|
KozmoNaut posted:Great thread! After the honeymoon in Costa Rica, I'm not going to complain about pavement quality here for a good long time! quote:Luckily, the rest of Denmark is a bit more reasonable. We even get cool poo poo like this (Danish, sorry) (Google maps): One thing I REALLY appreciated about Europe was the architectural flair in the bridges. Over here, with few exceptions, we just build what's cheapest, and all the bridges look the same. But working on the freeway in France, we hired an architect to help design the bridges, and it was actually refreshing to see the variety in how they were designed and painted.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2009 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Yes, SPUI can handle loads of capacity, especially those with double-lefts like in Phoenix. However, I saw quite a few that were built incorrectly (probably retrofitted diamonds) so that the left turns all had to operate independently. 44th Street under Loop 202 is an example. Of course, it was under construction, probably to widen the bridge and complete the SPUI. Yeah, I haven't been under 202 at 44th in a while but over at Rural and McClintock, they have the intersections torn up to the point where there's no way the lefts could operate independently, so they can only go as protected lefts at the same time as the lanes they're leaving are going straight. quote:If the traffic projections are correct, that's getting up with the busiest freeway in the world, which has an 18-lane cross-section. I actually drove through that stretch several times last week (got married in Phoenix). Ha, figures, I didn't realize that it ranked that highly in the grand scheme of things. Like I said, we love our cars. Congrats on the marriage! quote:Of course, there's always the option of moving people to other modes. I saw the new light rail systems downtown, and they're actually not bad, but I'm still not optimistic. Phoenix just isn't dense enough to support effective mass transit, and nothing short of bulldozers or bombs is going to change that. You're absolutely right. The light rail system is nice, and from what I hear it makes getting downtown for major events a lot nicer, but I've never actually had reason to use it. The area simply isn't dense enough to make it a major means of transportation, but for the people and parts of town it does work for, it's apparently very good. Case in point, I commute 25 miles one way from near the SuperRedTan (202/60) interchange, all the way in to University and 143. Light rail could only possibly help me for a very short distance there, and since I'm already riding in the HOV lane, it would be no real benefit at all since I'm already most of the way to work by the time it's even an option. quote:It's just a stack with two of the flyovers replaced with semidirect connections. Pretty rare, so it doesn't have a name. The 25 mph advisory speed doesn't mean much; it's probably not even the design speed. To calculate those advisory speeds, we go around the curve with a little ball in a circular track. When the ball slides 4 degrees to the side, that's our advisory speed. They're tight enough that I wouldn't be surprised if 25MPH really is the design speed - I wouldn't want to fly through them in a box truck or anything bigger. Really, though, I'm more amazed at how well they work, even though it seems like there's a fresh mark or ten on the walls every day from someone smacking them. quote:Edit: One thing I REALLY didn't like about Phoenix was the use of ramp metering on freeway-freeway ramps. That is EXTREMELY dangerous, but I wouldn't expect much from a city that uses non NCHRP 350-compliant devices in its work zones. What's that? Warning lights with 10 lb battery packs mounted at head level adjacent to traffic going 70 mph? Nothing bad could come of this! Ha, didn't even see this until I quoted you. Yeah, thank god that only happens at very few of our interchanges - the only one I can think of is 143N to 202W. I agree, it's completely mental, but I think it's the result of the fact that the state more or less considers 143 to really just be 48th Street, built up to hell and back. The south end just dumps into a goddamn stoplight, complete with everything possible to try and warn drivers of it (rumble strips, strobe, "RED SIGNAL AHEAD" lighted sign). Officially, it used to be paired with SR153 immediately to the west, both with the intent of facilitating access to/from Sky Harbor for the East Valley. But since 153 didn't actually connect to any other freeways, it never saw any real traffic, and a few years back they re-marked it as - if I remember correctly - 44th Street.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2009 04:37
|
|
|
