Ask me about being a Traffic Engineer!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask me about being a Traffic Engineer!

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Cichlidae posted:

I'm betting it's Breezewood, Pennsylvania. Smallest control city in the whole country.

Breezewood, city of motels! The turnpike passes by, but the problem is with the connection with I70. Instead of putting in proper ramps on I-70 directly to the toll booths, they just dead-ended it onto the main street in Breezewood, forcing all travellers between the two freeways to run the gauntlet of gas stations and hotels. Breezewood is quite proud of it, too, and has billboards up all over PA advertising it.

Quoth wikipedia, it was built that way because of some stupid-rear end technicality in federal funding laws:

wikipedia posted:

I-70 uses a surface road (part of US 30) with at-grade intersections to connect the freeway heading south to Hancock, Maryland with the ramp to I-76, which through this section is the Pennsylvania Turnpike toll road. According to the Federal Highway Administration, a division of the United States Department of Transportation, the peculiar arrangement at Breezewood resulted from a combination of rules which made the substantial additional costs of a direct link unacceptable to the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission at the time I-70 was built.[6]

Although laws have been relaxed since then, local businesses, including many traveler services like fast food restaurants, gas stations and motels, have lobbied to keep the gap and not directly connect I-70 to the Turnpike, fearing a loss of business. This short stretch is one of only two locations in the U.S. where there are traffic lights on a two-digit Interstate Highway. In roadgeek terminology, gaps in Interstate Highways are referred to as "breezewoods."

# ¿ Jun 8, 2010 10:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 01:31

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

porkfriedrice posted:

Always wondered what was behind those doors.

Hobos.

Cichlidae posted:

It's the first one I've seen. There are other reasons to build doors into abutments: safe rooms, maintenance storage, electronics, getting rid of surplus doors... I'm sure someone will know.

I've seen doors like this (well, bolted access panels) in large box beams and other large civil projects to allow for inspections and maintenance. It would really depend on the specific conditions of the overpass. If it's just compacted fill behind a concrete wall, there's not much to inspect, but there's really no telling what challenges existed when this project was designed and what's behind that wall. Besides hobos.

grover fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Jun 19, 2010

# ¿ Jun 19, 2010 14:33

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

IOwnCalculus posted:

There's some level of corporate liability if that is indeed the case, though. I have a company-paid phone (and thus am expected to be essentially on-call) but at our workplace, everyone in that category has to sign an agreement that includes not answering the phone while driving a car.

Obama released an executive order banning all government workers and military from talking/texting on the phone while driving. A lot of states are making it illegal, too.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2010 10:46

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

They recently put a few of those here when they redesigned the one interchange; I really like them, too. They should be more common, especially when roads split or there are a lot of lanes and it isn't clear which is going where.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&i...bp=12,55.1,,0,5

# ¿ Jul 22, 2010 01:31

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Large Hardon Collider posted:

I've always wondered how they decide which cities to put on those signs.

You probably heard of the I-93 pothole situation. Has a car ever been just swallowed up whole by an instant sinkhole?

There was a photo in Goon Meets a few weeks ago of a sinkhole that swallowed a car.

Edit: found it.
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2151312&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=94#post380025613

grover fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Aug 6, 2010

# ¿ Aug 6, 2010 03:31

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Has anyone else here ever tried to navigate in Italy? I've spend a bit of time driving in Sicily and found it next to impossible to find my way. The freeways have proper signage, but that's about it. Once you're on the secondaries, none of the roads are labeled. The streets are often very narrow, barely alleys, a lot of one-way only, and again, there's a complete lack of street signs. I'm usually very good about navigating in the US; if I've got a map, I've got a good mental picture, and I can find my way from Pt A to Pt B unerringly. But in Sicily, it's impossible; I get lost, and then even more lost and then even more lost and then finally get my bearings somewhere I didn't want to go. It might be fine if you grew up there and have all the roads memorized, but it's horrible for visitors.

