|
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. See, the thing about New Hampshire/New York is that it's advertised that any lane can take EZ-Pass, but the Cash capable and the EZ-Pass only lanes have clear signs saying "CASH" and "EZ-PASS ONLY." Unlike the stupid Fast Lane Only/Fast Lane & Cash/Cash Only lanes on the turnpike, it actually decreases the choices you need to make (two versus three) and reduces in less weaving and mistakes by motorists. The Masspike does not use gates at any of its plazas, by the way. I believe that the toll takers are trained not to reach out or otherwise prompt a car on a combo lane - if someone blows through it without taking a ticket or paying a toll, for instance, the camera system will flag them as a toll runner and send them a bill based on their license plate. It's much easier to let them go and collect a toll via mail than risk someone's safety. It also means you can adjust the number of cash or EZ-Pass only lanes on the fly, as opposed to Massachusetts where they are fixed based on the toll plaza. Last year, the Cambridge toll barrier (another candidate for high speed gantry tolling) had its westbound plaza on the mainline turnpike rearranged. Two lanes were closed, and the Fast Lane and cash lanes were reassigned (Fast Lane on the left, Cash on the right) with advance notice on signs and pavement marking. It's really improved efficiency. Now imagine if they could open or close more cash lanes as demand requires (such as on holiday weekends). Now, there's still the occasional dolt who tries to go through the fast lane with cash only, but we could reduce the number of mistakes by allowing Fast Lane in all cash lanes. Plus, the people who run through the fast lane without a transponder will again simply get a bill in the mail, as opposed to the ETC guy forced into the cash lane being punished. A real issue on the Masspike is that a lot of the toll plazas have very short decision areas which, depending on which way you come in and where you need to go, can really punish you depending on the amount of traffic. If you need to get across to a Fast Lane capable lane in a backup on 84, you're at the mercy of other motorists to let you through. Ideally, a system designed for ETC from the start would have segregated ETC only lanes (instead of our current glommed-on implementation in Massachusetts) that cash traffic can't interfere with, while the rest of the lanes would be combined ETC/Cash. The New Hampshire I-95 toll plaza is a greaat example of a good ETC toll plaza - there's a wide swath of EZ-Pass only lanes right in the middle, flanked by cash lanes.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 03:53 |
|
|
Pagan posted: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 know, with two people, we were able to lift the gates at the Civic Center parking lot, so I'd guess about 100 lbs would do the trick. As to breakaway devices, yes, they're recommended for any device within the clear zone. I say 'recommended' because you won't find many in Rhode Island! The clear zone is how far your average car will run off the road before stopping, and it depends on volume, speed, and slope. On a small road, it might be 10 feet, and can go up to 30 feet for a freeway. Any structure large enough to hurt a car should be breakaway if mounted in that zone: signs, lightpoles, signal span poles and cabinets... they're all designed so a car can hit them without penetrating the passenger compartment. There is no ideal crashworthy design; NCHRP and ATSSA put out periodic reports that cover recent developments. Connecticut goes one step further and includes the Zone of Intrusion (ZOI) in the clear zone, so if a truck hits a guard rail, deflects it the maximum amount, and then tips over the rail, the cab won't strike anything solid and crush/impale the passenger or driver.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 04:20
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:tolls tolls tolls That FHWA report taught me a lot about ideal toll facility design, when I'd never really considered it before, Connecticut not having tolls and all. I'm especially interested to see how the standardization in the new MUTCD will change toll facilities, especially with regard to ETC. I like the purple/white pavement markings for ETC-only lanes, though it doesn't offer much flexibility for swapping lanes around. Hopefully, all states will work toward standardization and we won't have this awful mish-mash of different systems anymore. Of course, they said the same thing about going metric, and look how that turned out 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 04:25
