|
Cichlidae, thank you for such an awesome thread! I'm studying urban and regional planning but have always had a thing for traffic planning on the side - I'm still unsure whether to major in urban design or traffic planning. I queued up all 20 pages of this thread and read them on my flight from Brisbane to Melbourne today and its been absolutely great, so thank you. I'm after an international perspective on a few local roads in Brisbane - first of all the Riverside Expressway.  Built in the early 70s as part of the Wilbur Smith and Partners transport plan for Brisbane. In my opinion, while a seemingly impressive piece of infrastructure, the design of the expressway itself is poor. There is not just weaving between two lanes, but over three or four. The onramps are short and have poor visibility on approaches too. You can check it out in greater detail here. The other question I have is relating to a massive interchange currently under construction, with a second stage planned. Currently the Inner-City Bypass, a 6 lane bypass road has an outbound offramp and inbound onramp only - linking with a nearby major arterial road. A major North-South Bypass tunnel is nearing completion which will link with the ICB in both directions, and also the arterial road. Add to this a new tunnel heading north, including a busway tunnel - which intends to link with the ICB, NSBT and the arterial and you've got a huge mess.  You can download the full PDF here. Basically what I want to know is what the gently caress kind of interchange is that? I'm guessing the section in blue is some kind of turbine interchange - the rest is just...spaghetti. You also mentioned that you're interested in Busways, and in an action of parochial horn-blowing, Brisbane's built itself a pretty expansive network of them with plans for more. If you want to find out more check out the local transit authority's website: Translink Busways. The interesting thing is that the gradients and the curves of the network has been built as such to allow an easy conversion to light-rail in future.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2009 08:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
exo posted:Cichlidae, thank you for such an awesome thread! I'm studying urban and regional planning but have always had a thing for traffic planning on the side - I'm still unsure whether to major in urban design or traffic planning. I queued up all 20 pages of this thread and read them on my flight from Brisbane to Melbourne today and its been absolutely great, so thank you. Glad to help! I'm honestly surprised that other people find this as interesting as I do. One of my professors had this to say in class: "So I'm living it up at a party, and having a great time. Everyone's making conversation, dancing, feeling fine. Then, someone asks me what I do for a living. And there's no good way to put this! They'll keep on prodding, and eventually you have to tell them you're a transportation engineer. And then everyone looks disgusted and won't talk to you for the rest of the night, because being an engineer means that you can't have fun or carry a conversation." quote:I'm after an international perspective on a few local roads in Brisbane - first of all the Riverside Expressway. Wow, you have Wilbur Smith & Associates out there, too? They act as consultants on many of our projects, but I always assumed they were a regional group. Anyway, as to the motorway. There are some weaving issues, as you noted, due to the left exits/entrances (er, right exits/entrances, since we're in Australia) and the close interchange spacing. There's very little that can be done about the One neat feature that they introduced here to reduce weaving is this:  The gore is extended past the ramp itself to prevent people from dashing across 3 lanes of traffic into the off-ramp. Unfortunately, as you can see in the picture, it's still possible. Here, we extend that physical barrier until there's some overlap, and there's no possible way to get from one ramp to the other without driving backwards along the freeway. As I'm sure you can imagine, people still do it.  One question: do you put arrows in every lane drop lane, or just the ones with a sharp turn? It seems like a pretty good idea to put them there, as there have always been problems with people too stunned by the beauty of our flowing, almost sexual sign supports to actually bother reading the sign and realize they're in an exit lane. quote:The other question I have is relating to a massive interchange currently under construction, with a second stage planned. Currently the Inner-City Bypass, a 6 lane bypass road has an outbound offramp and inbound onramp only - linking with a nearby major arterial road. A major North-South Bypass tunnel is nearing completion which will link with the ICB in both directions, and also the arterial road. Add to this a new tunnel heading north, including a busway tunnel - which intends to link with the ICB, NSBT and the arterial and you've got a huge mess. That's a really impressive interchange. I want to try to untangle it, but the PDF only shows part of it, and I can't find another map online. It was hard enough to find the right place, since the map makers neglected to include a North arrow... From what I can see, it doesn't look like a standard interchange. Because of the elevation difference involved in tunnel building, the ramps are often much longer than they'd otherwise be, leading to some big loops. quote:You also mentioned that you're interested in Busways, and in an action of parochial horn-blowing, Brisbane's built itself a pretty expansive network of them with plans for more. If you want to find out more check out the local transit authority's website: Translink Busways. The interesting thing is that the gradients and the curves of the network has been built as such to allow an easy conversion to light-rail in future. Yes, that's how you do busways! I love how extensive the network is compared to our proposed system. Busways really are better when they act like a subway system, branching out to cover a wide area, rather than a simple point-to-point line. The provision for rail conversion (the term "light rail" has different meanings depending on who you talk to) is an excellent decision. We could never spend that kind of money here, unfortunately. With our busway, we do whatever's cheapest. Also, your Translink logo looks suspiciously similar to our FHWA/USDOT logo:  
Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Sep 13, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2009 15:41
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Another thing to consider is that a bike path will tend to draw more bicyclists than a wide shoulder, especially inexperienced users like children. This could also explain higher accident rates. Bike paths tend to get used by people rollerblading, walking with strollers, jogging, and so forth, which makes them great for the general public but an accident waiting to happen for commuting cyclists in a hurry to get to work. In my experience bike lanes work better because drivers tend to unconsciously respect them. I commute to work on a bicycle, so I'm intensely interested in hearing more of your opinions and experiences on integrating bicycle traffic. Are bicycles part of the planning process from the beginning, or are they considered only if there's a powerful enough advocacy group pushing for bike lanes? What do you think about the Complete Streets initiative? Would you consider their goals wishful thinking? predictive fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Sep 13, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2009 23:56
|
|
|
Hey OP since you like writing about your work so much, You keep this thread updated like nobody's business - Ever think about doing a piece every now and then, It's pretty well known that I am a TTAC fanboy, ever think about contacting them and seeing if you can do a weekly/monthly/whatever there? http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com - apparently some Gooooooons don't approve but I myself rather like it. I have Robert Farago's Gmail from talking to him about your mad traffic skillz and if you're interested I'll give it to ya. (have to email it to you or something to stop the haterz from just being awful to RF.) They moderate pretty heavily but it keeps the ignorant jackholes from ruining the S/N ratio of the site. I swear on my honour that I am not affiliated with them, I just think your writing and wit would be a good fit there. Thanks, man. Your thread about traffic systems is kick rear end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 00:00
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Wow, you have Wilbur Smith & Associates out there, too? They act as consultants on many of our projects, but I always assumed they were a regional group. quote:One question: do you put arrows in every lane drop lane, or just the ones with a sharp turn? It seems like a pretty good idea to put them there, as there have always been problems with people too stunned by the beauty of our flowing, almost sexual sign supports to actually bother reading the sign and realize they're in an exit lane. quote:That's a really impressive interchange. I want to try to untangle it, but the PDF only shows part of it, and I can't find another map online. It was hard enough to find the right place, since the map makers neglected to include a North arrow...     Speaking of UrbanCircus they've created an impressive "urban engine", and the Queensland Government seems to love using them to render and conceptualise their infrastructure projects. You can check out their full photostream here. On that topic, do you believe an engine such as that which can easily create semi-realistic visualisations helps you to consider what the impact might be to people on the ground? You mentioned that your existing modelling programs were clunky and difficult to use. quote:Also, your Translink logo looks suspiciously similar to our FHWA/USDOT logo:
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 00:51
|
|
|
predictive posted:Bike paths tend to get used by people rollerblading, walking with strollers, jogging, and so forth, which makes them great for the general public but an accident waiting to happen for commuting cyclists in a hurry to get to work. In my experience bike lanes work better because drivers tend to unconsciously respect them. It depends mostly on the purpose of the project. If the problem is low capacity, or an intersection needing signalization, then bicyclists aren't the main priority. On the other hand, a streetscape, mixed-use trail, or new construction project will almost certainly include provisions especially for bikes. Either way, the standards are 4' minimum shoulders and no on-street parking on major streets. Even if the project isn't specifically for bikes, though, I'm vigilant to keep it safe. In one of my projects, the consultant proposed replacing a slot drain in a crosswalk. If you're not familiar, a slot drain is a slot in the ground about 2" wide and 6" long dropping down into a gutter, perfect for catching tires and small feet. I asked them to use something better. Unfortunately, it is a consultant-designed project on town roads, so my comments don't mean much. quote:What do you think about the Complete Streets initiative? Would you consider their goals wishful thinking? It's certainly a good concept. The real deal-killer, though, isn't politics or an automobile-centered DOT. The problem is money. Sidewalks are expensive, require a lot of right-of-way acquisition, and, in rural areas, hardly get used. Unfortunately, given the current infrastructure crisis, the states need to spend what money they have to repair bridges and roads. However, if there were a reliable federal funding source (as that site wishes to promote), complete streets would be much more widespread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 01:00
|
|
|