Googlemaps of a typical Sicilian town

Typical intersection. Good luck turning the right way!

That is, until I finally figured out the signage. They don't use street names. What they do have, instead, are directional signs and control cities. Exclusively. If you want to go from Catania to Agrigento, you look for signs to Palermo, because it's the largest city in that direction. Get a bit closer, and then you'll see signs for Enna and Caltanissetta, and keep following control signs, oblivious to what road you're on (because you're probably not where you think you are) until you start seeing signs for Agrigento. And when you get closer, tiny little signs for specific hotels and businesses and what I was looking for- Valle di Temeli. Some of these signposts are 12' tall and have 20 or 30 little signs on them and are impossible to read without blocking traffic and pissing off the very aggressive Sicilians behind you. But try finding a hotel without it! Unfortunately, it's hit or miss, and the signs often just stop, leaving you to guess. And the place I had to work did not have any road signs pointing to it, and the roads were horrible. We drove down into the middle of a farmer's field at one intersection because it looked more like the road than the road did. And the directional arrows are a bit wierd; if they have an arrow saying SYRACUSA and pointing right, you don't want to turn right because it means to go straight (or more accurately "don't bear left at the next y intersection"). That alone got me more lost than anything else.

That said, directional signs to specific shops and businesses like this are awfully nice. Shame we can't use them in conjunction with our normal road signage in the US to keep tourists from getting lost.

grover fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Aug 6, 2010

# ¿ Aug 6, 2010 15:45

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Solkanar512 posted:

They just seem really cheap compared to adding lanes to the highway and I wonder why more municipalities aren't using these systems.

This helps only when there is an accident, though. More lanes would help every day of the year.

I wish we could take every dollar wasted on cars idling in congestion, and use it to fix the roads instead. For me, I worked it out once; it's about $124/year for one particular stretch of road that there ARE plans to fix, but no money to do it. And would easily cut 20 minutes of stop-go into 2 minutes of 70mph freeway.

Sadly, their solution is, instead, TOLLS! Tolls that at the proposed $2.50/trip will cost me $1000/yeah and divert traffic to other arteries that will only get more clogged instead of LESS clogged once this road can handle more traffic ARRRGHHHH! Meanwhile, public outcry over tolls means the damned road still isn't getting fixed

Edit: http://hamptonroads.com/2009/09/dominion-blvd-improvement-would-have-250-toll
http://www.chesapeake.va.us/services/depart/pub-wrks/pdffiles/2008_dominion_proposal/2008-PH-brochure.pdf

grover fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Aug 7, 2010

# ¿ Aug 7, 2010 14:44

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Cichlidae posted:

It's horrible, isn't it? Public policy doesn't make any connection between the user benefits of a better road system and the money that's used to fix them. Some of our improvements, like putting in rumble strips or guide rail, have benefit/cost ratios well above 10:1. They're subject to the same budgetary restrictions as everything else, and we can only afford to do a few miles per year. The legislature doesn't understand that investing $100M now will save us billions in the long run; they're only interested in one year's budget and avoiding the appearance of wasting money.

The same could be said for freeway improvements above and beyond maintenance. One of our interchanges, I-84 at Route 8, is in pretty bad shape. Looking at the next few years, the benefit/cost ratio for fully rebuilding it and adding capacity is about twice that for leaving the old one there and paying out the rear end to keep it from falling down. The politicians only see the $2 billion price tag, though, and shake their heads.

I found out this project actually has been green-lit as a toll road, and is expected to start construction next July. It will have automated tolling without toll booths. The toll system will read transponders for cars that have them, and take photos of license plates and mail bills to those without. Which just seems utterly absurd. Does this actually work? Are mailed tolls enforceable? Does this sort of toll booth actually work?

