|
Crackpipe posted: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? The assumption is that most people wouldn't take the time to find out why the trees are gone. They'd just assume it's a big waste of money to put them in and then remove them a month later, and I agree, it is a pretty big waste. But if you consider the value of a life that may be saved, or at least the several cars that will probably be wrecked, spending a few grand on tree removal's not that bad. Problem is, most people won't do much consideration beyond "DOT screwed up, my taxpayer money!"
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2010 12:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
Cichlidae, Have you taken your PE yet? Its always nice to see another traffic engineer that actually understands what's going on and not spouting lame rear end consultant speak. Really, I might kill the next consultant that tells me, who has to operate signals, how I can do my job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2010 13:57
|
|
|
Nexis posted:Cichlidae, I'll be eligible to take the PE in another two years. I'm not sure where I should take it, though. In Rhode Island, I'd only have to pay $200, but it's more like $500 here in Connecticut. I think New York is over $700. I'm not looking forward to paying the yearly fee, either; my employer doesn't reimburse it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2010 17:12
|
|
|
Kind of a funny thing I noticed recently; one of the electronic message signs here in Atlanta on I-75 northbound between the downtown connector and I-285 used to display the travel time between I-285 and I-575. Recently, though, they changed it to display the travel time between the Chattahoochee River and "Highway 5" (presumably meaning Georgia State Route 5). It's basically the same 10-mile stretch of I-75 (just shifted a mile to the south), but no one from outside the area is going to know where the river is, and even I had to look up where S.R. 5 actually is up there (it joins I-75 at Canton Road). Any idea why they would change the sign to use such odd landmarks instead of the more obvious I-285 and I-575?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 13:40
|
|
|
dennyk posted:Kind of a funny thing I noticed recently; one of the electronic message signs here in Atlanta on I-75 northbound between the downtown connector and I-285 used to display the travel time between I-285 and I-575. Recently, though, they changed it to display the travel time between the Chattahoochee River and "Highway 5" (presumably meaning Georgia State Route 5). It's basically the same 10-mile stretch of I-75 (just shifted a mile to the south), but no one from outside the area is going to know where the river is, and even I had to look up where S.R. 5 actually is up there (it joins I-75 at Canton Road). Any idea why they would change the sign to use such odd landmarks instead of the more obvious I-285 and I-575? Well, I see four possibilities: 1) The technician in charge of that sign decided to show off his knowledge of local geography. 2) A new administrator is in charge of the TMC/TOC and decided to make some arbitrary changes to assert his/her dominance. This is more likely than it seems. 3) New speed and occupancy detectors were added a mile south of the existing ones, so that same administrator from 2) decided to change the designation to show off the improvement. 4) People who deal with roads all day long have an incredibly hard time figuring out what ordinary drivers do and don't know, especially out-of-staters. They may have assumed the river would be a better landmark.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 17:18
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
This is the most likely answer. People in the public sector don't make much money so they have to assert themselves in bizarre and arbitrary ways.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 02:00
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I'll be eligible to take the PE in another two years. I'm not sure where I should take it, though. In Rhode Island, I'd only have to pay $200, but it's more like $500 here in Connecticut. I think New York is over $700. I'm not looking forward to paying the yearly fee, either; my employer doesn't reimburse it. Mine doesn't either. However, civil engineers only care about those two letters after their name. They think that if you are not a PE then your opinion doesn't matter. Besides you are going to make a lot more over the course of your career than the yearly fee.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 02:08
|
|
|
Nexis posted:Mine doesn't either. However, civil engineers only care about those two letters after their name. They think that if you are not a PE then your opinion doesn't matter. Very true, and if I don't get it, I'll only be allowed one more promotion for the rest of my career. The Transportation Engineering exam can't be all that bad, anyway. The general Civil's going to be a huge pain, but I kept all my textbooks for a reason. And, frankly, it can't be that much worse than the FE. It was such a relief when I could finally forget everything I'd learned in high school and in my gen-ed classes.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 06:10
|
|
|
