|
IOwnCalculus posted:That was probably ADOT instead of COP, and the only reason they "get away with it" is as far as I can tell, they consider SR143 a freeway only when it suits them, and 48th Street when it fits their need. To be fair, 143 is only a few miles long and is one of the few freeways that is actually a 55 limit instead of a 65. I always love hearing about how hosed up Phoenix is.  Incidentally, you seem to know an awful lot about Phoenix's roads, more than me anyway, and I grew up there! Oh yeah, and "Best run city in the world," my rear end! (Great pictures, Cichlidae.)
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:36 |
|
|
Silver Falcon posted:I always love hearing about how hosed up Phoenix is. I've lived in the metro area for all my life, save two years in Tucson (a city that refuses to acknowledge it has a million goddamn residents - thus it has no useful freeway system to speak of for anything other than getting to and leaving the city itself) and these days my 25-mile one-way commute runs me right through the Broadway Curve at least once a day, sometimes twice if traffic is light in the evenings. I suppose if I'm going to spend an hour+ per day on the freeways, I might as well learn something about them  On the whole, though, the freeways east of Central are actually very good. US60 is phenomenal with the extra lanes through Tempe, Loop 101 is actually useful now with the HOV lane, and Loop 202 will be pretty drat good when they finish widening it. The 143 and former 153 just make no loving sense in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 04:30
|
|
|
Well, folks, I found that train safety booklet on my desk this morning. It's scanned in and ready for your approval, though I'm not sure quite what to make of it. Mood music: Acid Train by ASYS      And here's that last one in a larger res. Gigantic available upon request. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 00:26
|
|
|
Wow, learning about train safety is fun! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 00:40
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Well, folks, I found that train safety booklet on my desk this morning. It's scanned in and ready for your approval, though I'm not sure quite what to make of it. That's incredibly well drawn, kudos!
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 01:46
|
|
|
That's quite well colored... and a well drawn frog too. I've always got a soft spot for crayon coloring. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 15:21
|
|
|
Hey Cichlidae, I found this map from 1982. Nice to see what could have been... http://twitpic.com/1hrkiw
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 15:45
|
|
|
Lobstaman posted:Hey Cichlidae, I found this map from 1982. Nice to see what could have been... All told, that map is still relatively accurate. I-86 lost its designation to 84, 84 became 384 and US 6. 291 is shown as completed to 86, though it wasn't really there until the early 1990s (so the map's not quite right). There's a small gap shown between 84 and 86; you had to get off one freeway and use Silver Lane to get to the other. Since fixed. Route 9 back then stopped at 91; 72 extended much farther. 506 (later Route 9 between 72 and 84) wasn't even built yet. 691 wasn't finished yet, and 66 went all the way to 84, whereas now it stops before 91. Route 3 is shown as having an interchange with 2, which, again, wasn't accurate at the time. You had to take local roads. US 44 has since been rerouted, following what's shown as 44A on that map. US 6, too, was rerouted. It used to cross via the Charter Oak Bridge. Now it goes through Hartford via 84. 74 used to intersect 30 twice, but has since been relocated. And there are numerous other small changes since then, but that's enough for now
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 16:16
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:All told, that map is still relatively accurate. I-86 lost its designation to 84, 84 became 384 and US 6. I smiled seeing a section desgnated as I-84 going north of Willimantic and it has Rt 11 as an unfinished road connecting up with I-95
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 16:51
|
|
|
Lobstaman posted:I smiled seeing a section desgnated as I-84 going north of Willimantic and it has Rt 11 as an unfinished road connecting up with I-95 I wonder if I'll see the same thing with the Busway in a few years. At least with Route 11, if we had a billion dollars to spare, we could build it right now. We have 500 million for the Busway and we still don't even have quantities on the estimate sheets...