Even if the do work and people mail in their $2.50, I know those mailing are expensives; I want to say $5-10 apiece based on what my credit union tells me snail-mailed hardcopy statements cost. Wouldn't it cost more money to mail bills and receive payment than the toll is worth, thus actually losing money?

# ¿ Aug 7, 2010 18:25

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Cichlidae posted:

It is, however, a popular way to pay for road construction, since only the people who make use of the improvements have to pay for it. The question is whether they'll take them down when the improvements are paid off.

Tolls have been a pretty popular way in this area to pay for projects, especially as a tourist tax. It's hard to specifically target tourists with taxes, but the local government found a way with tolls. Paying in cash? $2. Have a transponder? 50 cents.

The Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel has a huge toll to cross it. The recently constructed freeway connecting I-64 to North Carolina has a toll, too. (A lot of locals exit, drive on secondaries, and bypass the toll booth.) Both of these roads are primarily traversed by tourists and by non-resident commuters, neither of whom had much say in the matter. There have been other toll roads in past decades as well- I264 to VA Beach, and two tunnels connecting Portsmouth to Norfolk have had toll booths, and targeted local residents. These booths were ultimately removed, although both were removed LONG after the projects had been bought & paid for. I have a hard time believing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel hasn't been paid for, but they ostensibly use the money to maintain it. Ah well, it's a tourist tax, right? I've paid it a couple times, but always as a tourist.

This particular project will be primarily targeting local residents, and not tourists. IMHO, they should move the toll booths down to the North Carolina border, so "other people" will pay for my road, and not me. :colbert:

I'd gladly pay 50 cents to shave 15 minutes off my commute, though.

grover fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Aug 7, 2010

# ¿ Aug 7, 2010 22:53

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Dutch Engineer posted:

Click here for the full 1225x740 image.

Also, Prins Clausplein.

I'm pretty sure it was posted before, but that is just such a work of utter beauty. If only all interchanges could be so well built!

# ¿ Aug 8, 2010 14:48

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Dutch Engineer posted:

Click here for the full 738x559 image.

This happens a lot when the turbo roundabout is new and drivers still have to get used to it. It turns out it's better to force the driver to take the roundabout again then it is to allow mistakes like the one above.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that actually a safer and more efficient way for traffic to pass through the roundabout?

# ¿ Aug 8, 2010 22:50

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Cichlidae posted:

Americans are 10-15% less efficient at driving

Why is that? Bigger cars? Inability to accelerate? Unwillingness to exploit openings in traffic? Combination of the three?

# ¿ Aug 11, 2010 00:32

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

What I really love were the no-way stops in my neighborhood: intersections with no stop signs and no clear right-of-way. All over the place.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2010 02:41

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Cichlidae posted:

There's a lot to be said for free intersections on low-volume, low-speed roads. Even putting up a pair of yield signs is better than stop signs in most neighborhoods.

Wouldn't be so bad if you could see if there was anyone coming, but between the trees, houses and weeds, visibility is nil. I've nearly been in an accident SO many times...

The neighborhood association finally got the city to come in and put in stop signs about a year ago. Much nicer now.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2010 10:35

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Cichlidae posted:

That's where yield signs come in. If you can't see around the corner, you need to slow down. If you can, you're good to roll through if the way is clear. And if intersection sight distance is so low, the homeowners on the corners should clear out any vegetation or other sight blockers in the area to improve it.

It's not the intersection itself, but the approach. There's no visibility as you approach, forcing all drivers to either stop/rolling stop or a gas it on a suicide gamble. Tearing down houses and clearcutting the lot aren't really viable. Local law here is that a no-way stop like this is actually supposed to be treated as a 4-way stop, but I seemed to be the only one who ever stopped.

They've since changed the signage so that this road is the primary road, and the two cross roads have stop signs.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2010 21:48

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Phanatic posted:

Obviously and as you'd expect, this *sucks*. Nobody ever merges on the offramp, everybody waits until the last second, so this area gridlocks constantly under traffic loads that just don't justify it.

