit of a unicorn situation that allowed them to do that.

Carbon dioxide
Oct 9, 2012



Sounds like b gives a conflict here?



That doesn't HAVE to be a problem.This happens a lot on quieter intersections in the Netherlands. But in those cases this is resolved by
- Clear signage
- Giving bikes priority
- Putting the bike stop line far enough forward so that drivers coming from the east see directly if any bikes are waiting to cross, and so that bikes have a little headstart so cars have no choice but to wait for them. (this seems to be done correctly here)
- Giving cars enough space to line up past their green light but just before the bicycle crossing, and a few seconds extra before the next phase starts, so they can clear out of the intersection if passing bicycles take up the entire phase.
- And, perhaps most importantly: drivers knowing that this is a common setup and that these are the rules.

Because of that last point I don't think this is such a good idea to build just the one intersection like this in Canada.

Carbon dioxide fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Apr 13, 2021

Lead out in cuffs
Sep 18, 2012

"That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."



Carbon dioxide posted:

Sounds like b gives a conflict here?



That doesn't HAVE to be a problem.This happens a lot on quieter intersections in the Netherlands. But in those cases this is resolved by
- Clear signage
- Giving bikes priority
- Putting the bike stop line far enough forward so that drivers coming from the east see directly if any bikes are waiting to cross, and so that bikes have a little headstart so cars have no choice but to wait for them. (this seems to be done correctly here)
- Giving cars enough space to line up past their green light but just before the bicycle crossing, and a few seconds extra before the next phase starts, so they can clear out of the intersection if passing bicycles take up the entire phase.
- And, perhaps most importantly: drivers knowing that this is a common setup and that these are the rules.

Because of that last point I don't think this is such a good idea to build just the one intersection like this in Canada.

Oh yeah pretty sure that turn happens as part of phase c not b. It's basically the parallel of the other turn. As I said, I'm going by memory - it's been a little while since I biked that way.

And it would be great if our local traffic engineers (and legislators) would follow the Dutch example. Most intersections there's no accommodation at all other than some green paint.

Lobsterpillar
Feb 4, 2014


Carbon dioxide posted:

Sounds like b gives a conflict here?



That doesn't HAVE to be a problem.This happens a lot on quieter intersections in the Netherlands. But in those cases this is resolved by
- Clear signage
- Giving bikes priority
- Putting the bike stop line far enough forward so that drivers coming from the east see directly if any bikes are waiting to cross, and so that bikes have a little headstart so cars have no choice but to wait for them. (this seems to be done correctly here)
- Giving cars enough space to line up past their green light but just before the bicycle crossing, and a few seconds extra before the next phase starts, so they can clear out of the intersection if passing bicycles take up the entire phase.
- And, perhaps most importantly: drivers knowing that this is a common setup and that these are the rules.

Because of that last point I don't think this is such a good idea to build just the one intersection like this in Canada.

The Aus/NZ solution would be all of the above, but give cars a red arrow whenever the ped/cycle phase is triggered.


Re: green paint: sometimes it's not paint (sometimes it is), but sometimes it's a coloured surface that has done thickness to it. This tends to last longer than paint, particularly at intersections if vehicles travel over it (like they may do for hook turn boxes). It's also a lot more expensive.

Greg12
Apr 22, 2020


I love living in a town with a separated bike lane and getting to see all the right-hookings that anyone who's actually been on a bicycle would expect

bicycle safety infrastructure should maybe be designed with people who ride bikes instead of by people who haven't since they were 10, but who took a trip to delft last summer

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

asur
Dec 28, 2012


Lobsterpillar posted:

The Aus/NZ solution would be all of the above, but give cars a red arrow whenever the ped/cycle phase is triggered.

San Francisco is doing a bunch of these now. Is there data that it actually improves safety in the US? As a cyclist, it seems worse because I'm suppose to be able to assume that cars won't turn right when I have a green light, but anecdotally the number of cars that illegally turn is very high. Previously the bike lane and right turn lane would switch positions and drivers seemed to have a better understanding how to navigate and yield to cyclists.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply