|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:04 |
|
|
I'm glad I have my own office because when you posted that 91-95 improvement, I raised the roof and would have embarrassed myself if there was anyone around.Cichlidae posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 19:02
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Some parts are nice, but not the parts in that picture (except Harbor Yard.) (The park along the water south of the picture is nice though. I did a 5k once that started/ended in the ballpark and that was pretty effective at making me think Bridgeport wasn't a hellhole. Bravo.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 21:53
|
|
|
Thanks for answering my HAR question. That timeline was hilariously accurate (well, except the rear-ending part --- knock wood). Just saw this checking traffic for my commute home:  No wonder eastbound's all backed up! Giant letters, falling from the sky!
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 22:08
|
|
|
BadSamaritan posted: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. I remember being awed as a kid because I wasn't required to wear a seatbelt in New Hampshire. I didn't realize until recently that New England actually has a seatbelt use rate below the national average. quote: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. No, I haven't read it. I've never taken a psychology class or anything, so my idea of what's going through other drivers' minds is, "everyone but me is insane. Drive accordingly."
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 22:22
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:I'm glad I have my own office because when you posted that 91-95 improvement, I raised the roof and would have embarrassed myself if there was anyone around. Yeah, Bridgeport's not even in my district and we constantly talking about it. It's achieved something of a legendary status here, and the single crack house left standing in full view of 95 doesn't help. Here's some interesting trivia, though. Looking through the sign inspection reports, there are often bullet holes in the signs. Bridgeport recently had all of its signs replaced, but outside the city, the number of bullet holes is inversely proportional to a sign's distance from Bridgeport. I saw a single sign in Trumbull with 13 bullet holes in it...
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 22:30
|
|
|
JacquelineDempsey posted:Thanks for answering my HAR question. That timeline was hilariously accurate (well, except the rear-ending part --- knock wood). drat, that's some Zalgo crap right there. Better take an alternate route on the way home, or you may lose your soul! Also, if that picture is accurate, you guys have a TON of cameras! We only put them every mile or so up here. Is that map just very zoomed out, or does your DOT have a huge ITS fund that needs spending?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2009 22:32
|
|
|
Cichlidae, fantastic thread. On the unfinished Hartford area roads map you posted a while back, do you see any of those roads getting revived? As someone who drives through Hartford on 91 every day, I would love nothing more than having 291 completed (also, so The Stack could be used to its utmost potential), but this will never happen, right?  Also, what is the status of Rt 11?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 04:13
|
|
|
Lobstaman posted:Cichlidae, fantastic thread. Well, here's a little analysis for the state of Connecticut's unfinished freeways. CT 2: Probably will be extended from 395 to 95 along 2A and the new bypass by 2050. CT 3: Not going anywhere. US 6: I'd give it a 25% of being extended from 384 to Willimantic in the next 30 years. From there to Rhode Island, more like 10%. US 7: Stopped in Norwalk for at least 30 years, very low chance it'll go farther. Will probably extend south from Danbury by a couple more miles in the next 20 years, no expansion north of Brookfield. CT 8: Nothing new. CT 9: Expansion is in the long range transportation plan, but not particularly likely. It may continue up through the stack and hit Route 4 by 2030, if Farmington takes that stick out of its rear end. CT 10: Freeway moribund, not going to happen. CT 11: Everyone's on board, but we need $1B to make it happen. A billion bucks isn't much; if Obama gives us that, we could have it done in CT 12: Pretty much 0 chance of the planned freeway between Montville and Groton. CT 15: Berlin Turnpike bypass no longer needed since 91 was built. CT 17: Freeway plans dead for 30 years, don't expect anything other than a short stub in Portland if a new bridge gets built in Middletown. CT 20: 15% chance of being extended east across the river by 2050. CT 22: Freeway plans here are long dead. CT 25: Certainly possible, but not likely, expansion up to 84. We're talking less than 