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That FHWA report taught me a lot about ideal toll facility design, when I'd never really considered it before, Connecticut not having tolls and all. I'm especially interested to see how the standardization in the new MUTCD will change toll facilities, especially with regard to ETC. I like the purple/white pavement markings for ETC-only lanes, though it doesn't offer much flexibility for swapping lanes around. Hopefully, all states will work toward standardization and we won't have this awful mish-mash of different systems anymore. It's to the states' benefits to get on the ETC bandwagon - the one-time hit of installing the ETC system and its maintenance has a lower total cost than paying and retaining toll takers. This is especially true on the turnpike, where being a toll taker nets you a fairly hefty (at least, compared to what I make) salary. It took Massachusetts forever to get on the "give away the transponders" bandwagon, but it's truly the way to go. The more people doing ETC, the better. quote:Hopefully RI and MA will pass similar laws. Massachusetts already has DBTB laws on the books, but it still doesn't stop stupid people from blocking intersections. quote: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! I imagine that 84-8 madness in Waterbury will be far more costly and painful to overhaul!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 04:51
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
Forgive me if you've covered this before and I forgot / missed it, but you've hit on metrification a few times now. I take it you've had to deal with the aftermath of the attempts? I was too young to really recognize what was/wasn't happening during the last real push for it, other than the fact that in elementary school they were still trying to convince us that by the time we hit high school, we'd be all metric.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 08:39
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Forgive me if you've covered this before and I forgot / missed it, but you've hit on metrification a few times now. I take it you've had to deal with the aftermath of the attempts? I was too young to really recognize what was/wasn't happening during the last real push for it, other than the fact that in elementary school they were still trying to convince us that by the time we hit high school, we'd be all metric. I'm probably about the same age as you, but I've had to deal with a couple left-over metric projects from the 90s. Here's a basic overview of what happened. The feds mandated that state DOTs switch to metric, but nearly all states asked for an exemption, saying it would be too costly. Connecticut decided to go for it. We switched over in 1998, and began to put all of our measurements, baselines, dimensions, et cetera in metric. The older engineers didn't speak metric, and none of the contractors wanted to switch, so we included conversion tables in most diagrams. The DOT bought metric scales, metric curve boards, metric measuring wheels, and so forth, probably spending millions of dollars. Well, it turned out that most of the engineers were just designing in English, then converting. On the other end, most of the contractors were converting back to English to construct. As you can imagine, converting everything twice brings in errors, and lots of our data (blow counts for geotechnical analysis, for example) doesn't have a direct metric equivalent, so putting it in metric was pointless. After all, when you're smacking a tube with a 135-pound hammer and seeing how many hits it takes to sink 6 inches, converting will just confuse people. Errors compounded, and a year or so later, we switched back. Of course, there are still metric projects floating around, and it's always fun to get stuck with one of those. One of the weird side-effects is that we ended up with some new engineers that were weaned on metric and couldn't use English units anymore! kefkafloyd posted:I imagine that 84-8 madness in Waterbury will be far more costly and painful to overhaul! One of our alternatives will make Maintenance and Protection of Traffic relatively simple, because it builds mostly on a new alignment. At least Waterbury has some space; downtown Hartford is packed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 18:15
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted: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 29, 2009 18:24
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Stamford has been painting them in the past few months and to my surprise, people other than me have started paying attention to whether or not they're blocking the intersection most of the time. Where they haven't, I'm hoping they're waiting until it gets warm for a few more because they're really needed. Yeah, I noticed this morning that that legislation was from September. My bosses just waited until now to email it to me  I'm glad to see people obeying it, and I hope it'll stick! When I was in France, they enacted legislation that smoking in restaurants was prohibited, but it was never enforced at all, so people just ignored it. Of course, the French have a long tradition of ignoring laws. There was even a field of marijuana growing behind the local police station.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2009 18:49