UtilityPole posted:Please tell me why my city's (Toronto) Traffic Engineers think that inserting a whole bunch of "right-turn only" signs in the middle of the financial district makes traffic go faster? I usually have to make 5 forced right turns before I can finally make a left, and by that time I've driven several blocks away from my destination. It removes the left-turn phasing from the traffic signals and makes traffic move (marginally) faster overall. Of course, it's a sloppy solution, and usually is used as an interim or last-ditch congestion mitigation measure. Turn restrictions, as you've noticed, REALLY piss off drivers. Zero One posted:Why don't you guys do what we do in Michigan and keep the signs on all the time? The problem with this is exactly what you say, that people get used to the sign. Fire alarms wouldn't do a very good job if they were constantly blaring, and leaving a message up gets people used to the idea that they can ignore the sign. We still had to put up advisory messages like Click It or Ticket a few times a year, but the signs stay blank otherwise. 60 Hertz Jig posted:You know, this never really made sense to me before but it does now. I see those signs all the time in Michigan with some safety messages like those, and I always thought "what a waste of money just to tell people to not drive drunk". But if there was an accident ahead, it wouldn't be a sudden shock to see the message change from the safety slogan to the warning. I'm not sure how much energy leaving them off saves, but it would be interesting to see that balanced against the safety benefit of leaving an advisory message up 24/7. But like I said, the main reason we don't is to make the message stand out when there's something that needs the driver's attention. Of course, if someone comes out with research showing it's safer to do things Michgan's way, I'll push for that here. I'm still looking for a way to solve the bigger problem, which is having people slow down and stop paying attention to the road when they read the sign. Light Fields posted:I know this isn't quite your field, but do you have any ideas about super efficient car parking lots? I can understand the grid of boxes layout makes sense in terms of storing big square things, but when you factor in turning circles for the 90 degree turns making the driving lanes wider and the generally bad drivers wouldn't there be a more efficient model for laying out car parking spaces? Ever heard anything about this even? There's an obvious tradeoff between differently angled parking. Perpendicular parking fits the most cars in an aisle, but the aisles need to be spaced farther apart. It's easier to combine a couple perpendicular spots into a handicap parking spot than diagonal or parallel parking. I've never designed parking lots bigger than 100 spaces, or I could tell you more, but the geometry and needs of the individual site have a bigger influence on what kind of parking is used than some kind of ideal design or density.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2009 04:57
|
|
|
Really cool thread. I just have to bitch about Austin traffic in general and the retard who designed the upper and lower deck on I-35. If you are downtown, getting out takes a good 45 minutes at rush hour, and thats only if there isn't a accident in an important place. I present this fabulous google traffic map: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...4,0.013937&z=17 Luckily I can avoid I-35 or Loop 1 (MoPac) on my trip home, but in doing so sit at lights on 183 northbound.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 03:14
|
|
|
Belac_K posted:Really cool thread. Yessiree, that's one huge cloverleaf. C/d roads on each side and frontage roads to boot! A big reason that cloverleafs are such bottlenecks is that it's unsafe to put more than one lane on the loop ramps, and the tight curvature keeps speeds low.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 06:08
|
|
|
Heh, I totally pasted the wrong link. Here's the one I wanted paste: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...87&z=13&layer=t Put the traffic time to about 5:45 PM on a weekday and watch the madness. =/ The worst part is the upper and lower deck split of I-35, which is a good Idea in theory, but really poorly executed. ( http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q...008256&t=k&z=18 ) It would be great if the express deck lasted all the way past downtown, but it doesn't, it ends right before, and since the OUTSIDE lanes go up to the express deck, and the INSIDE lanes dive down underneath (the lower deck has exits in and out) when they converge there is a huge amount of weaving and churning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 15:17
|
|
|