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2010 17:19
|
|
|
If you're ever in this corner of the state, I owe you a beer for those drawings.Cichlidae posted:I think I should take a wrench with me into the field from now on and start a collection of pirate signs. Not sure what I'd do with them, but if people can cover their houses in old license plates, why not illegal signs?  the DOT actually approved these back in 1999 when Progressive handed them out for free.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 02:08
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:If you're ever in this corner of the state, I owe you a beer for those drawings. Approved shmapproved, one of our state statutes says that no sign is allowed within a certain distance of roads that resembles an official traffic control device. That includes words like "stop" or "slow," in fact, which makes me wonder how Stop&Shop got away with its old stoplight signs. Of course, I couldn't mention legal exceptions without noting that the very last line in the MUTCD (aside from the new metric conversion table) is about my hometown, Bristol, RI: Section 353(b) STRIPES — Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a red, white, and blue center line in the Main Street of Bristol, Rhode Island, shall be deemed to comply with the requirements of Section 3B-1 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices of the Department of Transportation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 14:33
|
|
|
This may have been answered, but are interstates marked the same way everywhere? I don't mean universal signs, but deciding where to place them and such. In Ohio at least they are all a mess, at least half the exit signs point at the wrong lane and it's loving impossible to navigate any area you haven't been to before without having to cut across a bunch of lanes at the last second, which seems to go against the whole point of having signs. Plus no indication when highways change number, or if a local route connects to a major highway. And signs that point the complete wrong direction. Example: I was driving a state route, 27, which then transformed into 162 without any warning or indication it was still 27 (this was immediately after an exit, suggesting that 27 had split off). The next indication of 27 was a sign that said 27 south and pointed ahead, after I had been traveling on 27 north the entire time, so I got off figuring I missed my exit. Once off, I saw a sign on the connecting road pointing the direction I had been originally going, which said 27 north. 162 was nowhere to be seen, nor any word about south. What the gently caress. And now that I'm commuting in Cincinnati, I'm curious why it's such a clusterfuck.  That section is maybe five miles and takes somewhere between 40 minutes and an hour to traverse. Is it lovely design or just the volume? Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Apr 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 22:06
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:This may have been answered, but are interstates marked the same way everywhere? I don't mean universal signs, but deciding where to place them and such. In Ohio at least they are all a mess, at least half the exit signs point at the wrong lane and it's loving impossible to navigate any area you haven't been to before without having to cut across a bunch of lanes at the last second, which seems to go against the whole point of having signs. Plus no indication when highways change number, or if a local route connects to a major highway. There are standards set forth in the MUTCD, but they're slow to be applied. The latest version is much more stringent on lane arrows and lane markings to make finding the correct lane much easier. Whether or not Ohio will adopt the 2009 MUTCD's standards for those signs and markings is something you'd have to ask the DOT. quote:And signs that point the complete wrong direction. Example: I was driving a state route, 27, which then transformed into 162 without any warning or indication it was still 27 (this was immediately after an exit, suggesting that 27 had split off). The next indication of 27 was a sign that said 27 south and pointed ahead, after I had been traveling on 27 north the entire time, so I got off figuring I missed my exit. Once off, I saw a sign on the connecting road pointing the direction I had been originally going, which said 27 north. 162 was nowhere to be seen, nor any word about south. What the gently caress. That is pretty weird. Do you have a map of the area? quote:And now that I'm commuting in Cincinnati, I'm curious why it's such a clusterfuck. Both, and the lack of more alternate routes certainly doesn't help. A city that size should have some circumferential and radial routes to help distribute traffic. If there's just one freeway on that side of the city, it'll get wicked congested.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 03:13
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Approved shmapproved, one of our state statutes says that no sign is allowed within a certain distance of roads that resembles an official traffic control device. That includes words like "stop" or "slow," in fact, which makes me wonder how Stop&Shop got away with its old stoplight signs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 19:27