I've got this intersection near me that confounds me, maybe you guys can enlighten me on the proper way to handle it. n/s is the main road, 35 mph. W/E roads join this one all managed by a simple four way stoplight system. All roads involved are two lanes. The screwball part is the w/e roads are not directly opposite one another, The west road is further south by about the width of itself, which leads to my frustration. My usual interaction with the intersection is turning left from the west road to go north while it seems most common for the opposite road to be turning left also. In a normal intersection we can both go our own ways simultaneously but because of this idiotic setup if we both try to turn we will hit each other. So when the light goes green and we've got the above situation who the hell should go first? We're both making a left turn from our individual perspectives. Link below for a google view of my crazy non euclidian space intersection where great cthulhu dabbled in road design as a civil servant prior to his current career. http://tinyurl.com/233nk76 Reposted here from the ask a policeman thread.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 17:32
|
|
|
evil imp posted:I've got this intersection near me that confounds me, maybe you guys can enlighten me on the proper way to handle it. n/s is the main road, 35 mph. W/E roads join this one all managed by a simple four way stoplight system. All roads involved are two lanes. The screwball part is the w/e roads are not directly opposite one another, The west road is further south by about the width of itself, which leads to my frustration. Intersections like this are a big part of my job. First step is to install No Turn On Red on the un-skewed street to keep people from pulling into the intersection when it's not their phase. Next, we use split phasing on the side streets, so that first EB goes, then WB. It's not very efficient, but it's much safer than potential head-on and angle collisions. Eventually, the roads should be realigned to tee them up and make a standard four-way intersection.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 18:42
|
|
|
Looking at the Eastern approach, it looks like it could have been set up "right" but some guy decided to build his house where the road needed to go. Also, what's so special about the blurry part just to the West? It just looks like some fuel tanks, but I guess they could be Gov't fuel tanks with invisibility additives.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 19:11
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:Looking at the Eastern approach, it looks like it could have been set up "right" but some guy decided to build his house where the road needed to go. New York is very zealous about forcing Google to blur its bridges, toll booths, gas tanks, and other moderately important facilities. Protection against terrists, you see.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 19:49
|
|
|
I'd say they have that entitlement.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 19:58
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:New York is very zealous about forcing Google to blur its bridges, toll booths, gas tanks, and other moderately important facilities. Protection against terrists, you see. I guess by blurring more than just the really "sensitive" stuff, you stop someone from just targeting all the blurry spots on the map because they must be good targets. I also just pulled along a bunch of thruway looking for blurred toll booths and couldn't find any. Maybe they do it closer to NYC? I only looked in the Buffalo/Rochester area, and Albany 87/90 junction. It did remind me of the last time I was in Albany and took the Northway down to the Thruway. As you neared the junction, they had the normal overhead signs telling you what lane to be in for each route. They also painted the Interstate shields ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:I-90.svg ) on the road surface for each lane. It really helped confirm I was in the correct lane.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2010 00:50
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:I guess by blurring more than just the really "sensitive" stuff, you stop someone from just targeting all the blurry spots on the map because they must be good targets.  There's one on 87 at the toll booth before the Tappan Zee. quote:It did remind me of the last time I was in Albany and took the Northway down to the Thruway. As you neared the junction, they had the normal overhead signs telling you what lane to be in for each route. They also painted the Interstate shields ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:I-90.svg ) on the road surface for each lane. It really helped confirm I was in the correct lane. We just put some of those up on I-84 in Hartford. They're only temporary for now, but I think if enough people call in to say how good they are (~5 people), we'll put them out there permanently.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2010 02:15
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
 But they left the street view! Ah, my tax dollars/tolls at work. I did find another, the southern approach to the south grand island bridge. That also has some fuel storage surrounding it. The approach to the north bridge is not blurred out and does not have fuel storage. Could their intent to be to blur something else nearby? Or might they be avoiding armchair engineering, by not providing angles not normally obtainable? Or am I just trying to rationalize something that can't be rationalized?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2010 04:33