Belac_K posted:Heh, I totally pasted the wrong link. Here's the one I wanted paste: Oh god, I remember the lower deck. You're taking your life in your own hands down there, and good luck trying to merge. Do they still have the 50 foot on ramps, that dump you right into the freeway with no space to spare? And if we're talking about least liked or most hated sections of road, I cannot stand the home depot in Providence. There are three lights there that are not synced at all, and they seem completely random. I have to drive through this at least twice a day, and if there is ANY volume of traffic whatsoever, it becomes completely backed up. There are two lights that are maybe 100 feet apart; one at each entrance / exit to the big parking lot on the eastern side. Go to street view if you really want to see it. I often see just one of them green, but since the other two are red, traffic can't progress at all. It seems like it would be very easy to do this whole stretch with just one light.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 17:33
|
|
|
Belac_K posted:Heh, I totally pasted the wrong link. Here's the one I wanted paste: The decked section doesn't last all that long, does it? It only skips one exit. It seems like they had an area with a narrow right-of-way and needed the deck to put in the needed number of lanes. Extending it southward would be quite useful, though. Pagan posted:And if we're talking about least liked or most hated sections of road, I cannot stand the home depot in Providence. There are three lights there that are not synced at all, and they seem completely random. I have to drive through this at least twice a day, and if there is ANY volume of traffic whatsoever, it becomes completely backed up. There are two lights that are maybe 100 feet apart; one at each entrance / exit to the big parking lot on the eastern side. Go to street view if you really want to see it. I often see just one of them green, but since the other two are red, traffic can't progress at all. It seems like it would be very easy to do this whole stretch with just one light. It's likely that Home Depot had to pay for the installation of those lights, as a major traffic generator. Home Depot only cares whether people can get into or out of its parking lot, not how well traffic is flowing on 246. I think the signals are owned by the state, but most RI state routes turn over to city maintenance once they enter Providence. That's just a little quirk of the state. It could very well be that the signals are state-owned and city-maintained, with Home Depot paying for the electricity. You can see where there might be a conflict of interest...
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 18:34
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:The decked section doesn't last all that long, does it? It only skips one exit. It seems like they had an area with a narrow right-of-way and needed the deck to put in the needed number of lanes. Extending it southward would be quite useful, though. It's probably over a half mile, here's a better view (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q...2,0.066047&z=15). I read somewhere that the southern convergence was one of the worst congestion spots in the country. And yah, the lower deck is pretty scary to drive sometimes. There's lots of trucks using I-35 for interstate travel and high concrete barriers on each side of the two lanes. I'm pretty sure that if they could have fixed it without leveling everything around it (not really an option since a lot of that is University of Texas land), it would have been done long ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 21:15
|
|
|
Belac_K posted:It's probably over a half mile, here's a better view (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q...2,0.066047&z=15). I read somewhere that the southern convergence was one of the worst congestion spots in the country. And yah, the lower deck is pretty scary to drive sometimes. There's lots of trucks using I-35 for interstate travel and high concrete barriers on each side of the two lanes. I'm pretty sure that if they could have fixed it without leveling everything around it (not really an option since a lot of that is University of Texas land), it would have been done long ago. Now I'm wondering how they'd go about replacing it and maintain traffic in the meantime. We've got a similar job here, where I'll be in charge of replacing a 10-lane section of I-84 built as a viaduct in the middle of Hartford. I don't think there's a way to do it without inducing massive congestion for years. A decked section is even harder to replace!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 23:19
|
|
|
Here's one for you. Don't know if it's strictly up your alley or not, but here goes: Anchorage, AK. Basically it's a traffic nightmare no matter how you look at it; streets that terminate in a dead end, only to resume with the same name a couple of blocks away across undeveloped land, a one-way grid from hell - you could probably write a PhD dissertation on how hosed up this city's street plan is. The biggest problem is the highway - it goes from four lane highway traffic right into the city center and through approximately one million stoplights before it emerges back into 4 lane traffic again. A lot of cities used to have this same problem (Denver for example), but none I've seen lately has resulted in congestion as bad as summertime Anchorage. Except possibly highway 1 into southern Seoul. Also, it's the only "major" city I've ever seen in which the access to the International Airport doesn't connect with the highway. It's very hosed up. There's too much to really highlight on a google map, but all the damage can be viewed here: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&source=hp&fkt=1611&fsdt=2939&q=anchorage&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl The goal is to hook the Seward Highway (A-3 on the south of town) to the Glenn Highway (A-1 on the north side of town). Everything north of 36th and west of south bragaw street along the route with the (1) on it is traffic light hell. Also note that at no time does International Airport Road intersect with the "Interstate". Here are the current alternatives under proposal: My favorite is the northern lights alternative, but there are land use and green belt issues. http://www.highway2highway.com/AltsDevelopment.html It would be cool to hear your opinion on this mess. If it's too extensive for this thread, feel free to blow it off. I figure there's about an equal chance you'll find it fascinating or else give me the bird for bringing it up in the first place. Wobbulated fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Dec 21, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2009 06:21
|
|
|
The 3F rule posted:streets that terminate in a dead end, only to resume with the same name a couple of blocks away across undeveloped land
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2009 16:59
|
|
|
Big news! While I was away on vacation, the new edition of the MUTCD was released! What's this mean for us? Well, there are a whole lot of changes. The most important ones are highlighted in some Powerpoint presentations here. I'd recommend looking through them (I am reading them at work). Among the highlights: Diagrammatic signs! 1"/30' visibility rules! New sign retroreflectivity guidelines! New horribly wordy signs! Fluorescent colors! Applies to private roadways! Go take 15 minutes to check it out, if you can spare the time. The presentations only go over the most important changes, so you won't be wasting your time. The 3F rule posted:Here's one for you. Don't know if it's strictly up your alley or not, but here goes: Looking through the alternatives, I would like to see the commuter rail implemented. I imagine it'd work rather well in Alaska, where sprawl hasn't fully set in yet. As to the freeway alternatives, I'm not familiar enough with the area to choose one, but 15th/Northtern Lights/Boniface look good to me. Eventually, you'd want a full freeway to the international airport, as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2009 18:24
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Big news! While I was away on vacation, the new edition of the MUTCD was released! How long before the new edition is enforced? When can I ignore the severely undersized stop and speed limit signs in a local shopping plaza? Also, the speed limit there is 5 mph. My speedometer doesn't go that low. I'm sure you've seen the pictures of nonsensical speed limits, like 17 mph. Are those from people asking for the limit to be lowered and the DOT saying "OK but gently caress You"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2009 19:35
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:How long before the new edition is enforced? When can I ignore the severely undersized stop and speed limit signs in a local shopping plaza? The MUTCD requires that speed limits be multiples of 5 mph or 10 kph, and that's been in place for a long time. Any speed limit other than that could be enforced, but you could easily defeat the ticket in court. You can probably already ignore the stop signs and speed limits on private property, as they have no regulatory agency to enforce them. Just keep in mind that, if you cause an accident, the blame could be placed on you for not driving safely. I know all the private stop signs here aren't in accordance with the MUTCD (most aren't mounted 4 feet high, let alone 7, and have DO NOT ENTER mounted on the back). And as to compliance dates for the 2009 MUTCD, it varies. They try to make them so the traffic control devices can be upgraded as part of their normal replacement cycle. I answered your questions backward, but that's ok 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2009 22:54
|
|
|
Cichlidae, congrats and glad to see you back! Anyway, I wanted to comment on a recent (within the past year) improvement on I-5, just south of Everett, WA. As you can see on this out of data photo, there is a park and ride being built in between the lanes of I-5. There is a connection to the cross street (112th), and HOV exits and entrances for both north and southbound lanes. Frankly, this is a brilliant idea and I'm happy to see it. It's a great way for residents to get on a bus and get directly on the freeway, and serves as a small benefit to those already carpooling. Are there any hidden traffic benefits/downsides to these sorts of projects? Are these sorts of things popping up in other areas? It seems like a great way to add more bus/light rail capacity to an area. On the other hand, it seems like it would be difficult to get that space in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 00:27