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:One of our alternatives will make Maintenance and Protection of Traffic relatively simple, because it builds mostly on a new alignment. At least Waterbury has some space; downtown Hartford is packed. Well, I was mostly referring to the Mixmaster, not any roadways in particular in downtown. Replacing that thing will not be cheap and/or painless. Hello 1.3 billion dollars! Hey, here's some road trivia - where's the only (publicly accessible) state-owned place in Connecticut (as far as I know) that still has the segment of I-84 from Manchester to the Massachusetts line signed as I-86?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2009 04:23
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:Well, I was mostly referring to the Mixmaster, not any roadways in particular in downtown. Replacing that thing will not be cheap and/or painless. Hello 1.3 billion dollars! That's what I was referring to. The preferred alternative builds the mixmaster on the east side of the river, leaving the existing one open to traffic in the meantime. It's $3 billion now, by the way  quote:Hey, here's some road trivia - where's the only (publicly accessible) state-owned place in Connecticut (as far as I know) that still has the segment of I-84 from Manchester to the Massachusetts line signed as I-86? Oh wow, that's tricky. The numbering changed over in 1984, and we've changed pretty much all of our freeway signs since then. It could be in a forgotten park-and-ride somewhere, or maybe at UConn or the prison/former asylum out there in Mansfield. In short, I give up
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2009 04:42
|
|
|
I would think that the NIMBYs would fight a brand new interchange tooth-and-nail. Are they still planning on going forward with the full stack?Cichlidae posted:
Near the old Southwest baggage claim at Terminal B in Bradley Airport there's a "Welcome to Connecticut" sign that must be at least 30 years old at this point. It still has it signed as 86. This thing is doomed too, as Terminal B's gonna be closing early next year. I took a photograph of it for posterity. Now, the Fairfield West service plaza could have it in their very old map (if it hasn't been replaced in the past few years) but I believe that map was made shortly after the return to I-84 numbering but before certain freeways were cancelled (like US 7 / CT 11).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2009 14:00
|
|
|
Christ, I wish they'd do the "blocking the box" thing here in Denver. The problem is due to our... "unique" downtown layout, we've got some really odd sized boxes, so I don't know if it would help.  This is a bad intersection. I do not like this intersection. It is the intersection of 3 one-way streets in downtown Denver. You will notice that while Broadway and 18th ave are normal, north-south-east-west streets, Tremont and 18th st (the unlabeled one at the upper left) are not. This is because the people who originally laid out the street grid here were stupid. The entire downtown street grid is skewed at a 45 degree angle to the the streets in pretty much the entire rest of the greater Denver area, so you get really retarded intersection layouts like this one. During rush hour, people going southbound on Broadway constantly block the intersection, because I guess little cat tracks are really easy to confuse with the gigantic stop bars when you're talking on your cell phone and putting on makeup and eating a cheeseburger while driving, all apparently with your feet. So what ends up happening, is people on Broadway get a yellow light, they panic and decide to try to blow through the intersection, there isn't enough room on the far side past Tremont (which is where they have to get to), so they either stop right before the first set of cat tracks leading from 18th ave to 18th st (which is usually fine, as you can still get around them), or at the second or third set (which is bad, because it blocks lanes), or right in that little no-man's land between the 18th ave->tremont tracks and the 18th ave-> 18th st tracks (which mostly just pisses people off and causes a lot of honking).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2009 18:20
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Yeah, I noticed this morning that that legislation was from September. My bosses just waited until now to email it to me
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2009 18:27
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:I would think that the NIMBYs would fight a brand new interchange tooth-and-nail. Are they still planning on going forward with the full stack? The project website, http://www.i84wins.com/ , has plenty of material on the interchange project. It looks like Alternative 8 is the best choice, which isn't quite a stack, but is functionally similar. It removes the industrial development on the east side of the river, and provides room for commercial development on the west bank. The white paper is especially informative. As to NIMBY, they ran into the same problem when it was built 50 years ago. The flood of 1955 washed all the backyards away quote:Near the old Southwest baggage claim at Terminal B in Bradley Airport there's a "Welcome to Connecticut" sign that must be at least 30 years old at this point. It still has it signed as 86. This thing is doomed too, as Terminal B's gonna be closing early next year. I took a photograph of it for posterity. Ah, thanks for the trivium! I'll have to tell my boss and see what he thinks. He started working here right at the time the numbering was changed, and it led to a lot of confusion on his part. quote:Now, the Fairfield West service plaza could have it in their very old map (if it hasn't been replaced in the past few years) but I believe that map was made shortly after the return to I-84 numbering but before certain freeways were cancelled (like US 7 / CT 11). 