predictive posted:Bike paths tend to get used by people rollerblading, walking with strollers, jogging, and so forth, which makes them great for the general public but an accident waiting to happen for commuting cyclists in a hurry to get to work. In my experience bike lanes work better because drivers tend to unconsciously respect them. Ugh, the picks from the complete street website look like a planners dream, but an operation person's nightmare. The pics in their flickr gallery Complete Streets Gallery look great for a sleepy college town. Not so much for large cities with a large commuting population. The problem that I have is that (at least in Houston) large amounts of money are spent on some of these concepts, but are really bikeways to nowhere. They are generally half-assed, and more dangerous for cyclists. We also have one that was built here out on the westside of Houston, a crazy cyclist raised the money to have a bikeway built through a park, and the route basically runs from the front door of his home, to the front door of his office. The area in the park is used for recreation, but a majority of it is used by this one nut. Sorry, I do have to justify the operation's nightmare. One of the pics looks like an intersection with a ped scramble. You stop all of the traffic and allow peds and cyclists (who scream for equal treatment, but are notorious for traffic violations (you want to ride in the lane, you wait at the light, assholes)) to cross all over the intersection. In a dense urban environment this is cool, but in areas with few peds it is horribly inefficient. You get stuck pushbuttons, bums that learn to use the buttons to beg, etc., and they end up being a pain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 01:04
|
|
|
I am also not a bike-hater, I just tend to hate the pretentious commuter-cyclists. My wife and I were in San Francisco and enjoying a stroll on the Golden Gate Bridge. A bitch cyclist rode towards us motioning for us to move out of her way. I wish I had a stick to throw in her spokes, so that I could scream "PEDESTRIANS HAVE THE loving RIGHT OF WAY ON A PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY YOU CRAZY loving BITCH!!!!", while she laid on the ground crying. Yeah, I also yell at cars when I am out working in the street.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 01:08
|
|
|
Vanagoon posted:Hey OP since you like writing about your work so much, You keep this thread updated like nobody's business - Ever think about doing a piece every now and then, It's pretty well known that I am a TTAC fanboy, ever think about contacting them and seeing if you can do a weekly/monthly/whatever there? That would be really really cool! The only problem is, I'd like to remain (moderately) anonymous. Most of my coworkers are huge car nerds, and if I was writing for a car site, it would only be a matter of time until my boss hit me with a "let's talk." Other than that, I'm sure I'd have a madly fun time, that is, if they could find an audience to listen to me blab about signal timings and sign standards.  Feel free to PM me if you'd like to discuss it further.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 01:11
|
|
|
exo posted:They were actually brought in from the US as "Experts", so I don't think they have a local branch. Painted on the roads. My jurisdiction is generally reluctant to use anything other than the standard lane arrows, stripes, and bars, so any other kind of pavement marking is exotic and exciting for me. quote:I can't seem to find any other maps on it, they seem to have dried up. You won't get it on Google Maps as only 3/4 of the tubine-like interchange is finished yet, the entire rest of the mess has only just begun being built. There's a few renders of it on the Urban Circus flickr stream: It's hard to overestimate how useful good visualizations can be. A single render can change a whole room full of citizens' mindset from "how dare you!" to "I like it!" UrbanCircus looks really nice. It's like merging a computer game with a traffic simulation. 3D Studio is pretty nice for that, but it's certainly not optimized for roads. Something that would let me put in pavement markings and signs in seconds would be ideal; it takes ages in VISSIM, because there's no tool for it. To make stripes, for example, you have to make tall roads that are 10 cm wide, paint them white, and hope you don't click on them when you're placing cars. quote:Yeah, they can't even us an original name - Translink was used by British Colombia first. I think designs made by the US Government are technically public domain, so it's not a huge deal, but a graphics design student could make something more enticing than a tilted USDOT logo for the price of some Ramen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 01:26
|
|
|
Nexis posted:Ugh, the picks from the complete street website look like a planners dream, but an operation person's nightmare. The pics in their flickr gallery Complete Streets Gallery look great for a sleepy college town. Not so much for large cities with a large commuting population. The problem that I have is that (at least in Houston) large amounts of money are spent on some of these concepts, but are really bikeways to nowhere. They are generally half-assed, and more dangerous for cyclists. Around here, every signal with a dedicated ped phase works like a scramble crosswalk. People stroll diagonally across it, stop in the middle to light a smoke (remember, our walk phases are timed for Granny McGee), flick off a few drivers, and waltz to the other corner. People are going to abuse any setup you give them. Bicyclists will ride on the sidewalks, or they'll ride in the road and act like pedestrians. There are some well designed paths, though, and you can't write off multimodal roads just because of some poorly designed ones, political pork, or jerks that abuse them. Just last week I used a bike path that was absolutely swarmed by peds and bikes alike, but it was actually very relaxing. Plenty of shade, a marked bike lane, low grades, rest areas...