20% still, even though we own most of the land it would need. CT 32: If the casinos keep growing, there's a small chance it could be extended from 95 to 693. CT 34: Looking more and more dead by the day, thanks to New Haven developing its right of way. CT 40: See CT 22. CT 44: Freeway plans very dead; the Avon Mountain project is the most you'll see there for a long, long while. CT 66: Expect upgrades from Meriden to Middletown, but no freeway extension. Possible new bridge in Middletown, north of the existing one. Nothing between Portland and Willimantic. CT 71: Freeway plans long dead, but the Flatbush Ave stub will probably get some upgrades within 20 years. CT 72: Extended to Bristol as a four-lane avenue, no extension (and no reason to) in New Britain. CT 78: The land is bought, the demand is there... where's the freeway? I'd give it high chances, but nobody seems to be planning it. 20% before 2040. CT 82: Haddam bridge crossing long dead, the freeway stub remains. I-82: See CT 66. CT 83: Wouldn't that be convenient? Sorry, long dead. I-84: Already complete, but expect some capacity improvements and HEAVY construction in Hartford in 15 years. I-86: Yeah, I wish. No dice; it's never coming back. I-91: Is in pretty good shape. Getting touched up in New Haven, slight possibility of a reconfiguration of the Meriden interchange. I-95: Major reconstruction ongoing for the past 10 years, will continue for at least 20 more. Three lanes+ statewide by 2025, hopefully. CT 140: Not going to happen. CT 187/189: No chance of a freeway there anymore. CT 190: < 5% chance of expanding in the west, and about twice that to the east. I-284: The land is still available, but only an extremely low chance of this getting finished. I-291: 10% or less chance of being extended westward to I-84, no expansion chance in Manchester. CT 9 took up most of the slack south of 84, so nothing there. I-384: See US 6. I-395: Is in fine shape, for the most part. I-484: Half-built as the Whitehead Highway; unless the capitol building blows up or burns down, this isn't going to happen. I-491: Half-built as CT 3. Future expansion very unlikely in either direction. I-691: See CT 66. CT 693: If Mohegan Sun gets huge, 15% or more chance of happening before 2050. CT 695: 20% chance of expansion into Rhode Island if they get their acts together. I'm sure I've forgotten a couple, but it's rather late. If I had to say what will be different in 30 years, I'd say Route 11 SHOULD be built, the interchanges around Hartford will be tidied up, and there's a distinct chance 384 could be extended to Willimantic. Then again, we could all be flying helicopters. Chaos in the skies!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 04:48
|
|
|
OP, thank you so much. This thread has been amazingly fascinating, and I'm learning compassion for the people who have to deal with fixing such amazing SF Bay Area traffic nightmares as: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...004892&t=h&z=18 That one there, they're planning on making it a dogbone roundabout. (If it's unclear, there's no stop on Gilman, it's four lanes wide there, and all the intersections on the sides have stops. It's a nightmare.) And there's this thing, but... well, it's called the Macarthur Maze: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...039139&t=h&z=15 I don't honestly think it's that bad, but there are a lot of drivers that seem to get confused and merge way late, causing ARGH. Also gains and looses lanes arbitrarily all up the eastshore freeway... where there is a concurrence between 80 east and 580 west, and vice versa. Good luck designing a sign to make that clear. I tell people, "Ok, you're getting on 80. I don't care what the sign says, east or west, get on the freeway that is actually going south." Then I find out people around here can't deal with cardinal directions. Goddamnit. As someone else mentioned, but I don't think linked, brutal merge in the middle of the Bay Bridge: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...=h&z=18&iwloc=A http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...2,284.12,,0,9.1 This is the street view of the stop sign, which leaves these poor souls about 20 feet to get into traffic...
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 09:13
|
|
|
Calast posted:OP, thank you so much. This thread has been amazingly fascinating, and I'm learning compassion for the people who have to deal with fixing such amazing SF Bay Area traffic nightmares as: They should just make it a four-way stop like the similar Central exit further up north. A roundabout would make more sense but that costs $$$, a couple extra stop signs would do a BIG help and not cost $$$ Re: wrong-way multiplexes, in the san fernando valley they just sign "Ventura fwy east, ventura fwy west" rather than 101 north/south (ventura fwy is also 138 I think?)