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:If they considered it close enough to the official seatbelt logo (MUTCD says minor changes are OK,) wouldn't it be OK if not mounted on its own and not a regulatory sign pole? How about if it was just "Buckle Up" and they ditched "Be Progressive"? That'd be up to the state, then. Of course, it's still a regulatory message on a warning sign. Why not just make an official regulatory sign? Not wearing a seat belt is indeed a crime here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 21:48
|
|
|
Here's my idea for bootstrapping bus rapid transit in most cities to make it faster. Tell me what you think: Attach one of those RF light changer things to busses so they can go through red lights at minimum hassle. That way when a bus needs a left turn it'll get the highest priority and keeps it from getting held up in stop go traffic. Would that work or would lots of people die in terrible accidents as a result of that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 22:35
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Here's my idea for bootstrapping bus rapid transit in most cities to make it faster. Tell me what you think: There would be some detriment to emergency vehicles, but it's possible to set different levels of pre-emption. When you pre-empt a signal for a bus, it's known as transit priority. The problem is, you'd need to put it all over the place to make a big difference. That costs money. If a town doesn't want its signals getting pre-empted whenever a bus comes by, it can just refuse to allow it in its controllers. But yes, this is successfully implemented in some places, and even makes sense from a capacity standpoint. You may force 10 cars to stop to let the bus through, but if the bus has 11 passengers, it's worth it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
While I was on a bus zooming past a train in Boston yesterday, I was wondering--have there been studies on how much people prefer trains over buses? For a variety of reasons, the idea of riding a train is just more psychologically pleasing. (I know I brought this up with regard to the MBTA Silver Line earlier in this thread)
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 22:51
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Here's my idea for bootstrapping bus rapid transit in most cities to make it faster. Tell me what you think: A bus is usually stop and go traffic. As in, it would turn a light green, but stop immediately at the shelter on the other side. I can;t imagine it cutting out much time for the confusion caused.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 22:57
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:There are standards set forth in the MUTCD, but they're slow to be applied. The latest version is much more stringent on lane arrows and lane markings to make finding the correct lane much easier. Whether or not Ohio will adopt the 2009 MUTCD's standards for those signs and markings is something you'd have to ask the DOT. In a few places they've started painting the numbers on the lanes themselves, it works really well but of course, there are only like two spots and both of them I've driven a billion times. Cichlidae posted:That is pretty weird. Do you have a map of the area? I believe this is the spot. The 128 crossover is where I got off and right back on.  About a mile south of the area on the map, 27 begins being marked as 27 and 126. The area I marked in red is where it stops mentioning 27 and just says 126, and the red X is about where I saw the sign for 27 south. That whole area is pretty wooded and twists a few times, add in overcast and I had no goddamn idea which direction I was going. Also none of these side roads are marked at all, it's just "Exit # ->" Cichlidae posted:Both, and the lack of more alternate routes certainly doesn't help. A city that size should have some circumferential and radial routes to help distribute traffic. If there's just one freeway on that side of the city, it'll get wicked congested. There is actually a beltway, 275, and kind of a second route. 75 goes to Dayton (which is where I'm headed), 71 goes to Columbus, but I do 71 -> 275 -> 75. It's less congested, but it's longer so it saves maybe five or ten minutes, at best. You can see it on this bigger map:  74 goes off to Indianapolis, so for any long-distance travel there's basically one route.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2010 00:17
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:While I was on a bus zooming past a train in Boston yesterday, I was wondering--have there been studies on how much people prefer trains over buses? For a variety of reasons, the idea of riding a train is just more psychologically pleasing. (I know I brought this up with regard to the MBTA Silver Line earlier in this thread) This isn't something I know much about, but someone posted much earlier in the thread about the relative annoyance of various modes of travel. Buses are more likely to leave early or show up late than trains, and more likely to be impacted by traffic or weather, so there's an advantage right there. theflyingexecutive posted:A bus is usually stop and go traffic. As in, it would turn a light green, but stop immediately at the shelter on the other side. I can;t imagine it cutting out much time for the confusion caused. Presumably, in that case, it wouldn't pre-empt the signal. Transit priority is better for long nonstop runs on arterials. The Hartford-New Britain Busway has a poor man's priority (loop detectors on the Busway) that'll achieve about the same result: the signals will all be green, except in a handful of cases. Grand Fromage posted:About a mile south of the area on the map, 27 begins being marked as 27 and 126. The area I marked in red is where it stops mentioning 27 and just says 126, and the red X is about where I saw the sign for 27 south. That whole area is pretty wooded and twists a few times, add in overcast and I had no goddamn idea which direction I was going. Also none of these side roads are marked at all, it's just "Exit # ->" Sounds like a case of bad signing to me. It's not often that engineers have the time or patience to go check every sign in a rural area to make sure it says the right thing, though they should really at least try to do so when it's installed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2010 01:02
