Ask me about being a Traffic Engineer!

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

patricius: Apr 17, 2006; sicut patribus sit deus nobis

Cichlidae posted:

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.

Just out of curiosity, where can you find an interstate with a traffic signal on it? (Or a drawbridge for that matter?) I've never seen one, but I haven't exactly done a lot of driving, either. I thought that the lack of signals and at-grade crossings was the one thing you could count on any interstate highway to have as a defining characteristic, even if it wasn't up to standards in other ways.

# ? Jan 12, 2010 01:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 07:39

Dominus Vobiscum: Sep 2, 2004; Our motives are multiple, our desires complex.; Fallen Rib

patricius posted:

Just out of curiosity, where can you find an interstate with a traffic signal on it? (Or a drawbridge for that matter?) I've never seen one, but I haven't exactly done a lot of driving, either. I thought that the lack of signals and at-grade crossings was the one thing you could count on any interstate highway to have as a defining characteristic, even if it wasn't up to standards in other ways.

I-70 in Breezewood, PA, is the most notable one. It splits off from the Pennsylvania Turnpike and follows a stretch of surface US 30 for a short distance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gaps_in_Interstate_Highways#At-grade_intersections_and_traffic_lights

# ? Jan 12, 2010 01:24

Xerol: Jan 13, 2007

The Baltimore beltway has a drawbridge in the southeast section of it, but the area's fairly low traffic and that section of the beltway wasn't even interstate-grade until a few years ago.

# ? Jan 12, 2010 02:39

kefkafloyd: Jun 8, 2006; What really knocked me out
Was her cheap sunglasses

Cichlidae posted:

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.

Due to the residential areas and wetlands issues around that area, there will probably never be a bypass.

Freeway building in Massachusetts has mostly stalled over the past twenty years. MA 57 still dead ends in a middle of a field...

quote:

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.

Well, most of CT's freeways were built in segments, some even before standards were drafted, as you well know. Grandfathering is one thing, putting designations on roads built in the past few decades is another. However, RI's sections of 146 really are substandard and could use an upgrade as part of some federal Interstate funding was my point I guess.

quote:

Just out of curiosity, where can you find an interstate with a traffic signal on it? (Or a drawbridge for that matter?) I've never seen one, but I haven't exactly done a lot of driving, either. I thought that the lack of signals and at-grade crossings was the one thing you could count on any interstate highway to have as a defining characteristic, even if it wasn't up to standards in other ways.

The end of I-291 in MA ends at a traffic light at its interchange with the turnpike. To get from I-90 to 291, you have to make a left turn at this traffic light. Technically 291's designation ends at the point where the turnpike crosses 291, which is just a few feet before this interchange, so I'm not really sure if it counts, but... hey. No direct connection and such.

Drawbridges are a general exception in certain rare cases, and stoplights even more so. The Wiki article on Interstate gaps is pretty robust.

# ? Jan 12, 2010 03:55

IOwnCalculus: Apr 2, 2003

Another question for Cichlidae. Why on earth would anyone build a freeway without an HOV lane, only to start the process of putting one in a relatively short time later?

Biggest offender to me is Loop 101, especially the section that runs from Loop 202 to Loop 202 (yes, really, the 101 and 202 intersect twice). It took them over a decade to build the drat road, and five years later they started putting in the HOV lane.

Now that it's all done, it's finally the freeway it should have been in the first place, and can actually get you from A to B during rush hour.

# ? Jan 12, 2010 04:52

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

IOwnCalculus posted:

Another question for Cichlidae. Why on earth would anyone build a freeway without an HOV lane, only to start the process of putting one in a relatively short time later?

Biggest offender to me is Loop 101, especially the section that runs from Loop 202 to Loop 202 (yes, really, the 101 and 202 intersect twice). It took them over a decade to build the drat road, and five years later they started putting in the HOV lane.

Now that it's all done, it's finally the freeway it should have been in the first place, and can actually get you from A to B during rush hour.

I think the stimulus is giving a ton of money for HOV lanes, but i don't know.

# ? Jan 12, 2010 05:44

IOwnCalculus: Apr 2, 2003

The stimulus is far too late to have jumpstarted the HOV lane building in the East Valley - this was all in progress before the economy took a giant poo poo.

It has, however, helped the West Valley out big time - I10 westbound is no longer 20+ miles of poo poo once you get past 7th Ave.

# ? Jan 12, 2010 06:17

Cichlidae: Aug 12, 2005; ME LOVE
MAKE RED LIGHT; Dr. Infant, MD

Dominus Vobiscum posted:

I-70 in Breezewood, PA, is the most notable one. It splits off from the Pennsylvania Turnpike and follows a stretch of surface US 30 for a short distance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gaps_in_Interstate_Highways#At-grade_intersections_and_traffic_lights

Breezewood also has the distinction of being the smallest control city for an interstate: it's unincorporated and has a population of about 200.

kefkafloyd posted:

Well, most of CT's freeways were built in segments, some even before standards were drafted, as you well know. Grandfathering is one thing, putting designations on roads built in the past few decades is another. However, RI's sections of 146 really are substandard and could use an upgrade as part of some federal Interstate funding was my point I guess.