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:Or am I just trying to rationalize something that can't be rationalized? I'm pretty sure it's just knee-jerk. I doubt a terrorist is going to waste time measuring blurred buildings on Google Maps when he can just see the uncensored aerials on Bing or Mappy or IGN or any one of the dozens of uncensored historical shots available all over the place online. Heck, there was a big flap a couple years back when Live Maps inadvertently revealed the classified propeller design of an Ohio-class submarine. If you're looking for aerial photos that actually endanger national security, that's a good place to begin, not blurring an aerial photo of a bridge that 100,000 people see up close daily. But enough derail, it's time for Work Zone Safety!  Time to get out the white crayon again, folks! Tyler's in a weird mood today. He just got out of rehab, so let's give him a break and not mention that none of these signs use the colors yellow or green...  And here's one for you! Why not show me some of your favorite signs, or ones you wish we'd make? Go wild!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2010 05:00
|
|
|
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) Passenger information also makes a huge difference. Passengers really appreciate those information screens that show real-time when their ride is arriving as well as route maps that are laid out in an organised fashion.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 21:43
|
|
|
Nesnej posted:In transport planning this is a well known phenomenon and is called the rail factor. Studies show that rail traffic is more likely to attract more and higher-income passengers buses. The reasons are unclear, but it has been proposed that this is because of more better passenger comfort (larger curve radii, less abrupt accelerations and decelerations, quieter passenger spaces and, at least from my anecdotal experience, better air conditioning) as well as increased reliability. Haha, the Green Line-B would like to have a word with you. Anyways, it all makes sense, but it seems like bus service could be dramatically improved with simple things like https://www.nextbus.com preferential signaling, and easy-to-read route maps. Oh, and the perception that buses are for poor people.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2010 22:48
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:Haha, the Green Line-B would like to have a word with you. Absolutely. After waiting for a Red Line train for 45 minutes in peak hour, and waiting six hours for a bus that turned out to be canceled, I can't stress how important accurate real-time displays are. With today's technology, it's trivial to provide arrival times for the next couple trains, and at least a moderately accurate estimate of the next bus arrival. As for public perception, that's a tricky question. Our society has been surrounded by a car-centric attitude so long, I can't imagine what it would take to remove the stigma that mass transit = poor. Heck, back in the day, trolleys and such were for the well-off. Now, though, I've heard people bragging that they've never had to take a bus or train in their lives. Try to raise fares and improve service, and you risk alienating the people who need mass transit the most. Giving free passes to low income groups would certainly help, but you can imagine the stink people would make when they have to pay for something the "riff-raff" get for free.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 02:15
|
|
|
I went clockwise after making the barrel more festive. First, I thought about other drivers. Then I thought about recognizable shapes I can draw in MS Paint. Then I got ambitious. Then I ran out of ideas and it's time to go home anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
Ok, I just came back from Grenich CT, from a funeral, and my god... the roads are so tiny, and I saw a lot of construction on I-95, as well as overpass construction (Round Exit 3), if I remember you said you were in CT, so I'm curious about a few things. One, how long does rebuilding a rail/highway overpass take, 2, how long does building a non grade overpass take, and three, how do you deal with those horrid backroads that curve constantly. Also for trains, just copy metro north, they have good if old trains, and they are nice, fast, and work (I wish they were faster though, trains at 100 instead of 70 MPH would be nice!)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 03:03
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:Ok, I just came back from Grenich CT, from a funeral, and my god... the roads are so tiny, and I saw a lot of construction on I-95, as well as overpass construction (Round Exit 3), if I remember you said you were in CT, so I'm curious about a few things. One, how long does rebuilding a rail/highway overpass take, 2, how long does building a non grade overpass take, and three, how do you deal with those horrid backroads that curve constantly. 1) At least five years when it involves a major road. It's tremendously slow work, since the tracks and/or road have to have their grades adjusted gradually months at a time. You can't stop rail service for more than a few hours, and if it's a high-volume road, the bridge is probably a bottleneck, which means very slim hours for road closure as well. 2) If you mean a road-road overpass, it depends on the volumes, but at least 6 months. Look at the Route 34 flyover in New Haven. That's been under construction for at least a year and I don't think it'll be done until 2011. 3) We straighten them out when we have the cash, otherwise it's just a matter of putting up guard rail at high accident locations and warning signs when we can't afford the rail. quote:Also for trains, just copy metro north, they have good if old trains, and they are nice, fast, and work (I wish they were faster though, trains at 100 instead of 70 MPH would be nice!) Most trains in Connecticut ARE Metro-North  Check it out