|
|
|
I'd say that buses are the "worst" form of transit. They are often subjected to 90% of the problems of driving, they are not that comfortable or relaxing, often have maniac drivers, and all the public transport problems of possibly weird people to join you and non-flexability. Also if its busy the real possibility of standing up, if its late you usually have no idea until its arrived etc etc. While trains are roomier and more comfortable, usually more reliable and if they are late you know for how long (Europe here, not counting the cross country Amtrak you have over there that can be a day late or something outstanding), can go faster, the driver will not speed, if someone is bothering you you can move somewhere else and stuff. Trams are kinda in between but has more of the train's benefits than the bus's problems. Buses are never a good replacement of a decent train server, a busway type thing might be an exception but I havn't experienced it. I guess it can combine the segregation of a railway but then also the coverage of a bus network since the bus can get off it and go down a normal street. This thing is cool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-Bahn_Busway Seems like theres a few of these in the UK though I see some have been replaced by a tram.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2010 02:24
|
|
|
The Busway does take away a great deal of the disadvantages of riding a bus, but it's really no replacement for a rail. The Busway's primary opposition comes from people who want rail service instead (heck, the tracks are already there), and, frankly, I'd be much more likely to use a train than a bus. The Busway still has two advantages over trains, though: as Noblergt says, the bus can go off the Busway, which is a small advantage. Also, buses are cheaper than trains. Let's enjoy some more Work Zone Safety!  Barri Cade, this time separated from his gangbang partner and brother, shows off some more "yellow be mellow" signs. In his case, though, the "two-way" symbol doesn't stand for traffic direction, but rather for those holes he loves to cover.  Unfortunately, Ima's blatant fascist bias is beginning to show through. As we speak, Tyler and Doris are rounding up dissenters into work camps and tearing up pavement nationwide. "There MUST be work zones EVERYWHERE!" -Ima Cone
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2010 02:36
|
|
|
I seem to remember that you touched on it a bit some months back, but in a world where you could lay down the law Sim City-style, how would you fix Rt. 6?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2010 04:11
|
|
|
Crackpipe posted:I seem to remember that you touched on it a bit some months back, but in a world where you could lay down the law Sim City-style, how would you fix Rt. 6? Bulldozer tool. Hook I-384 to the Willimantic Bypasswith a 6-lane freeway, then 4-lane between there and SR 695 in Killingly. Touch up the interchange between 395 and 695 to provide full access. From there to I-295 Johnston, four lanes would probably be sufficient, but I might have six from the Reservoir onward. Viaduct over the sensitive wetlands, parallel to and south of the existing US 6. Name it I-82. If people are whining, and this really is SimCity, just stick some parks here and there until they stop. Redevelop the old US 6 as a commercial corridor with frequent access to I-82, just like US 1 and I-95. Raise gas taxes to cover part of the cost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2010 12:36
|
|
|
A mile or two of freshly paved and re-lined I95 looks like this.  I think Tyler Tube has been sharing whatever he's been smoking or snorting with the line painters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2010 14:56
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Raise gas taxes hahahahahahahaha good one I agree
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2010 15:19
|
|
|
So...are bright pink signs part of the MUTCD? There was a gnarly wreck on US60 this morning, and about half a mile in front of it in the far left median, there was a temporary pop-up diamond sign (the size and material typically set out whenever we park a photo radar van on the freeway), except it was bright goddamn pink. "EMERGENCY SCENE AHEAD". As if the four miles of stopped traffic wasn't a clue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2010 16:43
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:So...are bright pink signs part of the MUTCD? There was a gnarly wreck on US60 this morning, and about half a mile in front of it in the far left median, there was a temporary pop-up diamond sign (the size and material typically set out whenever we park a photo radar van on the freeway), except it was bright goddamn pink. "EMERGENCY SCENE AHEAD". As if the four miles of stopped traffic wasn't a clue. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1r2/part6/fig6i-01_longdesc.htm