What gets designated as an interstate is much more a political question than a geometric one. One powerful governor or senator is all it takes. It's like how they designate control cities: a few of the AASHTO guys get together in a bar and have an informal discussion over a couple beers, then draft up the official decision the next day.

IOwnCalculus posted:

Another question for Cichlidae. Why on earth would anyone build a freeway without an HOV lane, only to start the process of putting one in a relatively short time later?

Biggest offender to me is Loop 101, especially the section that runs from Loop 202 to Loop 202 (yes, really, the 101 and 202 intersect twice). It took them over a decade to build the drat road, and five years later they started putting in the HOV lane.

Now that it's all done, it's finally the freeway it should have been in the first place, and can actually get you from A to B during rush hour.

It could just be that Arizona has really really horrible planning. Additionally, building a freeway takes 10+ years off planning and design, while adding HOV lanes can be done in a couple years. It's quite possible that they didn't originally intend to put them in, and they were added 10-15 years into design, which comes out to about 5 years after construction. As nm mentioned above, funding is also an issue.

Speaking of which, have any of you heard about Stim2? I haven't seen any news about it outside of work, but my bosses seem to think it's a sure thing, and are even deferring projects so they'd be shovel-ready should Stim2 come out.

# ? Jan 12, 2010 13:18

Mandalay: Mar 16, 2007; WoW Forums Refugee

Sweet thread, I love this stuff. I've grown up as a Simcity/Transport Tycoon fanatic, and was once a City & Regional Planning major at Berkeley. If I was born a trust fund baby, I would probably study transit for fun.

Anyways, I've spent most of my life in California, so my knowledge of roundabouts is pretty limited. There's one small one near my office that has no signals and there's a larger one in the same county that I see from time to time--also no signals.

Yet I went to Spain two weeks ago and there are signals everywhere INSIDE the roundabout. Is this pretty standard practice for high-traffic roundabouts? (click for gmaps)

Is this considered a roundabout? There's a round shape to it all, but the main artery (the longest avenue in Madrid) clearly penetrates the middle.

Also, have you had any success with busways or new public transit in CT?

# ? Jan 12, 2010 17:32

kefkafloyd: Jun 8, 2006; What really knocked me out
Was her cheap sunglasses

The latter is more like a rotary than a roundabout, but not quite there. Consider it more of a circular intersection. We have a few like that on Route 33 in Chicopee; they're not technically rotaries but they are circular in nature.

"roundabouts" are meant for slow, traffic calming scenes, so a stoplight in them might not be unusual, while rotaries are large and meant to be taken at-speed.

# ? Jan 12, 2010 18:05

Cichlidae: Aug 12, 2005; ME LOVE
MAKE RED LIGHT; Dr. Infant, MD

Mandalay posted:

Sweet thread, I love this stuff. I've grown up as a Simcity/Transport Tycoon fanatic, and was once a City & Regional Planning major at Berkeley. If I was born a trust fund baby, I would probably study transit for fun.

Anyways, I've spent most of my life in California, so my knowledge of roundabouts is pretty limited. There's one small one near my office that has no signals and there's a larger one in the same county that I see from time to time--also no signals.

Yet I went to Spain two weeks ago and there are signals everywhere INSIDE the roundabout. Is this pretty standard practice for high-traffic roundabouts? (click for gmaps)

Traffic circles with signals are, as you said, relatively common in very high-volume traffic circles. Most of these were designed before automobiles, and acted as open squares or monumental centerpieces. Once the roads were overtaken by vehicular traffic, they had to be transformed into roadways, and it's tough to turn such a big circle into an effective intersection. There are countless variations, my favorite of which is the Place de l'Etoile in Paris, with no lane lines or signals and 12 incoming roadways.

quote:

Is this considered a roundabout? There's a round shape to it all, but the main artery (the longest avenue in Madrid) clearly penetrates the middle.

We call those throughabouts or hamburger roundabouts, though that's bigger than most. Remember how roundabouts are best when the volumes on all approaching legs is about equal? When that's not the case, a hamburger roundabout helps move traffic on the main leg without interruptions.

quote:

Also, have you had any success with busways or new public transit in CT?

Our train ridership has been climbing in the past few years, so we're adding new parking. Other than that, though, I don't think we've implemented any new transit in ages. Most of what we have is running on 100+ year old infrastructure.

kefkafloyd posted:

The latter is more like a rotary than a roundabout, but not quite there. Consider it more of a circular intersection. We have a few like that on Route 33 in Chicopee; they're not technically rotaries but they are circular in nature.

"roundabouts" are meant for slow, traffic calming scenes, so a stoplight in them might not be unusual, while rotaries are large and meant to be taken at-speed.

We try to do our best to emphasize the difference, because when most New Englanders think of roundabouts, they (incorrectly) remember the rotaries at Cape Cod that are perpetually backed up, or the nasty one in Chicopee, or all the ones north of Boston on I-93.