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Cichlidae, congrats and glad to see you back! That's a really cool implementation! I've seen drawn examples of things like this, I think in the Green Book, but never one actually built. When it comes to carpooling and bus ridership, seconds count, and having direct access to the HOV lanes could be a tremendous boon. If the demand is sufficient, this parking lot could significantly increase ridership. I know it would encourage me to carpool, if I knew I could shave 5 minutes off my travel time by using the HOV lane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 01:31
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That's a really cool implementation! I've seen drawn examples of things like this, I think in the Green Book, but never one actually built. When it comes to carpooling and bus ridership, seconds count, and having direct access to the HOV lanes could be a tremendous boon. If the demand is sufficient, this parking lot could significantly increase ridership. I know it would encourage me to carpool, if I knew I could shave 5 minutes off my travel time by using the HOV lane. This park and ride appears full every time I pass it, even though there are other park and ride locations all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 14:50
|
|
|
More new MUTCD stuff: Longer ped phases because old people walk slower! Hybrid pedestrian/emergency signals that are completely blank most of the time! Strobe lights at an intersection are banned! Flashy borders for important signs! A new warrant for signalization, based on proximity to rail crossings! Provisions for two- and three-lane roundabouts! Illuminated pavement markings! More stringent work zone specifications! Projects I put out a month ago are already out of spec. Oh well!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 18:23
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:It removes the left-turn phasing from the traffic signals and makes traffic move (marginally) faster overall. Of course, it's a sloppy solution, and usually is used as an interim or last-ditch congestion mitigation measure. Turn restrictions, as you've noticed, REALLY piss off drivers. One of the reasons they do this in Toronto is to keep you out of the way of streetcars. Left turns can either bring you across the streetcar rails, and since drivers are idiots, this can lead to an accident, or create a queue that a streetcar can't avoid. In the case of queuing, it's more to try to keep the cars relatively on time than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 18:48
|
|
|
Longer yellow phases would be nice, not that any cities would actually follow them...
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 18:50
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:Longer yellow phases would be nice, not that any cities would actually follow them... Longer yellow phases would decrease capacity and cause higher delay and worse air quality. Studies have shown that yellow times beyond three seconds are ineffective; if a driver thinks he can stop in three seconds, he will, regardless of the speed at which he's driving. In England, this was taken to heart, and all yellow intervals are three seconds long. Minister Robathan posted:One of the reasons they do this in Toronto is to keep you out of the way of streetcars. Left turns can either bring you across the streetcar rails, and since drivers are idiots, this can lead to an accident, or create a queue that a streetcar can't avoid. In the case of queuing, it's more to try to keep the cars relatively on time than anything else. Very true; having a train running in the middle of the street has a profound effect on phasing! In Phoenix, there are electronic signs running the length of the tracks to warn of an approaching train and the signals are timed to prohibit left turns at the appropriate moment. More MUTCD Stuff I left out two of the most important changes! First off, the previous MUTCD was dual-dimensioned, with all dimensions in metric and then imperial, in parentheses. With the latest edition, all dimensions are in imperial, and metric conversions are relegated to a chapter at the back. A small step backward, but much less confusing. More importantly for Connecticut and Rhode Island, one little sentence in the MUTCD now prohibits consecutive exit numbering. We'll either have to get an exception, or switch to mile-based exit numbers. This is tricky for two reasons: exits are very closely spaced in New England, often with 3 or more in a mile. Moreover,
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 22:46