You're right- Americans do suck at merging. They merge WAY too early.

Traffic is going to back up when the road approaches the limit of capacity regardless how how people treat this merge. You need to look at this not as cheaters or assholes, but as a question of game theory. Only losers merge early; if everyone would merge at the same time instead of half the people merging WAY too early, both lanes would be the same length and everyone would have a completely fair wait.

In other words, you and roughly a third of the other schmucks in the right lane should be driving in the left lane instead of angrily shouting and road raging. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

grover fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Aug 20, 2010

# ¿ Aug 20, 2010 15:50

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

All 50 states allow RTOR, but aren't there a number of US/Canadian cities where it's illegal?

I travel to a lot of countries and always worry about either getting pulled over for an illegal turn, or rear-ended for not turning if I was supposed to...

# ¿ Aug 29, 2010 23:41

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

I make it a point to always drift through redlights sideways when I run them. It confuses the cameras, makes them think I'm part of the other traffic that just got the green light!

Right?

# ¿ Sep 4, 2010 18:02

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

The recommendation from numerous studies is that red light cameras cause more accidents and more severe accidents than they reduce, and that the actual real solution in problem intersections is to extend the yellow period and pause between giving the other lanes the green light.

http://blog.motorists.org/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/

Ontario Study posted:

�Exhibit 2 indicates the red light running treatments have:

* Contributed to a 4.9 per cent increase in fatal and injury rear-end collisions; and
* Contributed to a 49.9 per cent increase in property damage only rear-end collisions.

The rear-end collision results are similar to findings in other red light camera studies.�

VA Study posted:

�After cameras were installed, rear-end crashes increased for the entire six-jurisdiction study area� After controlling for time and traffic volume at each intersection, rear-end crash rates increased by an average of 27% for the entire study area.�

�After cameras were installed, total crashes increased.�

�The impact of cameras on injury severity is too close to call.�

�Based only on the study results presented herein and without referencing other studies, the study did not show a definitive safety benefit associated with camera installation with regard to all crash types, all crash severities, and all crash jurisdictions.�

NC Study posted:

�Using a large data set, including 26 months before the introduction of RLCs, we analyze reported accidents occurring near 303 intersections over a 57-month period, for a total of 17,271 observations. Employing maximum likelihood estimation of Poisson regression models, we find that:

The results do not support the view that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes.�

# ¿ Sep 5, 2010 00:53

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

GWBBQ posted:

As I was heading to work this afternoon, I passed by exit 10 on 95 South. I wasn't sure whether I was seeing it right, so I had my brother take a look. On the island at the end of the ramp, there was a Darien Police officer parked perpendicular to the ramp, running radar. What's the speed limit on exit ramps? Is speeding on exit ramps such a huge problem that they had a genuine need to have one of their officers run radar there instead of looking for minorities to pull over?
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&lay...0,0.022724&z=16

For that matter, is speeding on a ramp really enforceable? The yellow speed limit signs are advisories only, and not legal limits- the ramps by necessity must allow for acceleration/deceleration, so anything up to the highest legal speed limit is OK, right?

E;FB! Serves me right for going back and looking at the google maps link a 2nd time I guess.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2010 22:05

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

smackfu posted:

Speaking of exit ramp speeds, how out of spec is exit 15 on Rt 8 South? I don't think it's possible to speed through that one.

(on the left)

Did google snap an action photo of a semi half-way through plowing off the side of that curve, or is it just the angle?

# ¿ Sep 23, 2010 00:08

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Choadmaster posted:

Doesn't heavier traffic by nature regulate it's own speed? The more congested it gets the slower people are forced to go anyway.

If we have twice as many people on the road, they all have to drive twice as fast to maintain smooth traffic flow. Simply physics. Instead, they do the opposite!!

The automatic speed limit signs should be increasing with congestion, not decreasing :colbert:

# ¿ Sep 30, 2010 15:24

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

kefkafloyd posted:

One thing to keep in mind here is to use the proper terms for what we want.