# ? Jan 12, 2010 18:27

Mandalay: Mar 16, 2007; WoW Forums Refugee

Cichlidae posted:

Traffic circles with signals are, as you said, relatively common in very high-volume traffic circles. Most of these were designed before automobiles, and acted as open squares or monumental centerpieces. Once the roads were overtaken by vehicular traffic, they had to be transformed into roadways, and it's tough to turn such a big circle into an effective intersection. There are countless variations, my favorite of which is the Place de l'Etoile in Paris, with no lane lines or signals and 12 incoming roadways.

If Parisians can navigate the Arc d'Triomphe without signals, why can't everyone else? :colbert:

nevermind the fact Plaza Concorde down the street, and every other intersection I saw in Paris, has signals

Cichlidae posted:

Our train ridership has been climbing in the past few years, so we're adding new parking. Other than that, though, I don't think we've implemented any new transit in ages. Most of what we have is running on 100+ year old infrastructure.

Wasn't the Acela high speed train introduced in CT in the last decade? I took the TGV from Montpelier to Paris and it was a very pleasant experience. However, the non-high-speed segment from Barcelona to Montpelier was zzzz.

# ? Jan 12, 2010 18:40

Socket Ryanist: Aug 30, 2004

Acela is the fastest train in the US, but calling it "high speed" is laughable when you look at european trains.

# ? Jan 12, 2010 18:58

SLOSifl: Aug 10, 2002

Nexis posted:

Yeah S. Austin! At least 71 and 35 isn't an at grade interchange anymore.

The interchange you posted is loving scary. I absolutely avoid it. It doesn't help that several freeways combined with 50 ramps and overpasses exist there, combined with relatively busy surface streets that all sort of weave through the support structures of the flyovers. You can try to get from a major road to a freeway and end up going the opposite direction on the road you began on by missing one turn lane.

Also, you mentioned the 71 and 35 interchange. It's interesting because 71W to 35N, and 35S to 71W have flyovers that make things flow pretty well. 71E to 35N gets one too. 71E to 35S takes you through a very busy set of intersections, and 35N to 71E is also kind of a mess. 35N to 71W is no fun either.

The red lines indicate where flyovers were clearly meant to be, because the ramps exist on both ends. They aren't there though, and just kind of shoot off into space. They are not just even-grade exits or anything, they are pretty tall ramps that just end.

And everything between that interchange and about 10 miles north on 35 is easily the most congested section of freeway I've ever seen. Not to mention the very short exit ramps through downtown. The one at 6th street is the "best". It has almost no lead-in, so it's hard to find room to slow down. You come over a blind hill, and have to stop immediately at the bottom for a light. When downtown traffic is busy, you can get into the exit lane and come to a dead stop.

After spending the holidays in Pittsburgh though, nothing will ever seem quite as bad. Downtown PIT combines a ton of freeways, bridges, flyovers, tunnels, exits on the left, stop-before-entering ramps with no room to merge, and exits that only let you travel in one direction without making a blatant middle-of-the-street u-turn to go the other way.

SLOSifl fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Jan 12, 2010

# ? Jan 12, 2010 19:50

nozz: Jan 27, 2007; proficient pringle eater

Mandalay posted:

Is this pretty standard practice for high-traffic roundabouts?

In the UK it is VERY common, probably too common. Here is a bog standard example:

(A330/M3 spur/A30, Basingstoke, Hampshire)

A lot of them occur from the UK addiction of using them on motorway junctions:

(M25/A30/B357 spur, Staines, Surrey)

But they can occur anywhere really:

(M3/A31/B3404/1 other road, Winchester, Hampshire)

The UK does go bonkers with roundabouts though (well we did invent them in their current format)

(A31/A325, Farnham, Surrey)

(M1/A41/A4008, Watford, Hertfordshire)

(M40/A4010/A404/1 other road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire)

(M6/A34, Great Barr, West Midlands)

(A12/A138/A130/B1137, Chelmsford, Essex)

However when we don't use roundabouts we panic and end up with this utter utter cluster gently caress

(A617/A183/5 other roads, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear)

Many of these shamelessly stolen from http://www.cbrd.co.uk/badjunctions/

nozz fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Feb 14, 2010

# ? Jan 12, 2010 21:56

Cichlidae: Aug 12, 2005; ME LOVE
MAKE RED LIGHT; Dr. Infant, MD

As of today, ConnDOT's put part of its Photolog online. You can go through most routes from 1-395 in 4-, 5-, or 10-meter increments, as well as warping to landmarks.

You can visit the Photolog here.

Much higher resolution and more complete than Street View, but you can only look forward.

Mandalay posted:

Wasn't the Acela high speed train introduced in CT in the last decade? I took the TGV from Montpelier to Paris and it was a very pleasant experience. However, the non-high-speed segment from Barcelona to Montpelier was zzzz.

Acela only goes 110mph max, and Connecticut is rife with at-grade crossings (all of the crossings on the entire Northeast Corridor are in CT) and sharp bends, so the Acela is much slower through most of the state. Expensive, too. I got a first-class trip on the Thalys from Paris to Brussels, steak and cake included, for about 70 euro a person, and it took 80 minutes. If I tried the same thing between Boston and New York, about the same distance, it would take 3 hours 39 minutes and cost $163. See a little difference?