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:More importantly for Connecticut and Rhode Island, one little sentence in the MUTCD now prohibits consecutive exit numbering. We'll either have to get an exception, or switch to mile-based exit numbers. This is tricky for two reasons: exits are very closely spaced in New England, often with 3 or more in a mile. Moreover, Doesn't consecutive numbering mean that when you add an exit somewhere in the middle you have to renumber all the exits downstream? Also, it means that everyone has to update their directions whenever a new exit goes in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 23:21
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:More importantly for Connecticut and Rhode Island, one little sentence in the MUTCD now prohibits consecutive exit numbering. We'll either have to get an exception, or switch to mile-based exit numbers. This is tricky for two reasons: exits are very closely spaced in New England, often with 3 or more in a mile. Moreover, I grew up in Texas where exits are numbered based on the mile, and it was a bit surprising when I came up here to New England. In TX, if you're at exit 3, that means there are only three miles between you and the end of the road / border / whatever. But driving home from Boston, being at exit 12 on 95 means you've got over 20 miles of driving left till you're at the state line. Took some getting used to. But yeah, how does it work when exits are added in the current system?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 23:40
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Doesn't consecutive numbering mean that when you add an exit somewhere in the middle you have to renumber all the exits downstream? Also, it means that everyone has to update their directions whenever a new exit goes in. Pagan posted:I grew up in Texas where exits are numbered based on the mile, and it was a bit surprising when I came up here to New England. In TX, if you're at exit 3, that means there are only three miles between you and the end of the road / border / whatever. But driving home from Boston, being at exit 12 on 95 means you've got over 20 miles of driving left till you're at the state line. Took some getting used to. We remove exits here more often than we add them. When we do have to put an exit in, between exits 4 and 5, for example, it's generally 3, 4A, 4B, 5. Route 2 in East Hartford has exits 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, and 2E. Most of those were meant to be removed when I-86 was built, but as it never was, we have too many exits. Similarly, Exit 14 is missing, probably for the Route 66 expressway (once I-82) that was never built. Having mile-numbered exits is a good idea for the most part, but we've specifically avoided putting them in here for decades. Businesses don't like having to change all their billboards and commercials, and changing signs is expensive. We have some routes with three or more exits in a mile, and the numbering in those areas will get much more confusing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 23:59
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:We remove exits here more often than we add them. Back to the sequential/mile marker exits for a sec, is this why Rt 15 starts with Exit 90 in the north, gets down to the mid 80's before turning into the Berlin Turnpike and then starts up with Exit 68 down in Meriden (and stops with 20 something in Greenwich)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 00:20
|
|
|
Lobstaman posted:or combine them to make the oddly signed "Exit 39&41" for I-91 It starts at 27, which is kind of messed-up, since New York added a few exits. Now, coming from New York, you hit exit 30S, then cross the state line and immediately have exit 27. The numbering stops between Meriden and Wethersfield, because that stretch of the expressway was never built. The Berlin Turnpike was formerly a two-lane road, but was doubled to act as an interim route between the two sections of freeway. That's why it has so many motels and diners. Several exit numbers were skipped between Meriden and Wethersfield to allow more exits on the planned freeway. Soon, though, I-91 was planned and built, and the missing section of Route 15 expressway was abandoned. The exit numbering picks up again as it crosses the river, and originally went all the way to the Massachusetts state line, at exit 106 IIRC. When I-86 was built, it followed Route 15 in its entirety. Its width was doubled to add more capacity in the 1980s, and, when I-84 to Providence was canceled, I-86 became I-84. The Route 15 legacy remains in a couple ways: I-84 east of Route 15 is still called the Wilbur Cross Highway, and Massachusetts Route 15 picks up near the border, splitting off from I-84 and continuing to Sturbridge. MA 15 and CT 15 used to be contiguous before I-86 was designated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 00:36
|
|
|
I think the worst exit numbering I've ever seen was in Kansas City. I'm pretty sure I saw an Exit 2U  Edit: Gaze in despair. IOwnCalculus fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Dec 23, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 00:40