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 01:35
|
|
|
Don't have plat - no PMs - talk to me @ powerpeecee (at) gmail dot com. I'm pretty sure they'd' let you use a pseudonym or a false name or something if need be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 03:07
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Around here, every signal with a dedicated ped phase works like a scramble crosswalk. People stroll diagonally across it, stop in the middle to light a smoke (remember, our walk phases are timed for Granny McGee), flick off a few drivers, and waltz to the other corner. People are going to abuse any setup you give them. Bicyclists will ride on the sidewalks, or they'll ride in the road and act like pedestrians. Here in Houston, Memorial Park to be exact, has a really awesome paved bike path. And what's nice is it is across the street from the unpaved running track. You don't get the intermingling of ped and bikes. Except we did have to modify a pushbutton so one rear end in a top hat cyclist didn't have to get off his bike to push the button. I usually calm down, and then I type something like that that reminds me why people routinely piss me off  Also, I DRIVE A CAR, I CAN DO YOUR JOB, ITS NOT THAT HARD  <--My wife says that's me when I get going about work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 14:09
|
|
|
Nexis posted:Here in Houston, Memorial Park to be exact, has a really awesome paved bike path. And what's nice is it is across the street from the unpaved running track. You don't get the intermingling of ped and bikes. Except we did have to modify a pushbutton so one rear end in a top hat cyclist didn't have to get off his bike to push the button. Oh jeez, we get people like that all the time as soon as something goes sour. It's always, "what kind of idiot would out a crosswalk in the middle of nowhere? Who designed this loving interchange? I could pick a better alignment in my sleep!" They don't take the time to see that there's a school across the street, or that the price of concrete has doubled in the last year, or that there's a marsh in the way of the road. I don't mind, though, because it's important that they voice their concerns. We can explain why we made our decision, and often that's enough to change someone's mind. Sometimes, they even have a good suggestion that gets incorporated into the design!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 17:35
|
|
|
If there was ever a topic that deserved a slow, scientific, passionless study over many years in order to defuse the situation, it's bike-car relations on roads. People get more fired up over bicycle commuting than abortion or health care. Basically, government agencies and transportation research institutes need to figure out, scientifically, the best way to have a "complete street" (I like that name) that is usable by pedestrians, cyclists, trucks, personal cars, and public transit. Of course, this would require the various DOTs to admit that transport other than single-occupant vehicles will become important in the future. Right now bike lanes, etc. are put in as a sop to environmentalists, but aren't taken seriously by the mainstream.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 17:56
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Oh jeez, we get people like that all the time as soon as something goes sour. It's always, "what kind of idiot would out a crosswalk in the middle of nowhere? Morehouse Highway in Fairfield has two stop signs between Adley Road and Fairfield Woods Road. Heading South, Adley is at the top of a huge hill and no stop sign, and there's a hill back down toward Morehouse. Barnhill and Godfrey each have their own stop sign, and at its peak Morehouse Hwy has maybe 100 cars per hour in each direction, more like 30 at most times, and fewer from the cross streets. Would you guess those just there to stop people from flying down a straight road from one blind hill to another, or maybe because it's heavily residential, or is it just a case of people complaining until they put up the signs?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 18:33
|
|
|
Sgs-Cruz posted:If there was ever a topic that deserved a slow, scientific, passionless study over many years in order to defuse the situation, it's bike-car relations on roads. People get more fired up over bicycle commuting than abortion or health care. Yes, I was amazed how viciously people can fight over bicycles after seeing it in some GBS threads. I've even seen the debate kill threads, so I've been hoping it doesn't crop up here. The problem with the DOTs isn't so much that they can't envision a world where cars aren't the main mode of transportation. On the contrary, we have people specifically to work on transit, and their input is heavily considered, even if many of us are a bit jealous that they get money for busways and bike paths when we can't afford to finish our freeways. The big problem, as I see it, is the lack of support for transit among commuters. Connecticut has several rail lines that carry just a few hundred people a day, and they're a huge money sink. Many of our buses run empty, and our streetcar networks have been demolished for over 50 years. It's easy enough to say, "any city with a population density over X can support a tram," or, "if we build busways all around the state, it'll take many many cars off the road." It's another thing altogether to have the billions of dollars on hand to actually get these ideas built, especially when the theory remains, locally at least, unproven. Now imagine if we had half a million people pledge to use a rail line if it were built. We'd find the money, somehow. But we don't have that! I personally think that transit has a bright future, especially rail, in the densely settled northeast. Until someone ponies up the money to build it, though, we'll never know if people would actually use it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 22:53