11 isn't completely canceled; we just can't afford to build it. Give me $1B and we'll get started! potato of destiny posted:Christ, I wish they'd do the "blocking the box" thing here in Denver. The problem is due to our... "unique" downtown layout, we've got some really odd sized boxes, so I don't know if it would help. Many states don't have laws that explicitly outlaw gridlocking. You could push your legislator to draft one, or to have it enforced if it's not already. Alternatively, you could start driving a bulldozer GWBBQ posted:Nevermind, the intersection I was thinking of (Long Ridge Rd. and Cold Spring) does have it painted after all. People going from Cold Spring past Long Ridge to turn left onto High Ridge always used to block cross traffic on Long Ridge because the road simply can't handle that volume, although signal timing between this intersection the one at High Ridge, and the first one up the hill on High Ridge is not synchronized well for rush hour. Now they stop right at the edge of the box and don't pull forward until it's clear up ahead. Do you actually live in Stamford? That city, despite not being in my district, has been the cause of many many headaches lately. Back on topic, I'm glad to hear that people are actually paying attention to the box. They must be familiar with how it works in New York. If the most aggressive region can handle it, there's hope for the rest of the state!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2009 22:58
|
|
|
I always hear the theory with mass transit in low-density cities is that good service will lead to higher densities and less car use. What examples are in the U.S.?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2009 21:26
|
|
|
Fake User Name posted:I always hear the theory with mass transit in low-density cities is that good service will lead to higher densities and less car use. What examples are in the U.S.? It's not the best example, but Stamford and Norwalk, Connecticut have had a lot of development clustered around their train stations in recent years. However, they were high-density to begin with. I can't think of any city here upon which mass transit has recently had a large effect, but New England isn't prone to explosive urban growth these days. Perhaps someone from another part of the country could provide an example. ----- Our engineers are panicking about the new MUTCD, but they're also excited about what they're calling Stimulus 2. There's a rumor that we'll be getting more stimulus money, and we're trying to prepare by getting some projects together. It's hard to explain how much the first one helped out. If it weren't for the stimulus act, I'd probably be out of a job, and the state would end up wasting a lot of money in the long run with expensive repairs. ----- I've read most of the Holy Book by now, and found that they used Connecticut in a couple examples... poorly.   Great job, guys, you got the names of the cities right. Now just work on the lane configuration, control cities, the shape of the 72 panel, the pile of bodies from Granny McGee's pileup last week...  Now this one is just a slap in the face! If you're not sure why, this post should clarify. Not only is it a (probably unintentional) stab at Connecticut's poor freeway building record, it's factually incorrect. I-86 wasn't even meant to go to Providence! The FHWA is clearly living in a Kafkaesque alternate reality where Connecticut finished all their freeways and never had to add extra lanes, and every country has recently converted to the English measurement system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2009 23:13
|
|
|
Thanks for continually updating this thread, it is by far my favorite Ask/Tell, and lately I've had reason to copy/pasta some of your posts (WITH PROPER ATTRIBUTION) to explain things to friends, which is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
Stew Man Chew posted:Thanks for continually updating this thread, it is by far my favorite Ask/Tell, and lately I've had reason to copy/pasta some of your posts (WITH PROPER ATTRIBUTION) to explain things to friends, which is hilarious. Glad you like it so much! Thanks to everyone for contributing, though the thread seems to be dying out now. You can all feel free to PM me if you have any questions once the thread is gone, and perhaps I'll start a new one in a couple years. Traffic engineering is an ever-changing world!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2010 22:43