# ? Jan 12, 2010 22:49

Cichlidae: Aug 12, 2005; ME LOVE
MAKE RED LIGHT; Dr. Infant, MD

SLOSifl posted:

The interchange you posted is loving scary. I absolutely avoid it. It doesn't help that several freeways combined with 50 ramps and overpasses exist there, combined with relatively busy surface streets that all sort of weave through the support structures of the flyovers. You can try to get from a major road to a freeway and end up going the opposite direction on the road you began on by missing one turn lane.

Also, you mentioned the 71 and 35 interchange. It's interesting because 71W to 35N, and 35S to 71W have flyovers that make things flow pretty well. 71E to 35N gets one too. 71E to 35S takes you through a very busy set of intersections, and 35N to 71E is also kind of a mess. 35N to 71W is no fun either.

The red lines indicate where flyovers were clearly meant to be, because the ramps exist on both ends. They aren't there though, and just kind of shoot off into space. They are not just even-grade exits or anything, they are pretty tall ramps that just end.

And everything between that interchange and about 10 miles north on 35 is easily the most congested section of freeway I've ever seen. Not to mention the very short exit ramps through downtown. The one at 6th street is the "best". It has almost no lead-in, so it's hard to find room to slow down. You come over a blind hill, and have to stop immediately at the bottom for a light. When downtown traffic is busy, you can get into the exit lane and come to a dead stop.

After spending the holidays in Pittsburgh though, nothing will ever seem quite as bad. Downtown PIT combines a ton of freeways, bridges, flyovers, tunnels, exits on the left, stop-before-entering ramps with no room to merge, and exits that only let you travel in one direction without making a blatant middle-of-the-street u-turn to go the other way.

I think I've seen that interchange before. Someone was wondering why in the world they wouldn't have built the remaining ramps, and I didn't have a definite answer. It seems like this would be a high priority project, given the amount of congestion it's created.

noblergt posted:

Tonnes of roundabouts!

Awesome post, thanks for all the pictures. I'm taking that last picture for my "severely hosed-up intersections" folder. The UK is indeed the inventor of the modern roundabout, but France still has you beat for quantity; they have over half the roundabouts in the world.

It's also worth noting that the UK has a different definition for the word 'roundabout' than the US definition. Many of Britain's roundabouts would be considered traffic circles or rotaries here.

# ? Jan 12, 2010 23:10

Mandalay: Mar 16, 2007; WoW Forums Refugee

Cichlidae posted:

It's also worth noting that the UK has a different definition for the word 'roundabout' than the US definition. Many of Britain's roundabouts would be considered traffic circles or rotaries here.

What's the difference? :downs:

Also, I saw a weird article over at the LA Times, some kind of freight train fear-mongering? Seems like everyone is doing their best to be very concerned about this disturbing, earth-shattering development..
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/safety-traffic-concerns-raised-when-35mile-freight-train-rolls-through-la-basin.html

# ? Jan 12, 2010 23:52

Thud: Dec 17, 2002; A Shit eater?

Awesome thread! I'm in New Mexico and just wanted to ask about safety corridors. They drop the speed limit by 10 mph on the freeways, double the fines, and have signs that say "Lights on for safety" which im assuming is just another fine that they can add when they pull you over. These are permanent fixtures and no construction is going on. They go for miles.

My question is are these there for anything other than increasing revenue from speeding tickets? I searched the thread and couldn't get any hits in this thread on "safety corridor" so i apologize if this has been answered.

This link might show you one of the fines doubled signs: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=...,42.36,,0,24.44

I hate these things.

# ? Jan 13, 2010 00:06

Pagan: Jun 4, 2003

Mandalay posted:

What's the difference?

Also, I saw a weird article over at the LA Times, some kind of freight train fear-mongering? Seems like everyone is doing their best to be very concerned about this disturbing, earth-shattering development..
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/safety-traffic-concerns-raised-when-35mile-freight-train-rolls-through-la-basin.html

That's such a cool concept, running longer trains at higher speeds. And yeah, people seem to be trying so very hard to come up with a reason why it's bad.

As a model train enthusiast, I think it's kinda neat whenever I get to see a big freight train go by. Any minor inconvenience is completely mitigated by getting a front row seat to something I consider pretty awesome.

# ? Jan 13, 2010 00:09

Wolfsbane: Jul 29, 2009; What time is it, Eccles?

I've driven through that one in Gateshead a few times. Two or three were deliberate, the rest were me coming back for another go to try and get the right exit. SatNav pretty much just gives up and says "you're on your own".

# ? Jan 13, 2010 00:31

Cichlidae: Aug 12, 2005; ME LOVE
MAKE RED LIGHT; Dr. Infant, MD

Mandalay posted:

What's the difference?

Also, I saw a weird article over at the LA Times, some kind of freight train fear-mongering? Seems like everyone is doing their best to be very concerned about this disturbing, earth-shattering development..
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/safety-traffic-concerns-raised-when-35mile-freight-train-rolls-through-la-basin.html

Both viewpoints in the article are valid, though I'd side with the train folks. Moving more freight at higher speeds benefits everyone, except for the occasionally car that stalls on the tracks. For the people complaining about safety, well, that's why they're doing tests.