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Sounds like my cue to whine. Stop signs have their own warrants, much like signals, in the MUTCD. Since Barnhill and Godfrey seem like smaller streets than Morehouse Highway, I'll assume they're all-way stops. Warrant 1, using a stop sign as a temporary replacement for a signal, probably isn't met. Here are the other two: 2. An accident problem, as indicated by five or more reported accidents of a type susceptible of correction by a multi-way stop installation in a 12-month period. Such accidents include right and left turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. 3. Minimum traffic volumes: a) The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day. b) The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour. c) But when the 85-percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above requirements. Unfortunately, the ADT map of Fairfield doesn't have any listings for the roads in question. If what you say is accurate, warrants 3a and 3b probably aren't met. 3c might be, since it's on a hill. Warrant 2 isn't something I can check, as it's on town routes, but if you're really curious, the police can help you. It's equally likely that someone just complained that people were driving too fast and sent enough letters to the mayor/first selectman to get him to put the signs in. If they're not warranted, they really shouldn't be there, and you could probably get them removed if you could prove that. Wouldn't that be fulfilling?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 23:02
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:The big problem, as I see it, is the lack of support for transit among commuters. Connecticut has several rail lines that carry just a few hundred people a day, and they're a huge money sink. Many of our buses run empty, and our streetcar networks have been demolished for over 50 years. It's easy enough to say, "any city with a population density over X can support a tram," or, "if we build busways all around the state, it'll take many many cars off the road." It's another thing altogether to have the billions of dollars on hand to actually get these ideas built, especially when the theory remains, locally at least, unproven. This is a bit of a derail, and I'd love to talk to you about it more somewhere else, but I believe this is where government needs to step up and say "we're going to spend the money on alternatives to cars, because they're going to be necessary in the future, you just can't see it yet". I know, it's not really the government's place to push one transportation method over another, but it's really going to bite America if there isn't some sort of non-car infrastructure in place the next time oil prices spike (and possibly stay high, since the only thing that brought them down this time was the financial collapse of last October). edit: Just to be clear, I understand the funding constraints. To be clear: highway projects should be cancelled, and the money should be spent on transit, bikeways, etc. (Heresy, I know ) The agency which does this is going to look very prescient in 15 years.Anyway, enough derailing. This thread has been fascinating for its discussion of moving cars around and I don't want to take away from that. Sgs-Cruz fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Sep 15, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2009 23:57
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Yes, I was amazed how viciously people can fight over bicycles after seeing it in some GBS threads. I've even seen the debate kill threads, so I've been hoping it doesn't crop up here. Same thing with Metro here in Houston, particularly the Park and Rides (Express Buses from suburbs to Downtown). People moan and moan about the traffic, but when a viable public option is available, they don't use it. The PnRs are pretty cool, they even have ones that take you to the Texas Medical Center and Uptown, but when gas is cheap, people choose to drive their cars. You have to ween people off the idea that they need to have a car for long haul trips. Live in the suburbs and work downtown? Cool take mass transit. Use your car as a grocery getter. TxDOT just finished the Katy Freeway Expansion and the drat thing still slows to a crawl. The "Managed Lanes" (Lexus Lanes) are barely used by anyone but carpools and buses. But lets not forget that they ripped up ~26 miles of freight rail to install the drat thing. We can thank Rep. John Culberson and Former Rep. Tom Delay for killing the commuter rail option for the freeway expansion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 00:29
|
|
|