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:I think the worst exit numbering I've ever seen was in Kansas City. 2U and 2T? What could those stand for? I thought it was bad enough that US 7 in Danbury, heading south, goes exit 12, then exit 11, then exit 13. Yes, we're fixing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 02:10
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:2U and 2T? What could those stand for? I thought it was bad enough that US 7 in Danbury, heading south, goes exit 12, then exit 11, then exit 13. Yes, we're fixing it. It's not just a stands for thing, scroll around - 2M, 2L, 2B, 2S...apparently since they're all somehow connected to I70 I guess they all have to be numbered on that system? No idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 03:54
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:It's not just a stands for thing, scroll around - 2M, 2L, 2B, 2S...apparently since they're all somehow connected to I70 I guess they all have to be numbered on that system? No idea. Just from eyeballing it, it seems like that whole loop is somewhere within mile marker 2 for I-35, I-70, and I-670, so they just started at 2A on the northwest corner and kept going clockwise around the loop. That's got to be a confusing mess, but I'm not sure there's any better way to do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 05:43
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:Just from eyeballing it, it seems like that whole loop is somewhere within mile marker 2 for I-35, I-70, and I-670, so they just started at 2A on the northwest corner and kept going clockwise around the loop. That's got to be a confusing mess, but I'm not sure there's any better way to do it. I didn't notice that the state line is right there; that's why things are so weird. All the same, there shouldn't be so many exit 2. I-670 should continue numbering between the states, as the MUTCD says three-digit interstates should. I-670, US 40, and US 71 should all defer their exit numbers to the two-digit interstates, and where two of those overlap, only one should keep its exit numbers, until the other splits off. Different exit 2 on different roads should all be named exit 2; exit numbers aren't exclusive within a city. Finally, though it's not entirely applicable here, circumferential routes should be numbered starting at their southernmost point. The numbering here for all the exit 2's begins in the northwest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 13:17
|
|
|
Here are a couple updates to some questions asked. For those wondering why Massachusetts puts some EZ-pass lanes on the right side of toll plazas, I did some reading and found that it's done to reduce weaving. When there's an exit past the toll booth, high-speed EZ-pass traffic will weave across slower traffic to get to the right lane. Putting them there to begin with lets them make the decision themselves. Connecticut just approved its Don't Block The Box law, so expect to see some of those in congested intersections statewide. The box is 4' off the curbline and contains diagonal foot-wide lines. Funny thing is, these lines won't have reflective beads due to traction concerns. These boxes are to be placed anywhere there's not enough room on the far side of an intersection, which is a pretty loose definition, so I imagine some cities will put them all over. They're town-maintained, as well, not a state installation, even on state roads. They probably won't be painted until Spring, since epoxy laid in cold weather isn't under warranty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2009 18:29
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Here are a couple updates to some questions asked. Massachusetts is (I think) the only EZ-Pass state that doesn't have all of its lanes in its toll plazas Fast Lane compatible. It has a strange hodgepodge of cash only, Cash+Fast Lane, and Fast Lane Only. Every single lane on a turnpike plaza should accept Fast Lane/EZ-Pass. Basically, copy New York and everyone else. It will reduce the penalty of being a Fast Lane user who gets shoved via traffic into a non-Fast Lane compatible booth. Also, the TWT plaza, Stubridge plaza, and Stockbridge plaza should have high speed gantry tollbooths, but I don't ever expect to see those in Massachusetts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2009 20:49