Thud posted:

Awesome thread! I'm in New Mexico and just wanted to ask about safety corridors. They drop the speed limit by 10 mph on the freeways, double the fines, and have signs that say "Lights on for safety" which im assuming is just another fine that they can add when they pull you over. These are permanent fixtures and no construction is going on. They go for miles.

My question is are these there for anything other than increasing revenue from speeding tickets? I searched the thread and couldn't get any hits in this thread on "safety corridor" so i apologize if this has been answered.

This link might show you one of the fines doubled signs: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=...,42.36,,0,24.44

I hate these things.

I've never heard of that before. We have daytime headlight use areas here, but they're warning signs, not regulatory, and therefore don't carry any sort of penalty for disobedience.

As to the lowered speed limits, as I've mentioned before, lower speeds don't mean safer roads. They mean more speeders.

Pagan posted:

That's such a cool concept, running longer trains at higher speeds. And yeah, people seem to be trying so very hard to come up with a reason why it's bad.

As a model train enthusiast, I think it's kinda neat whenever I get to see a big freight train go by. Any minor inconvenience is completely mitigated by getting a front row seat to something I consider pretty awesome.

Same here. Grade crossings are rare, but I once got stuck for what seemed like 10 minutes at one in the midwest. I have a small model train set, too, but there's not much you can do in a 1 bedroom apartment.

# ? Jan 13, 2010 00:50

nozz: Jan 27, 2007; proficient pringle eater

Cichlidae posted:

Awesome post, thanks for all the pictures.

Your welcome!

Another two "bad junctions" from that site I'm particularly fond of is this one and this one, the latter actually makes me laugh at how retarded it looks, and that to do any kind of movement you need to loop round in a figure of 8.

The website also has a thorough look at the history of roundabouts http://www.cbrd.co.uk/histories/roundabouts/. I think one of the reasons that roundabouts are more prevalent here, and in the rest of Europe is due to our archaic medieval street patterns. One things roundabouts do better than anything else is connect up roads at funny angles!

I generally am proud of the British road system, anything made from the 1960s onwards usually is built to pretty high standards. Our motorways I think are a good example, the first "proper" one, the M1, was a 170 mile route linking London to the north. It opened in stages from 1959 til 1968. From the get go it was 3 lanes each way the entire length:

Main differences that I can see are that there is no central barrier (a feature still present on our oldest rural dual carriageways, one example is the A31 between Winchester and Guildford), no hard shoulder, and free flowing traffic(!).

Now I'm not 100% sure, but I think this was unprecedented for a non-urban motorway in this period. 80% of our motorways followed this lead and have and always has had 3 lanes. In Europe its almost all 2 lane except in urban areas.

I think the amount of forward planning our motorways is under appreciated. The problem is is that they are too good: we only have one toll motorway, its much easier to overtake slower vehicles with 3 lanes and of course it can take a higher amount of traffic. However the motorways are still vastly under designed for the level of traffic that currently uses them, since everyone does.

A good example is the M25, London's ring road. They built the junctions slightly too frequently so a lot of local traffic uses it. It's also the hub of the nation's network so its used a lot to transfer from one motorway to another. Lastly it encircles one of the biggest cities in the world. Despite it initially having 3 lanes each way, it was immediately beyond the designed capacity. Almost of it it is now 4 lane, some 5, and some even 6! In America this is fairly common, but somehow it STILL gets gnarled up, even with variable speed limits and all that jazz. It's too useful for its own good. (however the original plan would of had London with 3 other ring roads deeper inside London. 1 is is half existent in a patchy kind of way)

The main thing though is that we don't have enough motorways. When we build them they are good, but its been politically awkward to construct any new ones for about 10 years now. We had constant construction from 1959 until 1997, and then everything kinda fizzled out (mainly due to Twyford Down). Most road construction is by making very high standard "normal" dual carriageways, that almost but not quite reach motorway standard, to get around the political stigma. I don't know when the A3 between the Chessington and Guildford was built to its current condition, but with 3 lanes each way and for a good part of it a fully functioning hard shoulder, I have no idea why is isn't a motorway (link)

# ? Jan 13, 2010 00:53

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Cichlidae posted:

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?

Both should be pulled over, the driver who passed on the right should be given a verbal warning about the dangers of passing on the right and the person blocking the left lane should be summarily executed right there on the shoulder of the road.

Mandalay posted:

Wasn't the Acela high speed train introduced in CT in the last decade? I took the TGV from Montpelier to Paris and it was a very pleasant experience. However, the non-high-speed segment from Barcelona to Montpelier was zzzz.

Until they finish upgrades on every track section (I think 2018 is the target for Metro North,) They can't do any more than 75mph through the Metro North New Haven line, even though they can do 150 in some parts and 125 east of the New Haven line.

Pagan posted:

As a model train enthusiast, I think it's kinda neat whenever I get to see a big freight train go by. Any minor inconvenience is completely mitigated by getting a front row seat to something I consider pretty awesome.