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Do you actually live in Stamford? That city, despite not being in my district, has been the cause of many many headaches lately. Back on topic, I'm glad to hear that people are actually paying attention to the box. They must be familiar with how it works in New York. If the most aggressive region can handle it, there's hope for the rest of the state!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2010 22:47
|
|
|
Just checking in to say this thread is awesome, thanks for making it!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2010 23:14
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Worcester's a total nightmare, traffic-wise. All of its roads were laid out before automobiles were around, a bunch of the intersections meet at weird angles, things are so built-up that there's no way to fix the roads, I'd be willing to bet that nothing Yeah, dragging up an ancient post, but... Yay Kelley Square! 8 points of entry/exit, no lights, no signs, an entrance/exit to a major highway, tons of traffic during rush hour, completely stops out-of-towners in their tracks. Welcome to Worcester  Click here for the full 825x577 image.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 22:10
|
|
|
A couple off-the-wall questions (which may have already been covered): - Some people like to slow down, or even stop when taking onramps. Would it be feasible to put speed limit signs at the beginning of onramps, which denoted the speed of the upcoming highway? - I brought this up in this 'wishlist' thread in SH/SC, but does anybody keep a big map of the speed limits of every road in the country? DOT, Navteq? Cichlidae posted:Glad you like it so much! Thanks to everyone for contributing, though the thread seems to be dying out now. You can all feel free to PM me if you have any questions once the thread is gone, and perhaps I'll start a new one in a couple years. Traffic engineering is an ever-changing world! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 23:33
|
|
|
A Cute Baby Goat posted:Yeah, dragging up an ancient post, but... Yay Kelley Square! 8 points of entry/exit, no lights, no signs, an entrance/exit to a major highway, tons of traffic during rush hour, completely stops out-of-towners in their tracks. Welcome to Worcester I've got a coworker from Wisstah, and I've noticed he never complains about having to drive in Connecticut! I've personally never been up there, nor will I, until Route 146 gets interstate designation and becomes I-190. New interstates are hard to come by in New England! To Connecticut goons, we've finished the Brookfield Bypass on US 7, and Route 72 into Bristol will soon be complete. There aren't any big projects in the pipeline, aside from the Busway, on which I'm now working. For those of you wondering why the Busway's taking so long, well, let's have a look at things. For those unfamiliar with the project, its official website will bring you up to speed. BUSWAY BLUES The Busway was first brought to life over a decade ago, when growing congestion on Interstate 84 prompted ConnDOT to commission the West Side Access Study. It looked at the traffic generators in the capitol, the modes they used, how volumes would increase in the future, and how to mitigate congestion. When the report (not available online, as far as I know) was finally finished, it brought to light a few important problems: * I-84 sucks and is completely substandard, but we already knew this. * The AADT will climb from 154,000 to 190,000 by 2020, completely swamping the freeway. * Even with today's volumes, I-84 backs up so badly that most of Hartford's arterials are at Level of Service F. Before the final report (PDF) came out, some bright mind decided that snatching some Amtrak right-of-way and paving it would solve our problems. The original cost estimate was $50 million to do it, and that's very cheap compared to adding new lanes to I-84. Soon, a more detailed analysis was done, and a couple problems came up, but money solves all problems! Cost estimate revised to $75M. It was around this time that some detailed traffic analysis was done. The result: the Busway would carry about 15,000 passengers per day. That's a lot of people, sure, but keep in mind this isn't the number of people who wouldn't be traveling on I-84. Most of that 15,000 would be taking the bus anyway; they're just using a faster route. Even if all 15,000 used the Busway, though, that would only reduce the 2020 AADT from 190,000 to 175,000. Let's take a quick look now at where the Busway goes and what it does.  (From the page linked above) (Haha, those guys even colored it wrong. Look at the bottom end of it.) It runs from downtown New Britain, a working-class industrial city, in the south, to the insurance center of Hartford, filled with white-collar business, in the north. Along the way are Newington, a middle-class, spread-out town, and West Hartford, a relatively rich town filled mostly with yuppies. The Busway has two major purposes: to provide fast service between these four municipalities, and to speed up buses from more distant locales. The latter makes a lot of sense, really; lowering ride times by several minutes makes a huge distance. The former, however, is dubious. West Hartford residents have no interest in the Busway, because they have no trouble affording their own vehicles and, frankly, many refuse to ride the bus. Newington's Busway stations are severely lacking in parking, and the town is so spread out that there'd be no way to get there without driving. The state proposed some transit-oriented development, but Newington has a blanket ban on new developments, because it doesn't want to lose its character. New Britain honestly needs the Busway, and has been its main proponent. They have a lot to gain. Hartford, on the other end, doesn't seem to find it terribly useful, and have been ambivalent about the whole thing since the beginning. It gets worse. At this point, the Busway has the backing of Governor Rowland, who is soon put in jail, and somehow his replacement gets reelected and is still in office. This means the Busway cannot die. Hartford, realizing this is the case, gets a sly grin like the Grinch and starts tugging the political strings. "Hey DOT, since you're messing with our roads, how about you buy us new signals for our arterials, add some lanes, do some widening..." The DOT can't say no, of course, so it pays for all that. Amtrak picks up on the game and tells the DOT to build it an access roadway along its tracks. Bicycle groups want a bike path adjacent to the Busway. West Hartford wants prettier stations. New Britain wants a new stop for the East Campus of CCSU... Once the real design work begins, the engineers figure out the Busway's not as simple as they thought. One stretch is too narrow for two lanes, so we need to put in a signal and make it alternating one-way. We need to build some bridges and repair others. Aetna wants $30,000 for each parking spot we need to take to build Amtrak's access road... Oh, and some people with foresight want us to redesign the bridges we've already engineered to make sure that we can eventually rip out the asphalt and put rails back in. The new cost estimate comes in, and the project is pushing $750 million. At this point, things are not looking good. Scheduled completion date's 2013, and we're in final design, but our designs are still preliminary. We're spending $1 million per month JUST ON PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING. The final cost will probably hit $1 billion before long; that's enough to finish Route 11, for comparison, or rework a few interchanges. It's justified, though, because we'll be taking a few dozen buses an hour off of the freeway. I don't know what else to tell you. Things aren't looking good. I doubt this'll be done in 4 years; it might still be in the engineering phase. Public reception is decidedly cool, and it may even become a big issue in the next election. Either way, I lose. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Jan 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 23:41
|
|
|
quazi posted:A couple off-the-wall questions (which may have already been covered): Certainly feasible, but it might prompt people to take the ramp curves too sharply, and then the DOT would be at least partially liable. Putting up a sign that says "You can go 65" on a curve that's designed for 35 can bring issues. In my experience, though, these signs wouldn't be very useful unless they were electronic and could show the current speed of the rightmost lane of traffic. Speed limits don't have all that much to do with the speed people drive, after all. The technology exists, and I've used it before, just not for this purpose. quote:- I brought this up in this 'wishlist' thread in SH/SC, but does anybody keep a big map of the speed limits of every road in the country? DOT, Navteq? I know it's someone in the DOT's job to notify map-makers of changes in road alignment, speed limit, lane use, and such. It must take a long time for this info to get around, because I see some roads on Google Earth that haven't existed in decades! As to a big map, though, we certainly don't have one, even for the state. If I want to know what the speed limit is, I can either go on the photolog and "drive" down the road to look for speed limit signs, or go to the 40-year-old straight line diagram book and hope it hasn't changed since. The straight line diagram has 85th percentile speeds penciled in, so that's a plus! Honestly, it's inexcusable how much information isn't readily available in electronic form. If I want to find signal timings, I have to go to a cabinet and pull out a signal plan, and sometimes drive out to the signal in the field and make sure it hasn't been changed since. We have no electronic list of signs, so no way to easily track how old they are and when they need to be replaced. If I want someone to fabricate a sign, I can't send them a CAD file; I need to fax them a copy of the handwritten sign detail drafted 3 decades ago. Edit: I see you also mentioned electronic speed limit signs in that thread. They do exist, just not in that form. They're just normal speed limit signs with LED pixels that can be changed either according to a schedule, or based on real-time traffic conditions. I've seen them in use on the Autobahn. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Jan 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 23:52