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 11:18
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Then again, we could all be flying helicopters. Chaos in the skies! Oh Christ, I can't even imagine Americans using helicopters to get around. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 15:41
|
|
|
Calast posted:OP, thank you so much. This thread has been amazingly fascinating, and I'm learning compassion for the people who have to deal with fixing such amazing SF Bay Area traffic nightmares as: What're they going to do about the frontage road and East Shore coming in so close to the ramps? They'll have to be moved away from them somewhat, or they'll interfere with the roundabout's operation. We were thinking of trying a similar thing here, but the additional legs just screwed things up.  This one has the added issue of a truck stop just to the left of the picture; big trucks typically aren't fond of roundabout. What's an engineer to do? quote:And there's this thing, but... well, it's called the Macarthur Maze: Yeah, that's not so bad at all. Could use a little more lane continuity, knock off some left exits, and toll booths are never good for congestion. Interestingly, looking at some of the ramps, it seems like there used to be / were supposed to be a couple more of them!  quote:As someone else mentioned, but I don't think linked, brutal merge in the middle of the Bay Bridge: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...=h&z=18&iwloc=A Socket Ryanist mentioned that here. We've got tons of those up here, so consider yourself lucky 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 15:42
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:Oh god gently caress that exit! So many times coming southbound (westbound?) on 80 and having to make a left.... I shudder I'd be perfectly happy if we referred to all roads by their route number and not their name. People here do both, which makes it EXTRA fun if someone tells you to get on the Tadeusz Koskiuzko, but all the signs point to CT 72, how are you going to know where to go? It doesn't help that we make most of our routes "secret." They have numbers, but we don't show them, so people have to refer to the route by an unofficial name. Connecticut has literally hundreds of secret routes, and many states even have secret interstates. The Brooklyn Battery Tunnel in NYC, for example, is really I-478, but no signs show that. We do it that way to avoid confusion, but if you get in a car accident on CT 695, a 5-mile-long freeway originally built as part of what's now I-95, what're you going to tell the ambulance? "I'm somewhere between I-395 and US 6"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 15:52
|
|
|
Just to show you that traffic engineering isn't all doom and gloom, here's a SUCCESS STORY! This one requires a pretty big picture, so I've thumbnailed it for your convenience: This is the intersection of CT 2 and CT 32 in Norwich. CT 2 has been a freeway in this area since the 1960s, and 32 was SUPPOSED to be a freeway at one point. You can see how they diverged on the left side of the old picture. Unfortunately, this also reduced Route 2 to one lane in each direction, produced left exits, and, you're going to love this... there was an at-grade intersection. Yep, that's right! Driving 70 on the freeway, you had to watch out for cars crossing it. Well, an at-grade intersection on a freeway is bad enough, especially when the sight distance is so low. How about we throw in a crosswalk? Yes, that's right! Shown in blue there is a crosswalk across 4 lanes of freeway. No signal or anything, just "hope there's nobody coming and run!" Well, since I-84 to Providence never got built, CT 2 is the main route across this part of the state. That means lots of traffic. We realized that the situation wasn't getting any better, and turned the whole interchange on its head. We removed the at-grade, put in standard acceleration and deceleration lanes, added signals, teed up intersections, provided extra movements that weren't possible before, and got rid of that dangerous crosswalk. The interchange isn't perfect, though, due to some sharp curves and bumpy pavement that's always been that way. It's still a dozen times better than it was 20 years ago. Chalk up another victory for the engineers! Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Aug 15, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 17:05
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:What're they going to do about the frontage road and East Shore coming in so close to the ramps? They'll have to be moved away from them somewhat, or they'll interfere with the roundabout's operation. We were thinking of trying a similar thing here, but the additional legs just screwed things up. Long story short, they're doing this: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 08:27
|
|
|
Calast posted:Long story short, they're doing this: That's not a very efficient solution, though. Traffic southbound on the upper right frontage road would have to go around the entire thing just to continue straight or onto Gilman Street. Maybe those turning movements are very minor, though; I don't have the counts. Adding a little "cutoff" across the right roundabout as was done on the left would solve this. Either way, it's nice to see they're using a turbo roundabout. Turbo roundabouts are awesome, and I'd love to see more of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 14:47
|
|
|
This is probably obvious and/or previously explained: what makes them "turbo"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 16:49
|
|
|