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 03:46
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:1) At least five years when it involves a major road. It's tremendously slow work, since the tracks and/or road have to have their grades adjusted gradually months at a time. You can't stop rail service for more than a few hours, and if it's a high-volume road, the bridge is probably a bottleneck, which means very slim hours for road closure as well. There's a similar clusterfuck going on near me. I-83, I-695, MD 139, and Baltimore Light Rail SHA Project plans  The red ramp (from I-83 SB to I-695 EB) is currently under heavy construction. It's two lanes and carries a TON of traffic (as does the 83SB-to-695WB ramp) so they're trying to keep the whole thing open while working on it. They closed the right two-thirds of the left lane (and all 9 inches of shoulder) while routing both lanes of traffic on the right side of the bridge, that lasted about 9 months, and now they're working on the "middle" lane. Trucks can't go that way anymore (and as a result take local roads, like ones near my house) and no one seems to want to drive the ramp any faster than 11 MPH, even though the lanes are only a foot or two narrower than usual. Luckily they're not doing any changes to the LR lines there, although it was widened to doubletrack about 10 years ago, and there's probably never going to be more than 2 tracks running there. The roundabout at Charles and Bellona is another clusterfuck. Almost all (I'd say 95% or more) of the traffic going through is either going from WB Bellona to SB Charles or NB Charles to the 83N/695W ramp, meaning once a stream of cars (and it's pretty much a nonstop stream from 7:30am-6:30pm) starts using it to get onto 83N/695W, any traffic on Bellona has to wait ages to actually get through. (Not to mention no one around here really knows how to drive a roundabout so even though it's two lanes most of the way around there's somehow never more than room for one car at a time.) Now there IS (or at least was, it's closed since they started construction on the Charles bridge) a ramp from the right side of Charles directly onto 695 WB, but no one ever seemed to take it (and most of those who did ended up getting onto 83N anyway, merging across 2 lanes of traffic that were trying to merge in the other direction anyway. Where the roundabout is now used to be a 4-way stop until about 1994-1996 (can't remember the exact time it got changed). Honestly I think it worked better as you didn't have 15-30 minute wait times to make a left turn during rush hour. As one more complicating factor, the spur of Bellona that serves as a ramp to 695W/83N also has some offices on it, which the plans show as eventually going to have local access. Right now there's 2-way traffic on an ONRAMP which a lot of people don't seem to realize (despite the double-yellow smack down the loving middle of it) so that's going to be a major improvement. So even though the project's already underway is there a better way to design this interchange? It's mainly complicated by (1) the local businesses on Bellona, (2) having a ton of roads intersect close to each other, (3) historic districts all over the place nearby, and (4) the Light Rail lines running under 695 and some ramps. Here's the project plans, if you want to cheat. I imagine it would be even more of a clusterfuck if I-83 went straight through instead of being split along 695 for ~1 mile. I believe the original reason for the split was the owner of the railroad right-of-way at the time didn't want to give it up (there wasn't much else in the way of construction around there at the time). Another relevant question: Baltimore County's got a job up right now that wants 2 years of signage experience, and I have none. It is something I've got a passion and interest in but there's no entry-level positions listed. If I can somehow get the job is it likely something I could work my way up from or is it more along the path of being a sign installer for the rest of my life?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 05:11
|
|
|
Roflex posted:There's a similar clusterfuck going on near me. I was going to go and make a broad interchange reconfiguration, but I just finished a 10-hour overtime shift working on the Busway and I'm filled with an absolute numb rage. I gave into my weakness and checked out the proposed plan. They're not changing much at all! I don't think having intersections placed adjacent to each other will work as well as they think, but it could be better than the existing situation, and it doesn't take much additional land at all. Roflex posted:Another relevant question: Baltimore County's got a job up right now that wants 2 years of signage experience, and I have none. It is something I've got a passion and interest in but there's no entry-level positions listed. If I can somehow get the job is it likely something I could work my way up from or is it more along the path of being a sign installer for the rest of my life? That job will put you out in the field banging in signposts. You probably won't get to design or make any decisions beyond "Should I put this post on the left, or the right of the utility pole?" As to where you could go from there, probably take a lateral transfer to Maintenance and work on a truck, or, if you're lucky, move to Construction and get to do some design or inspection.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 22:27