Sgs-Cruz posted:This is a bit of a derail, and I'd love to talk to you about it more somewhere else, but I believe this is where government needs to step up and say "we're going to spend the money on alternatives to cars, because they're going to be necessary in the future, you just can't see it yet". Don't forget "None of us is as dumb as all of us." If a vocal minority screams loud enough to get politicians involved, it doesn't matter what the state or local DOTs want to do. If a politician thinks he can get votes by fighting for some lame rear end cause, he or she will. Sheila Jackson Lee (City Council Member at the time) had the I-610 expansion killed in the early '90s and we are paying for it now. TxDOT just rebuilt the drat West Loop, and people are screaming "WHY IS TRAFFIC SO BAD!!!! " Well some crazy bitch, and her followers, took up the cause and had it killed. Would it have benefited us all? Absolutely. Did they care? Probably not. Of course my crazy rear end uncle (probably less crazy than he sounds) thinks that we should raise the price of gas to $10/gal and use the difference to fund public transit, as in free for everyone. Then if you want drive your car, have at it, but otherwise for most trips, just take the drat bus. Nexis fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Sep 15, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 00:35
|
|
|
Sgs-Cruz posted:This is a bit of a derail, and I'd love to talk to you about it more somewhere else, but I believe this is where government needs to step up and say "we're going to spend the money on alternatives to cars, because they're going to be necessary in the future, you just can't see it yet". Cutting highway funding isn't going to help anyone. The vast majority of our projects, at least in this part of the country, is maintenance on existing infrastructure and safety improvements, both of which are essential to our road network. What we really need is more funding, whether through a higher gas tax (and you know we can afford one, if people can pay $4 per gallon) or some other means.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 01:12
|
|
|
Nexis posted:Same thing with Metro here in Houston, particularly the Park and Rides (Express Buses from suburbs to Downtown). People moan and moan about the traffic, but when a viable public option is available, they don't use it. The PnRs are pretty cool, they even have ones that take you to the Texas Medical Center and Uptown, but when gas is cheap, people choose to drive their cars. We had the opposite happen here, and it's not turning out much better. Instead of adding some long-awaited lanes to I-84 west of Hartford, we decided to build a busway along the same corridor. Unfortunately, due to some incredible cost and schedule overruns, it might turn out to be a good deal more expensive than initially estimated. I really hope that it works, but many of my coworkers are quite derisive of the whole project. Like I said, one of them has never ridden on a bus in his whole life. I guess time will tell, though. One thing's for sure: freeway expansions are just temporary solutions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 01:19
|
|
|
Nexis posted:Don't forget "None of us is as dumb as all of us." If a vocal minority screams loud enough to get politicians involved, it doesn't matter what the state or local DOTs want to do. If a politician thinks he can get votes by fighting for some lame rear end cause, he or she will. The NIMBY thing is so frustrating. Remember that map I showed of Hartford's canceled freeways? Most of those were killed by a vocal minority. Now the city is clogged for half the day, 84 and 91 have two through lanes, and, when we rebuild the Aetna viaduct in a few years, there'll be nowhere to detour traffic. I-84 will be closed, and if you don't like it, blame the people who blocked I-291, I-491, I-284, the CT 71 freeway, the CT 4 freeway, the rest of I-691, etc. Any one of those would make the construction delays significantly more manageable, but we don't have any of them, and do you think commuters will blame the NIMBY folks, or the DOT?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 01:23
|
|
|
Commuters do support public transit funding though: They want OTHER people to stop driving so that the roads will be nice and empty for them to drive on!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 09:48
|
|
|
Nexis posted:TxDOT just finished the Katy Freeway Expansion and the drat thing still slows to a crawl. The "Managed Lanes" (Lexus Lanes) are barely used by anyone but carpools and buses. But lets not forget that they ripped up ~26 miles of freight rail to install the drat thing. http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/13157.pdf It actually worked out pretty well, since everyone ended up with an extra lane. Fortunately, they didn't build a lot of left-side HOV-only exits, which I've seen elsewhere. Those seem like they must skyrocket the costs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 14:23
|
|
|
smackfu posted:In NJ on I-80, they switched the HOV lanes back to general use after a few years. Wow, I hadn't heard of that before. It's rather depressing to consider that the I-80 HOV lanes were actually widely used, but they still weren't worth keeping. Also unsettling is the public reaction to the HOV lanes, and how it changed from supportive to contrary in just a few years. As to the left exits, they're not so bad in an HOV lane since there's only a single through lane. People don't find themselves weaving across several lanes of traffic to reach the exit in time. As to expensive, it depends on the cross road. If the ramps are going to a collector street or arterial, it's easy enough to send them right up the middle of the road to meet it at a signal. If the ramps go to another freeway, though, things get messy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 17:10
|
|
|
Some of you have touched upon this subject already, so I figured this might be interesting to discuss. Transportation mode psychology 101 It would be logical to assume that it would be enough if a public transportation alternative would be equally fast as driving a car to get people out of a car and onto the bus. This is, however, not the case. People have a peculiar way to perceive time. All time is not worth the same. Compared to driving a car, time spent