Vanomaly posted:This is probably obvious and/or previously explained: what makes them "turbo"? A turbo roundabout has extra, channelized lanes. Generally, some parts of it have one lane, and some parts have two. If used properly, it can exceed the capacity of a two-lane roundabout, but stay much safer. Here, I made a roundabout field guide just for you!  Red points indicate conflict areas. Fewer = better. Some 2-lane roundabouts also have 2 lanes on the side street entrances and exits, but I didn't show that. Dotted lines represent unofficial, but common, paths.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 17:28
|
|
|
Thanks for the great thread. Do you have any idea who approved the bike lanes in Mansfield CT? Every time I have the unfortunate need to drive through that town I end up almost killing some spandex-clad cyclist who decided to take a break at the top of some hill, behind an overgrown tree, and around a curve.* Back roads in CT are no problem for me and in my old age (30's) I even do the speed limit, but with oncoming traffic it is almost impossible not to hit some Douchy McDouche who has no regard for his safety and the other vehicles on the road. Cyclists have rights but they should exercise some caution. Some roads are just not made for cars+bikes. They may have the right to be there but it's as dangerous as jogging in the middle of a shooting range.  * Actually happened out near UConn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 20:23
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That's not a very efficient solution, though. Traffic southbound on the upper right frontage road would have to go around the entire thing just to continue straight or onto Gilman Street. Maybe those turning movements are very minor, though; I don't have the counts. Adding a little "cutoff" across the right roundabout as was done on the left would solve this. Yeah, I see what you mean. That right hand frontage is pretty low traffic... except that the town just to the north built a massive loving Target on the frontage and then disallowed left turns from the frontage into this interchange: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...=h&z=16&iwloc=A Which is simple traffic protectionism; Target is just as convenient for Albany residents, but anyone from out of town that has to use the freeway goes south... into that intersection at Gilman. I can't really see people going straight down the frontage, but turning east on Gilman would be a big one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 21:33
|
|
|
Winter Light posted:Thanks for the great thread. Do you have any idea who approved the bike lanes in Mansfield CT? Every time I have the unfortunate need to drive through that town I end up almost killing some spandex-clad cyclist who decided to take a break at the top of some hill, behind an overgrown tree, and around a curve.* Back roads in CT are no problem for me and in my old age (30's) I even do the speed limit, but with oncoming traffic it is almost impossible not to hit some Douchy McDouche who has no regard for his safety and the other vehicles on the road. Cyclists have rights but they should exercise some caution. Some roads are just not made for cars+bikes. They may have the right to be there but it's as dangerous as jogging in the middle of a shooting range. I didn't do that one, but I do have a streetscape project in downtown Mansfield going in. Bicyclists, like any other drivers, have a tendency to do incredibly stupid things when you least expect it. Calast posted:Yeah, I see what you mean. That right hand frontage is pretty low traffic... except that the town just to the north built a massive loving Target on the frontage and then disallowed left turns from the frontage into this interchange: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...=h&z=16&iwloc=A I guess we'll just have to trust the traffic engineers' judgment on this one, then! You can let me know if it works in a couple years. You never know. Maybe people will be so mystified by the turbo roundabouts that they'll just go to the next exit instead and avoid them altogether! That's often a secret goal of engineers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 22:04
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:Re: wrong-way multiplexes, in the san fernando valley they just sign "Ventura fwy east, ventura fwy west" rather than 101 north/south (ventura fwy is also 138 I think?) I HATE THIS! I want to get on 101 North... is that "east" or "west"? Well gently caress, it's west, but while I was visualizing that in my head I drove right past the onramp. How do tourists have any idea which way to go? My town has one of those tubro roundabouts. I think it's great. Certainly better than the clusterfuck the intersection used to be (and I get through it in ~5-10 seconds, rather than waiting 45 seconds for a light to turn green). Thing is, everyone else in town inexplicably hates it. In fact, every time we get a roundabout, the whole town seems to be in an uproar, despite the fact that so far, every one has improved traffic flow through what used to be really ugly/annoying intersections (which is probably why the people in charge keep installing them). I hate people. Choadmaster fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Aug 16, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 23:08