We already have throttle-by-wire, and technically the hydraulic systems that operate your power brakes work in the same way - just with fluid in a line instead of electrical signals on a wire. Better hope your brake lines are well maintained. Nobody blinks an eye about it either. If you spring a leak, you have no brakes except for your E-brake. Even then, a "brake by wire" system would be more complex than the current power brake systems. They'd cost a lot more for about zero benefit.

A lot of cars (all?) have two separated sets of hydraulic lines and split chambers in the master cylinder so that even if one line leaks, braking is only lost on two wheels, and the car can still brake on the other two wheels. Including the mechanical e-brake/parking brake, there's at least double redundancy everywhere, and triple redundancy in the most vulnerable areas.

This diagram shows the e-brake as a foot-pedal, but it would be the same if it was a hand-lever. Same with the rear drums; the diagram would look identical if they were rear disks.

grover fucked around with this message at 11:26 on Oct 3, 2010

# ¿ Oct 3, 2010 11:22

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

kefkafloyd posted:

You're right, I had forgotten about split master cylinder systems. This is true, but the type of redundancy used in cars is still far less on a scale than the often quadruple actual line redundancy to multiple control surfaces used on an airplane. It's still possible, but extremely unlikely, that both splits fail, but obviously even then the E-Brake is still there.

There are still single points of failure, too. The brake pedal, for instance- if it breaks, no brakes. Most failures of the vacuum booster would simply remove the boost and make them purely manual, but other failures in the master cylinder or mixing valve could potentially break the brakes entirely. And then, there's ABS...

The results of a brake failure are a whole lot less catastrophic in a car than in an aircraft. You may wreck your car, but you're likely to walk away from it. If you lose control of the elevator on your jet, though?

# ¿ Oct 3, 2010 17:04

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

kefkafloyd posted:

Of course, it has its drawbacks - witness the Toyota accidents.

The Toyota investigation discovered that the "unwanted acceleration" accidents unattributable to the floor mats were not caused by a failure in the drive-by-wire system, but by human error, and people pushing the gas instead of the brake. "The harder I pushed on the brake, the faster I went" indeed.

Plus a lot of good ole' fashioned fraud on top of that for good measure. (Why blame yourself or see your insurance rates raise when you can sue Toyota instead?) These are highly computerized cars with sophisticated black boxes; neither Toyota nor the government investigators could find a single case where the drive-by-wire was at fault.

kefkafloyd posted:

I guess my point is that steer or brake-by-wire isn't going to happen not for safety or insurance reasons, but because on the whole it's impractical and too expensive on such a small scale. On an airplane, the scale is so large that fly-by-wire makes a lot of sense.

Brake-by-wire is an integral part of every production hybrid-electric car on the planet. You can't have regenerative brakes without it.

grover fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Oct 3, 2010

# ¿ Oct 3, 2010 18:55

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

noblergt posted:

Now I'm just trying to find places to scare you Americans http://goo.gl/maps/fcXi

That's terrifying! They're all driving on the wrong side of the road!

Milton Keynes was an interesting experiment in trying to introduce american-style road design into the UK. Too many traffic circles to work properly, though.

grover fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Oct 8, 2010

# ¿ Oct 8, 2010 17:07

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

less than three posted:

Not just US style road system, but US style suburban city planning.

Needless to say it was a failure. (I'd say much like most US suburban planning.)

I blame the failure on traffic circles. That many traffic circles turn a smooth clear road into a nightmare! If they had used redlights like they do in the US, it would have worked out much better. Similarly designed US suburbs (without traffic circles) are quite successful in the US and extremely popular places to live.

grover fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Oct 8, 2010

# ¿ Oct 8, 2010 17:51

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Millstone posted:

I'm pretty sure grover also meant roundabouts, not traffic circles. Neither of which suck, they are actually kick-rear end replacements for stoplights sometimes.