|
|
|
So on my commute I've noticed there are always two massive traffic jams. One is in the Cincinnati loop, which seems to just be volume. The other will appear in one of two locations, and is always caused by a cop with a radar gun. The speed limit is ridiculously low; I assume they were figured out back when cars started rattling like mexican jumping beans if you got up to 60 and have simply not been adjusted for modern cars. So everybody slams on the brakes and traffic backs up three or four miles. There's often an accident somewhere in there too. Why are speed limits on highways so low, and why does it seem perfectly acceptable for cops to cause traffic jams/accidents to generate revenue? Though I may have just answered that one myself. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 01:20 on May 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 01:18
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:So on my commute I've noticed there are always two massive traffic jams. One is in the Cincinnati loop, which seems to just be volume. The other will appear in one of two locations, and is always caused by a cop with a radar gun. The speed limit is ridiculously low; I assume they were figured out back when cars started rattling like mexican jumping beans if you got up to 60 and have simply not been adjusted for modern cars. So everybody slams on the brakes and traffic backs up three or four miles. There's often an accident somewhere in there too. Remember the two main ways speed limits are determined: 1) The lowest design speed on the road, as determined for heavy vehicles in poor shape, often with another 5 mph lopped off for good measure. Most cars can go much faster safely, and most of the road has a higher design speed. 2) Old people complain that drivers are driving too fast and the mayor lowers the speed limit by ~20 mph. Much more common on local roads than freeways. And why don't the cops care? Because they're not in the traffic jam 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 01:29
|
|
|
At least the radar guns give them ball cancer if they use them a lot.  It's maddening having to putter along at 55 on a completely flat, straight highway where everybody could easily be going 80/90. I've been enjoying the thread and wish you and your profession no harm but god drat I hate cars and driving, subways are so much more civilized.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2010 01:32
|
|
|
Is the condition of this bridge as alarming as I think it is? http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=...,349.75,,0,1.14
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2010 01:21
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Is the condition of this bridge as alarming as I think it is? I'm not a bridge inspector, but I've seen worse. Check out this one in Rhode Island: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=...12,8.79,,0,3.07 Connecticut's bridges get inspected every 5 years, and more often when they're in bad shape. Unfortunately, when the inspectors recommend repairs, we usually can't afford them and just ignore the bridge until it gets a "Poor" rating. There's about a 5-year backlog of bridge maintenance memos, and with a 5-year inspection schedule, that's a bit scary. It's telling that Rell just gave Maintenance a blank check to hire more bridge repairers, despite all her whining about the budget.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2010 01:56
|
|
|
So, Chichlidae, what's the deal with some of these god-awful bridges on 95 in around... I want to say Stamford or Bridgeport? The ones that feel like they've had their asphalt or concrete ground out forever? I was driving back from New York last night and every time my car went over one of these it was brutal. There were grooved pavement warnings, but Christ, I think those were like that when I drove back from New York about this same time last year. Can you fill me in on what's going on there? Even still none of that can take the cake that is the Hutchinson River Parkway. We took the Merritt on the way down on Saturday, and it was raining in and out. The Merritt held up admirably, but the Hutch had lots of standing water in places, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were accidents due to hydroplaning. New York is a scary place to drive, because you fight both the drivers and the roads.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2010 16:27
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I'm not a bridge inspector, but I've seen worse. Check out this one in Rhode Island: I think I know what I'm seeing, but I want to hear it from you.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2010 21:07