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:I HATE THIS! I want to get on 101 North... is that "east" or "west"? Well gently caress, it's west, but while I was visualizing that in my head I drove right past the onramp. How do tourists have any idea which way to go? Yeah. Massachusetts 128 goes in a big semi-circle around Boston, and MIT students have taken to calling the directions "logical North" and "logical South" instead of west-north-east and west-south-east. Roads don't just go in a single direction, unfortunately. We try to keep routes to a single direction, but with things like Interstates and federal routes, it's not always possible. US 1 and I-95 both go due East in Connecticut, for example. State routes, though, are more flexible. RI 138 (the only state route that goes through CT, RI, and MA, if you want a horribly obscure bar wager) switches from going east-west to north-south in Newport, and the signs there change to reflect it. Unfortunately, that leads to confusion as well. quote:My town has one of those tubro roundabouts. I think it's great. Certainly better than the clusterfuck the intersection used to be (and I get through it in ~5-10 seconds, rather than waiting 45 seconds for a light to turn green). Thing is, everyone else in town inexplicably hates it. In fact, every time we get a roundabout, the whole town seems to be in an uproar, despite the fact that so far, every one has improved traffic flow through what used to be really ugly/annoying intersections (which is probably why the people in charge keep installing them). I hate people. Yeah, well, just assume it's a vocal minority. Luckily, unlike most things, public outcry won't generally get a road changed. They can shout all they want, but unless they want to pony up a few hundred thousand bucks and cause more accidents, it's not going to change. Roundabouts really aren't that challenging. You drive in a circle and follow the signs. It's about time to include them in driver's education, don't you think?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 00:04
|
|
|
There's a big party venue I go to that has three dancefloors, a coat check, bathrooms and the main entrance all connected by a rotunda, which turns into a giant traffic jam as people are moving around. I've suggested to several people putting a pole in the middle and telling people to walk counterclockwise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 00:31
|
|
|
I read the first and last few pages of the thread and didn't see this brought up. I'm not sure if you are the correct person to answer this but I figured your probably the best qualified. When I see a sign that says "speed monitored by (laser, radar, aircraft)" are they serious? When i speed down a road that says that do you see me on one of the screens?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 00:42
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:There's a big party venue I go to that has three dancefloors, a coat check, bathrooms and the main entrance all connected by a rotunda, which turns into a giant traffic jam as people are moving around. At the very least, it would make a great new venue for circle dances. Brice posted:I read the first and last few pages of the thread and didn't see this brought up. I'm not sure if you are the correct person to answer this but I figured your probably the best qualified. That's something to ask an officer. One of our most important policies in the TMC was that we wouldn't use our equipment to give people tickets. Even if we saw someone speeding 150 mph down the freeway, we wouldn't be able to do anything. There were a couple times when we notified the cops for safety reasons, like when two female skinheads pulled over into the shoulder and began alternately making out and beating the crap out of each other. Police radars are a different thing altogether, and we don't have anything to do with them. I've read in various places that the signs actually are serious, but I can't see how it would be cost-effective to fly around a plane and give people tickets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 01:01
|
|
|
I have a question about Oklahoma City. It's in the middle of the state, and it's the junction of I-35 (arguably one of the most important north-south routes in the country), and I-40 (arguably one of the most important east-west routes in the country). Since I live north of the city, and I have friends who live south of the city, I end up taking I-35 on a regular basis:  For exactly one mile, those two highways share the same stretch of pavement. During the merge of these two interstates, they get to keep their lanes all the way through -- no weaving, right? The curious part is where I-35 peels off of I-40 and heads south again:  Notice that I-35 is reduced to one lane per direction. (Ignore the fact that Google Maps is labeled wrong. I-35 splits to the east while I-235 goes north, downtown.) During rush hour, I can assure you that both of these single-lane routes back-up for at least a mile in their respective directions, despite minimal weaving. Why does this highway, which goes all the way from Mexico to Minnesota shrink down to one lane? Is I-40 just that much more important? ----- By the way, this is one of the most informative threads I've found on the internet about any topic. Excellent stuff! quazi fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Aug 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 02:12
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Police radars are a different thing altogether, and we don't have anything to do with them. I've read in various places that the signs actually are serious, but I can't see how it would be cost-effective to fly around a plane and give people tickets. In some states there are markings on some highways (sometimes they're actually little airplane symbols) at regular intervals to allow the guy in the plane to time your car as it goes from one mark to the other. I assume they then radio this information along with a description of the car to a cop waiting further up the highway who then pulls you over. I agree it doesn't seem cost effective (especially compared to just having a guy with a radar gun hiding in a bush somewhere). On a related note, a few years back the local sheriff's department bought themselves their first plane. I think it was the Sheriff himself who hosed up landing on the very first day, crashing it into the runway. Not long after that they decided they didn't need a plane after all...