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:Massachusetts is (I think) the only EZ-Pass state that doesn't have all of its lanes in its toll plazas Fast Lane compatible. It has a strange hodgepodge of cash only, Cash+Fast Lane, and Fast Lane Only. Every single lane on a turnpike plaza should accept Fast Lane/EZ-Pass. Basically, copy New York and everyone else. It will reduce the penalty of being a Fast Lane user who gets shoved via traffic into a non-Fast Lane compatible booth. It's a safety hazard to toll collectors when mixed ETC/cash lanes are offered, because then you have some cars driving straight through and some stopping. It would be safe if every car had to stop, even the ETC users, but that cuts into efficiency and would probably result in a lot of rear-end accidents and broken gates. I have to admit, though, that I've never driven on the Mass Pike. I'm more familiar with tolls in New York and New Jersey. My family tells me that Rhode Island has a sneaky EZ-pass system: RI passes will work on other tollways, but other states' EZ-passes will not work on the Newport Bridge. This seems like a really bad way to do things, but it wouldn't surprise me, as the tolls are already 80-something cents for residents and $4 for outsiders. The RITBA thrives on toll revenue from out-of-staters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2009 23:08
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Connecticut just approved its Don't Block The Box law, so expect to see some of those in congested intersections statewide. The box is 4' off the curbline and contains diagonal foot-wide lines. Funny thing is, these lines won't have reflective beads due to traction concerns. I first saw those in NYC, and I've always liked them. I can't stand people who either rush through a yellow into a jammed intersection, or even better, beep at me when I won't. Hopefully RI and MA will pass similar laws. Are you in RI ever? We should do a NE Goon Meet or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2009 23:20
|
|
|
Pagan posted:I first saw those in NYC, and I've always liked them. I can't stand people who either rush through a yellow into a jammed intersection, or even better, beep at me when I won't. Hopefully RI and MA will pass similar laws. I feel the same way, though it's likely the law won't be actively enforced. quote:Are you in RI ever? We should do a NE Goon Meet or something. I go to Portsmouth occasionally, but now that the bridge toll is $4, I spend the vast majority of my time in Connecticut. Like any true Rhode Islander, I hate to drive more than 10 minutes for anything, and that makes goonmeets difficult
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 01:13
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:It's a safety hazard to toll collectors when mixed ETC/cash lanes are offered, because then you have some cars driving straight through and some stopping. It would be safe if every car had to stop, even the ETC users, but that cuts into efficiency and would probably result in a lot of rear-end accidents and broken gates. I have to admit, though, that I've never driven on the Mass Pike. I'm more familiar with tolls in New York and New Jersey. In NY, at least on the Thruway, all lanes accept EZ-pass. In the mixed cash/ez-pass lanes, all cars come to a stop. For dedicated EZ-Pass lanes, there is no stopping but the speed is limited to either 5 or 20, depending on the plaza. Full speed lanes are being built soon. Typically there is a dedicated lane on both sides of the plaza at the toll barriers, and usually just one at the extreme right on exits. Many drivers don't realize that EZ-pass works in cash lanes. On busy days they will staff one of the dedicated lanes, making it a cash/EZ-pass lane. In theory this should increase capacity, but with the morons cutting across 8 lanes to get to the dedicated lane, it can't do that much. (It does end up being a cake shift for the guy in that lane, because 80% or so of the people using it are using EZ-pass) Also, there are no gates, just a signal light for EZ-pass users.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 02:17
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:In NY, at least on the Thruway, all lanes accept EZ-pass. In the mixed cash/ez-pass lanes, all cars come to a stop. For dedicated EZ-Pass lanes, there is no stopping but the speed is limited to either 5 or 20, depending on the plaza. Full speed lanes are being built soon. I saw a couple of EZ-pass lanes at the Tappan Zee toll booth that must have been 40 mph+, and ever since, the 10 mph ones on the Newport Bridge just aren't any fun. I used to toss in tokens going 15! They have gates, too, so you can't even test your luck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I saw a couple of EZ-pass lanes at the Tappan Zee toll booth that must have been 40 mph+, and ever since, the 10 mph ones on the Newport Bridge just aren't any fun. I used to toss in tokens going 15! They have gates, too, so you can't even test your luck. Not that I'd actually ever do it, but, how strong are those gates? And gates at your average parking garage? I assume they're not going to stop a car, just mess it up enough that no-one would ram the gate unless they were really, really serious. I've also heard rumors that certain pieces of roadside furniture are designed to break away in case of collision, that they've got special bolts that will shear off instead of turning that minivan into a pancake. Is there any truth to that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 03:57
|
|