Basically grover is just chock full of wrong.

We call them all traffic circles in America.^[3] :colbert:

If you say "roundabout" in conversation over here, people would think you're talking about playground equipment. See, we eat dinner 'round about 6pm, and go fishing 'round about that bend in the crick, but we use traffic circles to drive around monuments. Which are pretty much the only time you see anything like this in the US. You can't use those funny british terms like lorry, loo or boot. Shoot, if it wasn't for Top Gear, if you told me about your new "saloon car", I'd think you had a limo with a bar in the back.

This thread is about traffic engineering and not urban planning so I'll not rebut any further on why suburbs are so much more popular than the alternatives in the US, but just rant about how painful it is to drive in Milton Keynes from all the damned traffic circles (or roundabouts if you want to call them that). They have their use, but not in every intersection on major thoroughfares!

Cichlidae- what changes would you make here to improve traffic flow?

grover fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Oct 9, 2010

# ¿ Oct 9, 2010 12:52

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

nm posted:

Auckland is pretty horrible. Traffic sucks too.

the problem is that Auckland is basically the LA of New Zealand (low density with a high population -- for new zealand)

The makers of that documentary have a clear agenda that I think is based on the mistaken impression that mass transit is desirable. It's not. Mass transportation is worse environmentally, takes more time to commute and promotes higher-density construction that serves to exacerbate other urban problems.

I posted a big thread about this in D&D a few months ago.

The only cities where mass transit is successful and a better choice than a car are those that are SO dense and congested, it's faster to walk. I don't believe cities do dense and with so automotive congestion so bad that it's faster to walk is desirable. In fact, quite the opposite. I don't want to derail this into a thread on mass transit (D&D is a much better place for that) so I'll stop there and try to get back on track.

Aside from obvious things like carpooling in electric cars, what can Auckland do to improve the roads?

grover fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Oct 22, 2010

# ¿ Oct 22, 2010 18:18

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

rt4 posted:

...where every argument you posted was proven to be wrong.

Also, that graph shows that rail transit uses significantly less energy than the typical one person per car, without even touching on the maintenance issues that causes on roads.

Did you see the part where rail transit uses twice as much energy per passenger as a single-person hybrid, and thus 4x more than carpooling in a hybrid?

Cichlidae, please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't cars cause negligible wear to roads compared with trucks and buses? Like, one truck/bus does more damage than 50,000 cars?

# ¿ Oct 22, 2010 19:38

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Nesnej posted:

You just chose to ignore the fact that it doesn't really matter how energy efficient a mode of transportation is per km travelled, but how much energy is consumed per trip. People in dense cities tend to ride shorter trips because land use is more efficient (mainly because they don't have metric shitloads� of space taken up by parking lots). Add to this the fact that people who live in dense cities tend to make fewer trips per day and the result is a lower net energy expenditure within a given span of time.

Transportation so inconvenient that you make fewer trips isn't really an advantage. (You can do the same thing with cars by increasing congestion and fuel costs/taxes, btw. This was pointed out in the Auckland video as a stabilizing factor for roads.) Nor are small apartments that come with high population density very desirable. Or having to walk a half mile in the rain to get to the nearest subway stop. Personally, I like having a yard and not hearing my neighbors' talking when I go to sleep.

You must consider that mass transit rarely goes directly from your point A to point B, so you have to add extra length to that. I'd rather drive 2x as far (or carpool 4x as far) in a hybrid on a well designed and congestion-free freeway system, and also be able to carry a week's worth of groceries home with me, too.

# ¿ Oct 22, 2010 20:59

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Cichlidae posted:

Public roads can be named by the town council, chosen by a city planner or mayor, or chosen by fiat if the engineer uses a name on plans and nobody complains. The latter is how we get roads like Old Route 740 or, in a more extreme case, Old West High Street #4.

