|
Having grown up in Rhode Island, I've always wondered about the Pawtucket S-Curves- why would you do that to a highway? That and the Thurber's Avenue curve- the exit/interchange itself is nice, but the heavily banked, densely packed curve is something else. Really that whole corridor is messed up... Why in general would you say New England's highways, especially Boston (oh god Boston) are like this? Is it because of the area's age/growth patterns? You mentioned in the OP it's our fault- what can we do to make it better?
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2009 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 12:06 |
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Rt 6 And how about that 6-10 connector? I've yet to hear it NOT mentioned on a traffic report. That's never a good sign... Cichlidae posted:We do some ridiculous things in the name of "retaining urban character." Maybe they put them back in just because they were there before. Keep in mind, the nature of traffic in 1871 was completely different than it is today. What things work well for horse-drawn buggies in roads without traffic signals wouldn't work at all for cars. This immediately makes me think of the cobblestone streets in Newport. Not. Car. Friendly. BadSamaritan fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jul 30, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2009 17:37
|
|
|
Yeah, in my RI test we didn't have to parallel park or nothing. I just had to meet the guy from the DMV behind a bowling alley (wtf?) and drive around a couple of side streets. Driver's ed was mind-numbingly simple, and I wish it required more critical thinking. It was terrifying knowing that some people in my class failed the test, when half of the questions were 'what does this sign mean?'. Apparently, New Hampshire doesn't require a learner's permit- 'live free or die', I guess. Anyways, have you read the book 'Traffic' by Tom Vanderbilt? It focuses more on the psychology of driving, but I'm curious about a professional opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2009 18:12
|
|
|
Why are dedicated bus lanes, especially partitioned/walled lanes, not more of a thing in US cities? They seem like a no brainer when public rail transit is at heavy capacity/underserving areas and building additional rail seems cost prohibitive. Can they effectively improve public transit and decrease solo car use? Or have there been studies that show they don’t decrease car use enough to make up for the lane they take up? (Then again, I’ve lived urban enough for long enough I’m just at ‘gently caress cars’ mentality so maybe I’m missing something here.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Devor posted:We did some cost comparisons for some projects a while back, and BRT in exclusive rights-of-way (in most spots, sharing lanes some) was really not that much cheaper than light rail (again, mostly exclusive rights-of-way with some mixing). The cost comparison is really interesting, thanks. I figured political/public inertia was the main hurdle, but I guess I underestimated costs compared to other projects. For reference I’ve lived in NYC and Boston for most of my adult life and I realize that skews my hard-line transit perspective a ton. There is definitely a generation split with how transit is viewed around here, though, so maybe wrestling pavement back from cars might get a little easier in the future.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2018 21:35
|
|