I've lived in CT all my life. I never saw a cargo train running until this past summer, and certainly never a big one. I'm used to 4 and 6 car New Haven Line trains, and occasionally an 8 car on a busy route. My mind was blown when I went to Miami and on the way from the airport to our hotel we had to stop for a 194 car train that took over 3 minutes to pass the crossing.

# ? Jan 13, 2010 02:32

kefkafloyd: Jun 8, 2006; What really knocked me out
Was her cheap sunglasses

Cichlidae posted:

We try to do our best to emphasize the difference, because when most New Englanders think of roundabouts, they (incorrectly) remember the rotaries at Cape Cod that are perpetually backed up, or the nasty one in Chicopee, or all the ones north of Boston on I-93.

There are no rotaries in Chicopee, perhaps you're thinking of the one on Route 56 in Agawam as you're heading towards Six Flags? The circular intersections on Memorial drive in Chicopee are, well... circular intersections. There are three in a row on that stretch of Route 5 (which at one point was proposed to be I-91). For a period of time Massachusetts used a lot of rotaries for freeway interchanges, probably because they were dirt cheap.

If only people obeyed the rules of the rotary, perhaps they wouldn't be so bad in certain situations. :sigh:

# ? Jan 13, 2010 03:38

Cichlidae: Aug 12, 2005; ME LOVE
MAKE RED LIGHT; Dr. Infant, MD

noblergt posted:

Your welcome!

Another two "bad junctions" from that site I'm particularly fond of is this one and this one, the latter actually makes me laugh at how retarded it looks, and that to do any kind of movement you need to loop round in a figure of 8.

The website also has a thorough look at the history of roundabouts http://www.cbrd.co.uk/histories/roundabouts/. I think one of the reasons that roundabouts are more prevalent here, and in the rest of Europe is due to our archaic medieval street patterns. One things roundabouts do better than anything else is connect up roads at funny angles!

I generally am proud of the British road system, anything made from the 1960s onwards usually is built to pretty high standards. Our motorways I think are a good example, the first "proper" one, the M1, was a 170 mile route linking London to the north. It opened in stages from 1959 til 1968. From the get go it was 3 lanes each way the entire length:

Main differences that I can see are that there is no central barrier (a feature still present on our oldest rural dual carriageways, one example is the A31 between Winchester and Guildford), no hard shoulder, and free flowing traffic(!).

Now I'm not 100% sure, but I think this was unprecedented for a non-urban motorway in this period. 80% of our motorways followed this lead and have and always has had 3 lanes. In Europe its almost all 2 lane except in urban areas.

I think the amount of forward planning our motorways is under appreciated. The problem is is that they are too good: we only have one toll motorway, its much easier to overtake slower vehicles with 3 lanes and of course it can take a higher amount of traffic. However the motorways are still vastly under designed for the level of traffic that currently uses them, since everyone does.

A good example is the M25, London's ring road. They built the junctions slightly too frequently so a lot of local traffic uses it. It's also the hub of the nation's network so its used a lot to transfer from one motorway to another. Lastly it encircles one of the biggest cities in the world. Despite it initially having 3 lanes each way, it was immediately beyond the designed capacity. Almost of it it is now 4 lane, some 5, and some even 6! In America this is fairly common, but somehow it STILL gets gnarled up, even with variable speed limits and all that jazz. It's too useful for its own good. (however the original plan would of had London with 3 other ring roads deeper inside London. 1 is is half existent in a patchy kind of way)

The main thing though is that we don't have enough motorways. When we build them they are good, but its been politically awkward to construct any new ones for about 10 years now. We had constant construction from 1959 until 1997, and then everything kinda fizzled out (mainly due to Twyford Down). Most road construction is by making very high standard "normal" dual carriageways, that almost but not quite reach motorway standard, to get around the political stigma. I don't know when the A3 between the Chessington and Guildford was built to its current condition, but with 3 lanes each way and for a good part of it a fully functioning hard shoulder, I have no idea why is isn't a motorway (link)

It seems England had a much better idea what it was doing in the 50s than the US did when it began building freeways in the 30s. The Twyford Down story happened here en masse during the 1970s, with a combination of environmental and social pressures killing dozens of planned (and useful!) expressways just in Connecticut, let alone the whole nation.

I-95, which runs up and down the East Coast (with a gap in New Jersey), has many of the same characteristics of your M25. It was built with many closely spaced exits, since it was principally a bypass for local roads. Now it's so congested that we have networks of freeways just to bypass it.

GWBBQ posted:

Both should be pulled over, the driver who passed on the right should be given a verbal warning about the dangers of passing on the right and the person blocking the left lane should be summarily executed right there on the shoulder of the road.

If only it were enforced!

GWBBQ posted:

Until they finish upgrades on every track section (I think 2018 is the target for Metro North,) They can't do any more than 75mph through the Metro North New Haven line, even though they can do 150 in some parts and 125 east of the New Haven line.