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:BUSWAY BLUES  I knew the busway was complicated, but this is amazing. The West Hartford comments surprise me. I know the town is a bit snooty, but the section of town that it goes through isn't the best. The Busway would be a way to revitalise that section of town.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 02:07
|
|
|
Lobstaman posted:
The way it was explained to me was that that part of West Hartford was mostly first-generation immigrants who have come into some money, and they would rather drive their cars than ride the bus. It's obviously a rather biased viewpoint (and not mine), but it's no myth that the town itself doesn't care about the Busway. Even if some parts of West Hartford could benefit from the increased accessibility, the town's leaders haven't done the Busway any favors. I go up to BJ's there all the time, so I'm rather familiar with the neighborhood. The Colt plant especially seems like it could generate significant volumes on the Busway. Some feeder routes up into Bloomfield could really help out. Edit: One more thing about the Busway. In that detailed traffic analysis, the effect on Hartford-area traffic was compared between no-build and full build. There was hardly any difference. Asylum Street, Farmington Ave, Flatbush Ave, Capitol Ave, and all the freeways will have LOS F either way. Ouch. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Jan 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 02:39
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:BUSWAYS. GODDAMN BUSWAYS. Los Angeles decided to try this exact same idea in the San Fernando Valley. Buying up an abandoned ROW that ran parallel to the US-101 and Ventura Blvd. It was supposed to be rail, but a pair of laws went into effect that barred any and all forms of rail or subway transportation on that route. So LA decided to build a busway there instead. Of course now the system is running close to full capacity and the asphalt of the busway itself is falling apart. Hopefully it will be converted to rail in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 05:26
|
|
|
I thought this article was interesting. It's about how a suburb of DC has a totally computer controlled traffic light system that can be changed on the fly to help when a crash occurs during rush hour. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/04/AR2010010402807.html?sub=AR 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 05:35
|
|
|
What is the deal with this turn? It looks like they paved the road and then decided the curve wasn't dangerous enough, so they blocked a good half of the road so that driving into oncoming traffic is even easier for how blind it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 05:37
|
|
|
RyuHimora posted:What is the deal with this turn? The main reason is to make oncoming traffic more visible by increasing sight distance. If they let trees grow right up to the edge of the lanes, you wouldn't be able to see anything as you went around the curve. Clearing out that area also helps with off-tracking, as heavy trucks will swing into an adjacent lane while going around a sharp turn. It provides some extra space for a car to pull over in an emergency. Having the travel lanes run along the extreme outer edge is because a wider radius curve is safer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 13:20
|
|
|
I'm curious what everything here thinks of the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B-Ox0ZmVIU Basically a bunch of college students drive side by side on the freeway at exactly the posted speed limit and film the results.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 22:19
|
|
|
I've seen that. I'm not sure what the point of the whole exercise was. Yes, people rarely drive the speed limit. Whoop-de-doo. I think most people are aware (or at least I've been aware for a long time) that speed limits are arbitrary and set by local or state governments, and not based on how people actually drive. I've also been aware for a long time of the power of lobbies to alter speed limits or install other speed-altering features (such as my aforementioned goodie-two-shoes step-brother who got his boyscout troop to lobby the town to install speed bumps on his street). I don't know, the video is entertaining, but at the same time I just want to say, "So what?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 22:33
|
|
|
It was an interesting experiment, sure. Personally, I can't stand people who think its their job to enforce the speed limit. Basically, people who do what they were doing in the video, driving next to the person next to them, at or below the speed limit. Just get right and let people pass you. I've heard that on the Autobahn in Germany, you can be ticketed for using the left lane for driving and not just passing. Are there any locations in the US that have similar laws?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 22:48