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 02:59
|
|
|
How would you improve that god-awful I-91/Berlin Tpke/I-691/Ct-66 interchange in Meriden? Going south coming down that hill it can feel like driving into a deathtrap. I seems like every other week there is a huge backup due to some wreck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 03:08
|
|
|
quazi posted:I have a question about Oklahoma City. Wow, I like how they have the lane markings in the dropped lanes showing which way they go. We are going to pilot something similar here (ok, we stole it from New York) that shows the route symbol on the pavement for each lane. Here, check it out:  Anyway, to your Oklahoma City problem. The way I see it, there are three possible reasons. The first is that, when the interchange was designed, the through volume on I-35 wasn't so high. They figured one lane would do, but as the city's grown, more are needed. The second option is that the bridges to the south of the interchange are the controlling factor. They seem to have some pretty wide shoulders, though, so it wouldn't be a big deal to add a second lane there. The third option is that I-35 wasn't originally meant to go through there. Perhaps there was a planned freeway to connect the eastern I35-I40 interchange with I-35 south of the interchange in question. That happened a lot here, and many of our freeways have only a couple through lanes when they should have many more. Anyway, whatever the reason, it should be fixed. There are several alternate routes, at least, but there's plenty of land nearby and if it's a bottleneck, may as well widen it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 03:57
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:In some states there are markings on some highways (sometimes they're actually little airplane symbols) at regular intervals to allow the guy in the plane to time your car as it goes from one mark to the other. I assume they then radio this information along with a description of the car to a cop waiting further up the highway who then pulls you over. It could just be that they want people to slow down even if they have a radar detector or know the cop's not there. I don't know how much it costs to fly a plane, but is it really worth it to drop people's speeds by 5-10 mph? Like you said, it might be more for "let's get a plane!" than "let's save lives!" But hell, I can't complain. I'd love to fly around all day and watch people drive. Lobstaman posted:How would you improve that god-awful I-91/Berlin Tpke/I-691/Ct-66 interchange in Meriden? Going south coming down that hill it can feel like driving into a deathtrap. I seems like every other week there is a huge backup due to some wreck. Funny you should mention this; we're actually in trouble with the FHWA over that interchange, too. For those not familiar, check out the map. I-91 is 3 lanes wide through this part of the state, but "overlaps" with CT 15 here. I put overlap in quotes, because it really slides between the northbound and southbound lanes of 15. It drops down to 2 lanes in each direction in this area, and the FHWA REALLY doesn't like that. Remember, only the least number of lanes on a freeway counts. The FHWA has threatened to withdraw federal funding from our projects in this area because it's a major bottleneck. Now, what else is wrong with it? Let's see, where to begin? - Left exits and entrances galore - Ramp from 15 S onto I-691 E was never built (oops?) - To get from I-681 E onto I-91 S, you need to get on CT 15, which has commercial vehicles banned (oops again?) - Several movements are not possible because of the interchange layout - Huge weaving problem on I-91 North as all the CT 15 traffic enters, then immediately has to merge left to avoid getting on I-691 - Hey, we forgot to buy up more right-of-way, so we can't expand it! Yep... I can see why the feds don't like it, but they're the ones who paid for its construction in the first place. Should have said something then, eh?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 04:10
|
|
|
Brice posted:When I see a sign that says "speed monitored by (laser, radar, aircraft)" are they serious? When i speed down a road that says that do you see me on one of the screens? The radar/laser ones are meaningless reminders. I'm pretty sure they just refer to the standard radar/laser speed blah that cops wield.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 05:00
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
I'd recommend the book. I got it for a Christmas present last year and it gives a pretty good analysis of traffic engineering, although it was written by a journalist. Vanderbilt does a good job of research and does provide lots of information and studies that shed light on the driver side of things. Its illuminating even for an engineer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 15:15
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Police radars are a different thing altogether, and we don't have anything to do with them. I've read in various places that the signs actually are serious, but I can't see how it would be cost-effective to fly around a plane and give people tickets. Here in Western Washington small aircraft are used at night with a night vision camera to find drunks or folks who are racing up and down I-5. I can't say if they make up enough in tickets to pay the enitre cost of flying the small planes, but it's safer for both officers and other drivers not to have other police cars chasing racers in the middle of the night. A plane can follow the car, and have it picked up several miles ahead instead. I don't know the whole fine schedule but a 15+ ticket will run you something in the $120, so reckless/DUI will be several hundred dollars and that's before you double for being in a work area. And yes, there's a ton of work going on, and we've had a few workers hit, so I don't mind this sort of enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 21:34