So what you're saying is all it would take to name a street after me is for you to put "grover street" on a drawing? I'd offer you a bribe to do it, but I know you can't accept it, so I'd just offer my gratitude as that would be awesome

# ¿ Oct 27, 2010 03:01

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

I bought an LED reflector base lamp for $15 to try it out figuring if it lasts 3x longer than CFLs and uses less energy, it's win-win! Except it burnt out in 6 months of occasional usage. Yeah, LEDs last virtually forever, but lovely electronics don't.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2010 23:09

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Crackpipe posted:

Hello confirmation bias.

No, it's true, it ALWAYS works!! Sometimes, it just takes like 30 or 40 seconds to work.

# ¿ Nov 22, 2010 00:10

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Millstone posted:

Tell me where to go to become awesome at mastering whatever the gently caress this is

Speaking on a broader basis, controls work is complicated as hell, but makes a lot of sense once you know what each of the bits are. You can learn a lot by taking the right electives in college, but ultimately much of it is simply experience; people who are really really good at it and unable to unfuck broken systems are virtual gods.

grover fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Nov 25, 2010

# ¿ Nov 25, 2010 20:12

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

I can't view that link

I saw an interesting test on TV the other day that really showed the highway bunching effect- a while bunch of cars driving in a ring with perfect spacing until one got a little too close, braked a little too hard, and it started a chain reaction.

I wonder, though, what the difference would be if the aggressiveness of the drivers were dialed up? It might create more braking, but they'd also be able to recover quicker and I wonder if that would stop the chain reaction or just make it worse.

# ¿ Dec 6, 2010 02:56

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Cichlidae posted:

Greenwich, in particular, is incredibly protective of its roads. The town owns all of the signals on Route 1, whereas in almost any other town, all signals on state-maintained roads are state-owned. Why do they own the signals? So they can screw with Route 1 traffic and keep all of those New Yorkers and Stamforders out of Greenwich. They want Route 1 to be a local road, when it clearly acts as a major arterial. Greenwich will NOT let anyone touch Route 1, and no amount of carrot or stick will change this.

Am I the only one in the world who thinks blocking off roads to through-traffic, abnormally slow speed limits, speed bumps, banning turns, etc, are the wrong way to address people using alternate routes to bypass congestion? All it does is make congestion worse on the roads that need fixed the most

# ¿ Dec 14, 2010 01:01

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Cichlidae posted:

The cables are attached to the floor beams, which aren't in the best shape, either. It's entirely possible that, once we remove the stringers, we'll need to reinforce or replace the floor beams as well. The cost (20M+) and duration (2-3 years) are already skyrocketing, and it's only going to get worse as we consider more and more work. The alternative is that we tear up our brand new bridge deck and stringers in 10 years to replace the rotting floor beams, and that's just a huge waste of money.

At least it's in better shape than the other bridge in your photo...

# ¿ Dec 26, 2010 21:20

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

some texas redneck posted:

OP, last year a major intersection nearby got converted to a "Median Left Turn" (the media has been calling it a Michigan left turn), details here. The city claims it should reduce collisions and congestion - however, now instead of traffic backing up on Legacy during rush hour, the left and middle lanes of Preston (3 lanes each way) back up. Also seen several people ignore the no left turn signs and make a left turn anyway, and seen a few accidents as a result. Preston is a busy road and considered a state highway, Legacy is fairly busy, but nothing like Preston.

Thoughts?

If the situation is that bad, why not just build left-turn ramps and take the traffic out of the intersection completely?

# ¿ Jan 2, 2011 14:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 01:31

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

How do traffic congestion sensors work, and why does google maps' traffic suck so bad? I don't know why I even bother; it's never anywhere close to right.

When one lane is backed up for an exit, but the outside lanes are still moving at highway speeds, does that display red or green?

# ¿ Jan 6, 2011 02:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask me about being a Traffic Engineer!

«‹›6 »