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Los Angeles decided to try this exact same idea in the San Fernando Valley. Buying up an abandoned ROW that ran parallel to the US-101 and Ventura Blvd. It was supposed to be rail, but a pair of laws went into effect that barred any and all forms of rail or subway transportation on that route. LA lost any respect I may have had for it decades ago when it decided to pave over its rail lines to add more freeway lanes. Wouldn't it be funny if they did the opposite now? Frinkahedron posted:I thought this article was interesting. It's about how a suburb of DC has a totally computer controlled traffic light system that can be changed on the fly to help when a crash occurs during rush hour. Haha, I love how they dumbed everything down for the average reader. It's nice being able to use technical terms here; I'd go nuts if I had to describe everything as 'boxes' and 'computers.' The article is quite good, aside from that. I think they vastly overstate a signal controller's intelligence! Solkanar512 posted:I'm curious what everything here thinks of the following video: I'd seen that from another thread. I laughed at first, but when it cut to the interviews with the self-satisfied students, the rage began to build in my throat until I suddenly found myself battering a hole through my monitor with my forehead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 22:52
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:It was an interesting experiment, sure. It's a law on the books in many jurisdictions, but only rarely enforced. We used to put up "keep right except to pass" signs, but drivers just ignore them. Troopers certainly don't pull people over for driving in the left lane, and you could probably argue you were "just passing that guy way up there" to get out of the ticket. Silver Falcon posted:I don't know, the video is entertaining, but at the same time I just want to say, "So what?" Now imagine all the gas they wasted thanks to the congestion they caused
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 22:55
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:I've heard that on the Autobahn in Germany, you can be ticketed for using the left lane for driving and not just passing. Are there any locations in the US that have similar laws?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 23:02
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:I've heard that on the Autobahn in Germany, you can be ticketed for using the left lane for driving and not just passing. Are there any locations in the US that have similar laws? Cichlidae is right though, I don't know of any state that enforces it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2010 23:18
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:It's a law on the books in many jurisdictions, but only rarely enforced. We used to put up "keep right except to pass" signs, but drivers just ignore them. Troopers certainly don't pull people over for driving in the left lane, and you could probably argue you were "just passing that guy way up there" to get out of the ticket
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2010 18:58
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I've got a coworker from Wisstah, and I've noticed he never complains about having to drive in Connecticut! I've personally never been up there, nor will I, until Route 146 gets interstate designation and becomes I-190. New interstates are hard to come by in New England! Unfortunately 146 still has some at-grades in Millbury and those will probably never be upgraded. There are also some segments in RI that are not interstate standard. If it was, it would probably become I-490 since it would end at I-95.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2010 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 03:53 |
|
|
smackfu posted:If people were to only pass in the left lane, wouldn't the highways be drastically undersized? In congested situations, or if someone is making a left turn, it's fine to pass on the right. When the Level of Service is A-D, though, you really don't have an excuse. I've always wondered, if someone was traveling slowly in the left lane (illegal) and you passed him on the right (also illegal), which would get pulled over? kefkafloyd posted:Unfortunately 146 still has some at-grades in Millbury and those will probably never be upgraded. There are also some segments in RI that are not interstate standard. If the feds want it badly enough, they could just build a bypass. Rhode Island already has a half-bypass around their at-grade intersections, built back in the 90s to serve the industrial areas around Woonsocket. Of course, you never know. Look how much money MassHighway spent to bring 146 up to 290. As to "interstate standard," that really means nothing. Not a single freeway in Connecticut is fully up to interstate standards, and possibly none in New England. Heck, in other parts of the country, interstates go over drawbridges and through traffic signals. For numbering, I-490 would make more sense, as it would eliminate the overlap of 190 and 290. If we're going strictly by the book, I-395 should get a new designation, as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2010 22:51
|
|