Hopefully by then we'll have the New Haven - Hartford - Springfield line up and running.

kefkafloyd posted:

There are no rotaries in Chicopee, perhaps you're thinking of the one on Route 56 in Agawam as you're heading towards Six Flags? The circular intersections on Memorial drive in Chicopee are, well... circular intersections. There are three in a row on that stretch of Route 5 (which at one point was proposed to be I-91). For a period of time Massachusetts used a lot of rotaries for freeway interchanges, probably because they were dirt cheap.

If only people obeyed the rules of the rotary, perhaps they wouldn't be so bad in certain situations.

I meant the circular intersections in Chicopee. I'm a Rhode Islander by nature, and we have a tendency to call everything in Massachusetts a rotary. There are so few in Rhode Island, after all. We get stuff like this instead:

# ? Jan 13, 2010 04:39

thehustler: Apr 17, 2004; I am very curious about this little crescendo

I live in Preston, which was the site of the first "motorway" in the UK, part of the M55 and M6 these days. As was mentioned, the first "proper" motorway was the M1, and the Preston bypass was turned into the two motorways I mentioned, M55 goes from the M6 to my hometown of Blackpool, and the M6 is the longest motorway in the country.

Re roundabouts and France, watch the Tour de France. It is *awesome* when the peloton splits into two and goes around it in different directions.

# ? Jan 13, 2010 13:21

Cichlidae: Aug 12, 2005; ME LOVE
MAKE RED LIGHT; Dr. Infant, MD

Because I love you all so much, I made a little animation of what a typical work zone 25 years ago looked like.

That's Route 72 South (now Route 9) in 1985. Note the lack of drums or cones, the cars parked in the freeway, the smokescreen, and workers standing in live traffic without any safety garments.

# ? Jan 13, 2010 22:50

Guy Axlerod: Dec 29, 2008

Yes, the good ol' days when people knew how to not hit construction workers. Or maybe not.

# ? Jan 13, 2010 22:58

Blue Moonlight: Apr 28, 2005; Bitter and Sarcastic

Cichlidae posted:

Because I love you all so much, I made a little animation of what a typical work zone 25 years ago looked like.

That's Route 72 South (now Route 9) in 1985. Note the lack of drums or cones, the cars parked in the freeway, the smokescreen, and workers standing in live traffic without any safety garments.

Dear lord.

So, I think we've all seen the statistics in which flaggers and highway workers tend to have the highest mortality rate on the job. Has that figure dropped any since we started using cones, drums, barriers, etc., or has the increase in traffic offset that?

# ? Jan 14, 2010 06:46

Cichlidae: Aug 12, 2005; ME LOVE
MAKE RED LIGHT; Dr. Infant, MD

Blue Moonlight posted:

Dear lord.

So, I think we've all seen the statistics in which flaggers and highway workers tend to have the highest mortality rate on the job. Has that figure dropped any since we started using cones, drums, barriers, etc., or has the increase in traffic offset that?

I checked out the statistics (https://www.workzonesafety.org) and found out that the number of work zone fatalities has shown a general upward trend over the last 25 years. Of course, you can't draw any solid conclusions, because traffic volumes have at least doubled since then, and there are likely more work zones now than there were then, since our infrastructure has deteriorated.

# ? Jan 14, 2010 18:13

Mandalay: Mar 16, 2007; WoW Forums Refugee

Are those construction worker fatalities? If so, :ohdear:

# ? Jan 14, 2010 19:03

Cichlidae: Aug 12, 2005; ME LOVE
MAKE RED LIGHT; Dr. Infant, MD

Mandalay posted:

Are those construction worker fatalities? If so,

Those are total fatalities. Construction worker fatalities are much lower, on the order of a couple hundred a year. The other 80% or so are motorist fatalities. Some of them probably would have happened anyway, but just happened to be in work zones.

# ? Jan 14, 2010 22:41

Jasper Tin Neck: Nov 14, 2008; "Scientifically proven, rich and creamy."

Socket Ryanist posted:

Acela is the fastest train in the US, but calling it "high speed" is laughable when you look at european trains.

It's mostly a question of priority. In the US, rail moves about 40% of all freight and practically all track is owned by freight companies. In Europe, most rails are owned by the state and used primarily for passenger traffic. Both approaches have several problems.

In the US, freight companies get to decide the price to use their tracks, which means they will milk a public owned company such as Amtrack for all its worth.

On the other hand, a cross-Europe shipment of cargo will move at an average speed of 18km/h. Since freight is prioritized much lower than passenger traffic it only enjoys a 10.5% market share.

The ideal system would be to have separate tracks for passenger and freight traffic, but we still have a long way to go before we get there. Stuff that has been standard for road for ages, such as ringways and bypasses, is only making its way into rail transportation.

# ? Jan 15, 2010 20:21

smackfu: Jun 7, 2004

GWBBQ posted:

Until they finish upgrades on every track section (I think 2018 is the target for Metro North,) They can't do any more than 75mph through the Metro North New Haven line, even though they can do 150 in some parts and 125 east of the New Haven line.