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Here in Western Washington small aircraft are used at night with a night vision camera to find drunks or folks who are racing up and down I-5. I can't say if they make up enough in tickets to pay the enitre cost of flying the small planes, but it's safer for both officers and other drivers not to have other police cars chasing racers in the middle of the night. A plane can follow the car, and have it picked up several miles ahead instead. I certainly don't mind a little more enforcement. Enforcement and geometry are the only two things that will reliably slow people down. So, on the topic of street cars, looking through the history of local cities, nearly all of them had streetcars at one time or another. Additionally, considering some recently built systems, the benefit/cost ratio has been at least 5:1 and sometimes around 40:1 due to the amount of economic activity they generate. That's nice to hear, because hopefully it will spur some cities to put them back in. I live a mile from work, but I wouldn't mind dropping a dollar a day to ride the tram there and back. Heck, even if I had to walk all the way down to the bottom of my driveway!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 21:46
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Wow, I like how they have the lane markings in the dropped lanes showing which way they go. We are going to pilot something similar here (ok, we stole it from New York) that shows the route symbol on the pavement for each lane. Here, check it out: I agree! That is one of the best ideas ever. Keep doing it!  quote:Anyway, whatever the reason, it should be fixed. There are several alternate routes, at least, but there's plenty of land nearby and if it's a bottleneck, may as well widen it.  Fun fact about the Crosstown Expressway: When it was built in the 1960s, it was designed to withstand only 48,000 vehicles, not the 120,000 it has now. Currently, Oklahoma leads the nation with the highest number of "structurally deficient" bridges -- the Crosstown Expressway being one of them -- and two-thirds of people polled by the local newspaper said they were afraid to drive across it! It's scheduled to be replaced in 2012 and cost upwards of $230 million.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 22:08
|
|
|
quazi posted:I agree! That is one of the best ideas ever. Keep doing it! Not bad. We've got quite a few roads like that up here; I-95 in New Haven was designed for 40,000 AADT, but already has well over 140,000. The fact that I-35 there is old could be a good reason why there's only one through lane. Presumably, it went north at that interchange, instead of going right as it currently does. It may have been re-routed later to avoid going through a certain part of town, or to use better roads. Time for some delving into the history books!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 22:40
|
|
|
Speaking of don't-speed signs, Pittsburgh has ones that say you're being monitored by VASCAR. I had to look that one up...it's just a variation on using a stopwatch to measure your speed across a fixed distance. This is a fun read about VASCAR: http://travel.3dresearch.com/prep1.html Excellent thread!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:04 |
|
|
King Nothing posted:Speaking of don't-speed signs, Pittsburgh has ones that say you're being monitored by VASCAR. I had to look that one up...it's just a variation on using a stopwatch to measure your speed across a fixed distance. Boy, that is pretty awful. 100 feet is nothing; if anything, the speeds should be measured over a much larger distance. Due to the wonders of calculus, if the average speed is over the limit, we know that the exact speed at at least one point on the trip was over the limit as well! Anyway, that brings up an important point: the difference between time mean speed and space mean speed. Yes, that's right! There are two ways to measure average speed. The first, time mean speed, means taking the instantaneous speed of several cars as they pass a point, and averaging them. Space mean speed is like the aforementioned VASCAR method: see how long it takes cars to go a fixed distance. Welp, just like the User Optimal vs. System Optimal mentioned earlier, the two methods yield different answers! SHOCK! Let's explore why. Car 1: 30 mph Car 2: 45 mph Car 3: 60 mph Distance: 1 mile The time mean speed is very easy to calculate here. Mean(30,45,60) = 45 mph. The space mean speed is a bit more involved. First we find the time it takes each car to travel that mile: Car 1: 120 seconds Car 2: 80 seconds Car 3: 60 seconds And then we take the average of those times, which is mean(120,80,60) = 86.7 seconds. That time translates to an average speed of 41.5 mph. Wow, why is that? Since slower vehicles spend longer in the "sample area," their speeds are over-represented. Unfortunately, this trick only applies to multiple cars, so it won't get you out of your next VASCAR ticket. Sorry!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 23:30
|
|