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:A mile or two of freshly paved and re-lined I95 looks like this. If we're lucky, that's just temporary marking and the final course will be cleaner. Sometimes, though, irregularities do become permanent. Check out this shoulderline on Route 2:  Doesn't look so bad from the air? It's awful from the ground:  Mandalay posted:hahahahahahahaha good one Hey, all we need is a major bridge collapse or two and the legislature will be begging us to turn up the taxes. Now, where can I hire a supervillain? IOwnCalculus posted:So...are bright pink signs part of the MUTCD? There was a gnarly wreck on US60 this morning, and about half a mile in front of it in the far left median, there was a temporary pop-up diamond sign (the size and material typically set out whenever we park a photo radar van on the freeway), except it was bright goddamn pink. "EMERGENCY SCENE AHEAD". As if the four miles of stopped traffic wasn't a clue. Not only is fluorescent pink encouraged for incident management, there's a whole new type of sign made from rolled-up fabric we're supposed to hide behind the guard rail at strategic points to be deployed in case of major incidents. Even the electronic signs used for incident management can have magenta pixels.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2010 23:19
|
|
|
What's your opinion on the trend in my college town to replace the left turn yield to oncoming traffic on green signs with blinking yellow left turn lights that do the same? So far it's just caused a bunch of confusion for idiots who'll sit in the left turn lane with that blinking yellow thinking the signs gonna change when it won't for another good 20 seconds or so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2010 23:31
|
|
|
 What is wrong with this (stealthily taken) picture?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 00:22
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure only one side of a stepladder is meant to be stepped upon
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 01:25
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:What's your opinion on the trend in my college town to replace the left turn yield to oncoming traffic on green signs with blinking yellow left turn lights that do the same? So far it's just caused a bunch of confusion for idiots who'll sit in the left turn lane with that blinking yellow thinking the signs gonna change when it won't for another good 20 seconds or so. The 2009 MUTCD allows flashing yellow arrows for permissive lefts, but only if the flashing arrow is on its own signal head. I don't think we'll be installing any here, because of the confusion you mentioned. In Connecticut, green arrow = protected left, green ball = permissive left, and we've spent decades training people to think that way. No reason to go changing it now just because the MUTCD gives us the option. Professor Bling posted:What is wrong with this (stealthily taken) picture? Substandard safety garments, improper ladder placement and use, the post looks pretty thick and might not be breakaway, and seems to be too close to the edge of road, though it's hard to measure from a photo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 01:29
|
|
|
looks like the driver took the picture while operating a motor vehicle, transportation vehicle is illegally parked, that work zone could use some cones
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 05:40
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:looks like the driver took the picture while operating a motor vehicle, transportation vehicle is illegally parked, that work zone could use some cones I've never seen them use cones for sign installation. It would probably be more hazardous for them to spend 15 minutes setting up cones and signs than just to set up the sign post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2010 12:27
|
|
|
Drove back by today and noticed something about the sign in the picture I posted.Cichlidae posted:...the post looks pretty thick and might not be breakaway... Because it's a goddamned 4x4 length of lumber buried at least two feet deep and it's right next to the single most collision-prone intersection in town.  My town is loving retarded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2010 00:40
|
|
|
Professor Bling posted:Drove back by today and noticed something about the sign in the picture I posted. I see they've got a new tree planted there, too. Better hope it doesn't grow to exceed 4" diameter, or else it'll become a fixed object and they'll need to build a guard rail around it. Speaking of which, remember that tree blocking the signal head from my Vernon field trip?  We sent a memo to the inspector telling him it has to be removed. Additionally, since it's a Chanticleer Pear tree, it'll attain a maximum caliper of at least 8", along with the other 39 trees they decided to install in the median without consulting the traffic engineers. We asked them to remove the trees, but, afraid of a PR backlash (look at the DOT wasting all that money!), they'll probably leave these trees up. ONE OF THEM HAS ALREADY BEEN HIT AND REDUCED TO A STUMP. THEY'RE REPLACING IT.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2010 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:36 |
|
|
Can they just spin it that the trees are being removed to ensure the safety of motorists and their families, and said trees are being relocated to another part of Vernon?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2010 05:28
|
|