This is how much Acela sucks in CT:

New Haven to DC:
Acela: 4 hr 34 min, $142
NE Regional: 5 hr 15 min, $72

(And you spend 20-25 minutes sitting at NY Penn on either one.)

This is only 300 miles, so most people could match the Acela in their car too.

# ? Jan 15, 2010 20:33

Cichlidae: Aug 12, 2005; ME LOVE
MAKE RED LIGHT; Dr. Infant, MD

Nesnej posted:

The ideal system would be to have separate tracks for passenger and freight traffic, but we still have a long way to go before we get there. Stuff that has been standard for road for ages, such as ringways and bypasses, is only making its way into rail transportation.

France's LGVs are wonderful like that. The LGV are completely separate, double-tracked ROW, and have "interchanges" with the low-speed lines. They're for high-speed rail only, unlike the mixed-use track here.

One of the most important factors that's contributed to TGV use is its marketing: you'd expect high-speed rail to be overpriced, a luxury good, as smackfu mentioned. When the first TGV began running, it cost the same amount as a normal train would for the same distance. The government expressly stated that it was for everyone, not just the rich. The way Acela's marketed in the US, primarily toward business travelers, and the prices associated with it, effectively bar the lower classes from using it. Unfortunately, those are also the people who most need mass transit.

# ? Jan 15, 2010 23:30

patricius: Apr 17, 2006; sicut patribus sit deus nobis

Nesnej posted:

On the other hand, a cross-Europe shipment of cargo will move at an average speed of 18km/h. Since freight is prioritized much lower than passenger traffic it only enjoys a 10.5% market share.

How does the majority of cargo usually move across inland Europe, if not by rail? By truck on the motorways?

# ? Jan 15, 2010 23:42

nozz: Jan 27, 2007; proficient pringle eater

patricius posted:

How does the majority of cargo usually move across inland Europe, if not by rail? By truck on the motorways?

Yes. This says that trucks had a 71 percent share of the German market, Europe’s largest, while rail had under 18 percent.

Also

Wikipedia posted:

In Europe (particularly Britain) many manufacturing towns developed before the railway. Many factories did not have direct rail access. This meant that freight had to be shipped through a goods station, sent by train and unloaded at another goods station for onward delivery to another factory. When lorries (trucks) replaced horses it was often economic and faster to make one movement by road. In the United States, particularly in the West and Mid-West towns developed with railway and factories often had direct rail connection. Despite the closure of many minor lines carload shipping from one company to another by rail remains common.

Finally rail gets more efficient as the loads get larger and the distances longer. This is much more suited to the US.

# ? Jan 16, 2010 00:03

Pagan: Jun 4, 2003

Cichlidae posted:

France's LGVs are wonderful like that. The LGV are completely separate, double-tracked ROW, and have "interchanges" with the low-speed lines. They're for high-speed rail only, unlike the mixed-use track here.

One of the most important factors that's contributed to TGV use is its marketing: you'd expect high-speed rail to be overpriced, a luxury good, as smackfu mentioned. When the first TGV began running, it cost the same amount as a normal train would for the same distance. The government expressly stated that it was for everyone, not just the rich. The way Acela's marketed in the US, primarily toward business travelers, and the prices associated with it, effectively bar the lower classes from using it. Unfortunately, those are also the people who most need mass transit.

They just view transportation differently overseas. Motorcycles are a great example. In the US, bikes are seen as toys, luxuries. You buy them because you've got extra money and want to have fun, or want to present a certain image. You only ride them when you want to, when it's convenient or "fun." But overseas it's very, very different. To them, motorcycles are essential vehicles who's primary purpose is low cost transportation. Bikes are cheap ways that people get to work. Typical US bike mags talk about racing and high performance, UK and EU bike makes talk about how to ride to work without mussing your clothes, secure parking solutions, and all sorts of other practical things.

# ? Jan 16, 2010 02:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 07:39

Jasper Tin Neck: Nov 14, 2008; "Scientifically proven, rich and creamy."

patricius posted:

How does the majority of cargo usually move across inland Europe, if not by rail? By truck on the motorways?

About 76.8% moves by truck and 5.8% by inland waterways, leaving 17,4% for rail.

Out of all Intra-EU shipping the modal split is as follows:

Road 45.7%
Sea 40.4
Rail 10.4%
Inland waterways 3.4

It goes without saying that the trans-alpine tunnels are pretty congested with trucks.

Much of these problems arise from the fact that while US railway lines are mostly interoperable, major European rail systems use three different track gauges and four different traction current systems. France, seeking to outdo everyone else, even manages to have two traction current standards within the same drat country.
In practice this means that if you were to ship something from Latvia to Portugal you'd switch traction current at least six times and gauge twice.

Add to this that European rail traffic control systems differ wildly and you understand why it's so much cheaper and more reliable to just load your poo poo on a truck instead. Fortunately the EU is already on the issue with the ERTMS and Rail Baltica programmes, but they will take some time to get deployed.

Here in Denmark, the rail authority basically plans to rip out all train signals and replace them with ETCS compatible ones. Because of this, the unemployment rate for railway engineers is practically 0%.

# ? Jan 16, 2010 10:36

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

«‹›438 »