Also, having to switch vehicles mid-transit adds on average an additional 7 minutes to the perceived trip time. So, if our hero has the alternatives of driving his/her car to go to work in 45 minutes instead of walking 3 minutes to the bus stop, waiting 5 minutes, riding for 10 minutes, switching buses with a 2 minute wait in between, riding the bus for another 10 minutes and walking 2 minutes from the stop to work, he/she'll most likely pick the car, because the 32 minute trip by public transport feels like 1h 9 minutes due to the hassle. In order to actually get people to ride public transit you have to minimize the need to switch vehicles, cut down the average waiting time (which is half the period of the bus, so if the bus comes every 10 minutes, the average wait is 5 min.) and make sure the stops are close to the endpoints of the trip. How fast the bus actually drives or how much the trip costs weighs surprisingly little in the decision-making process even if those two would at first seem like the obvious problems to attack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 18:29
|
|
|
Nesnej posted:Transportation mode psychology 101 Interesting! Do your figures change by demographic? I imagine that for a young, fit person walking has a lower perceived duration than for an older, out of shape person. It follows that it would also change by culture, weather and loads of other factors (overall journey length? I'll always walk if the journey is under a mile even if there's a bus in the stop as I walk past going to my destination.) Your last paragraph also explains why I've always said that outside the obviously long or short trips, a journey on the London Underground takes 1 hour. By the time you've bought a ticket, walked to/from stations, inside stations, waited for trains, etc. the actual journey doesn't really matter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 20:01
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:It's equally likely that someone just complained that people were driving too fast and sent enough letters to the mayor/first selectman to get him to put the signs in. If they're not warranted, they really shouldn't be there, and you could probably get them removed if you could prove that. Wouldn't that be fulfilling? Socket Ryanist posted:Commuters do support public transit funding though: They want OTHER people to stop driving so that the roads will be nice and empty for them to drive on!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 20:47
|
|
|
TokenBrit posted:Interesting! Do your figures change by demographic? I imagine that for a young, fit person walking has a lower perceived duration than for an older, out of shape person. It follows that it would also change by culture, weather and loads of other factors (overall journey length? I'll always walk if the journey is under a mile even if there's a bus in the stop as I walk past going to my destination.) Weather, or rather shelter from it also plays a certain part. The fact that you get to stand inside waiting rather than out in the rain is one reason why underground train stations have 2-3 times the collecting radius of a bus stop. Transportation is also a gender issue. Being in control of 1.5 tonnes metal certainly gives a certain sense of independence especially males are fond of. Hence a majority of the passengers in public transport tend to be female.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 20:47
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:My complaining is more about the fact that I can't cruise down Morehouse Hwy at 35 (25 limit) without stopping than anything else. I'd guess that residents weren't happy with people like me and thats why the signs are there in the first place. If I complain about anything, it'll be the fact that my road hasn't been paved in 25 years and is really starting to need it (PS I will ram my car through the front door of town hall if you assholes chip seal it instead of actually paving it.) That's a frequent occurrence these days. I find myself replacing 30-year-old pavement on local roads, and 20-year-old pavement on arterials; it's supposed to last 7-10 years. I talked with one of the maintenance guys today, and he says there's a 4-year backlog on critical resurfacing jobs. We just don't have the money for them. quote:Can I be spared some wrath if I fully admit that this is exactly how I feel? To an extent, that's how most people feel. They just won't admit it in public. I half-joke about how I'd love to steal a pre-emption device, so I could change all the lights in front of me to green just as I arrived. It's only half a joke because I would really do it if it were legal. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Sep 15, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 21:04
|
|
|
Nesnej posted:Some of you have touched upon this subject already, so I figured this might be interesting to discuss. We touched on this in my ITS class. One interesting feature is that, with the addition of electronic signs with countdowns until the next bus/train/walk cycle, the perception of time is much more leisurely. Most networks I saw in Europe had indications of the next train or two, and I think Brussels' system showed you their locations as well as the time to arrival.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 21:06
