|
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 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!
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2021 23:43 |
|
|
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. 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.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 01:06
|
|
|
"Oh no there's an obstacle next to the road" I guess you guys have never driven in old European cities lol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 06:38
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 08:11
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 13:17
|
|
|
Devor posted:Maybe they were discussing required minimum setbacks, or setbacks from the ROW (front property) line. If they moved it, what would they do with the time they spend every month putting it back up?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 23:35
|
|
|
Speaking of roundabouts in places where they shouldn't be.. https://twitter.com/jimpagels/status/1380578057598214149 https://twitter.com/Yewhomstda/status/1381346409329401864
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 14:47
|
|
|
Sage Grimm posted:Speaking of roundabouts in places where they shouldn't be.. 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.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 18:04
|
|
|
I mean it has traffic lights. That poo poo ain't no roundabout.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 18:16
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
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
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
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. 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?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 02:15
|
|
|
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 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 06:38
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Sounds like b gives a conflict here? 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.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 07:19
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Sounds like b gives a conflict here? 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.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 10:12
|
|
|
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
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2021 23:43 |
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 15:36
|
|