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:We touched on this in my ITS class. One interesting feature is that, with the addition of electronic signs with countdowns until the next bus/train/walk cycle, the perception of time is much more leisurely. Most networks I saw in Europe had indications of the next train or two, and I think Brussels' system showed you their locations as well as the time to arrival. What I like about the buses here in Copenhagen as opposed to the ones back home in Helsinki is that many buses around here have a ticker that shows the name of the next stop. They also announce it, much like on trains. Helps a lot in case you doze off and wake up wondering where the hell you are. I've also seen a few of the crosswalk countdown timers. They definitely work, I've never seen anyone run a crossing with those. Route-finding web services such as matka.fi or rejseplanen.dk are also very valuable tools in making public transit accessible, since they reduce the need to memorize routes and timetables. Now the major question is when (rather than if) do mobile internet connections become fast enough to let you look up a trip on the fly. When that happens it will take trip spontaneity to almost car-like levels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 21:39
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:We touched on this in my ITS class. One interesting feature is that, with the addition of electronic signs with countdowns until the next bus/train/walk cycle, the perception of time is much more leisurely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 22:02
|
|
|
Nesnej posted:Route-finding web services such as matka.fi or rejseplanen.dk are also very valuable tools in making public transit accessible, since they reduce the need to memorize routes and timetables. Now the major question is when (rather than if) do mobile internet connections become fast enough to let you look up a trip on the fly. When that happens it will take trip spontaneity to almost car-like levels. Yes, the future is bright! We're not too far off from a real-time trip routing service that gets location information from buses and trains and combines it with route mapping to personally route users in real time from place to place. With a little tweaking, it could even modify bus routes to optimize travel times and cut down on transfers! smackfu posted:I was in DC last weekend and they have these on almost every intersection I crossed in downtown. I loved them. Especially because when you have a don't walk, you can look in the other direction and see exactly how long you have. Like you said, 45 seconds is a lot more tolerable when you know it's going to be 45 seconds. We're putting in ped countdown timers everywhere we can; they really are awesome. It's almost like playing a game when you press the button. Furthermore, as someone who's pressed a broken ped button and had to dash across a 5-lane arterial in 7 seconds, dodging turning cars, it's REALLY helpful to have confirmation that the ped phase has been called.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 22:21
|
|
|
Something I had forgotten until recently, the crosswalk signs in downtown Nashville, TN have Cuckoo clock noises that they play to let you know the ped phase is almost over. I giggled like a little kid the first time I saw them. They are hilarious. I can't find any references to them online, though. Any Nashgoons want to back me up on this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 22:25
|
|
|
Vanagoon posted:I can't find any references to them online, though. Any Nashgoons want to back me up on this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 23:00
|
|
|
TokenBrit posted:I hope for your mental well-being that someone *ehem* chimes in. The pun police will be at your door shortly. Also, I have found a .pdf that proves that I am not insane/imagining them: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...8ZMYTbt5SMIdgGQ Cuckoo! Edit: for those who don't like to click .pdf files: quote:A CASE STUDY: DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN Nashville rules, for this, and many other reasons. Vanagoon fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Sep 15, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
Vanagoon posted:The pun police will be at your door shortly. That reminds me, we have quite a few problems with the visually impaired and audible pedestrian signals. You see, like many places in the country, Connecticut has mockingbirds. These delightful avian mimics spend their free time memorizing cell phone ringtones, other birds' songs, and the occasional audible pedestrian signal. Imagine, if you will, a visually impaired citizen tapping his way along the sidewalk, enjoying the many benefits of ADA-compliant construction. His cane scratches across the raised half-domes of a detectable warning strip, which lets him know that he's reached an intersection. Reaching out to the side, the man hits the pedestrian button, the push force of 5 pounds plenty to activate the sensor. Across the street, in her evil tree lair, a mockingbird watches the man. She knows what comes next. After a moment, she opens her beak, much like the fabled crow outwitted by the fox. This time, however, the mockingbird is in control. Slowly, with a perfectly metered timing and a mimicry honed by months of practice, she chirps: "Beep... Beep... Beep..." With a knowing smile, so pleased that the city's traffic engineers have accommodated his needs, the visually impaired man steps off the curve, directly into the path of an oncoming bus. So it goes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 23:50
|
|