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:So, Chichlidae, what's the deal with some of these god-awful bridges on 95 in around... I want to say Stamford or Bridgeport? The ones that feel like they've had their asphalt or concrete ground out forever? I was driving back from New York last night and every time my car went over one of these it was brutal. From the Department's press release site: May 5: The State Department of Transportation announced today that a milling and resurfacing project will be performed on I-95 (northbound) from the New York State Line to Exit 8 in Greenwich/Stamford. This project is scheduled to begin on Thursday, May 6, 2010 and continue through Monday, July 19, 2010. April 22: The Connecticut Department of Transportation is announcing that a milling project will be performed on I-95 (southbound) from Exit 34 (Route 1) to Exit 32 (Linden Ave.) in Milford/Stratford. This project is scheduled to take place on Sunday, April 25, 2010. April 1: The State Department of Transportation announced today that a Milling and Resurfacing project will be performed on I-95 (southbound) from Exit 19 to Exit 17 in Westport. This project is scheduled to begin on Monday, April 5, 2010, and continue through Saturday, May 8, 2010, weather permitting. kefkafloyd posted:Even still none of that can take the cake that is the Hutchinson River Parkway. We took the Merritt on the way down on Saturday, and it was raining in and out. The Merritt held up admirably, but the Hutch had lots of standing water in places, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were accidents due to hydroplaning. New York is a scary place to drive, because you fight both the drivers and the roads. No kidding. I almost got run off the Tappan Zee last time I was down there. I thought staying on Interstates would keep me relatively safe! Groda posted:I think I know what I'm seeing, but I want to hear it from you. Years of neglect means all the concrete cover spalled off, exposing the rebar. This in itself isn't critical, but now the rebar's rusted through, and you might notice that it's not up to seismic standards. Also, the pier caps are spalled quite a bit. The DOT put up temporary shoring, but that's been there at least 5 years and is in bad shape, too. Could be worse. The old Providence River Bridge on I-195 was pretty much held up by 4x4s.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2010 21:49
|
|
|
Here's a fun photo: That's on the Route 82 expressway in Haddam. That 3-foot hole is actually a 13 by 8 by 2 foot void under the pavement. It's not even a bridge, just a ACCMP (Asphalt-Coated Corrugated Metal Pipe) underground that's collapsed. You can see the patch next to it. Last year, we found a 9 by 6 by 4 foot void there and repaired it. This one merits an emergency declaration and some quick (and expensive) repair work. The speed limit on 82 here is 50 mph, if I remember correctly, so most people are going 65. Trust me, you don't want to hit a hole like that going 65 mph.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 21:50
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Here's a fun photo: so uh how did you guys find out about that hole
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 23:33
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:so uh how did you guys find out about that hole A state trooper drove past and saw it, then closed the lane. Good thing, too, or someone could've been killed. Sometimes they get a guy to climb down inside it and measure how big the void is, which seems like it would be a very surreal job.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2010 23:40
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:A state trooper drove past and saw it, then closed the lane. Good thing, too, or someone could've been killed. Sometimes they get a guy to climb down inside it and measure how big the void is, which seems like it would be a very surreal job. Is the void there from the start, like a corrugated tube that you mentioned rusting away, and the asphalt just gets broken away on top, or was there dirt/fill underneath the road that just disappeared? I'm having trouble imagining how a hollow area that big just happens under a road. 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 09:16
|
|
|
60 Hertz Jig posted:Is the void there from the start, like a corrugated tube that you mentioned rusting away, and the asphalt just gets broken away on top, or was there dirt/fill underneath the road that just disappeared? I'm having trouble imagining how a hollow area that big just happens under a road. First, the pipe gets rusted out, and eventually part of it rusts through and makes a hole. Each time it rains, the gravel from above falls into the water-filled pipe and gets washed away. Over time, the whole void empties out, until the pavement has no support and sags, eventually collapsing.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2010 12:28
|
|
|
It's time for Work Zone Safety! Ima's actually right on this one. On the off-chance you get pulled over for violating a yellow speed limit sign, tell the trooper that an anthropomorphic cone said it was ok.  This image, however, is a total clusterfuck. No stop bars, northbound left turns have to cross the centerline, white line between opposing traffic directions, a full-width bike lane with no protection, a phantom lane on the west side of the intersection, nonstandard crosswalk widths, only one of the two through lanes crosses a train track, and how about the fact that none of these are actually signs? Heck, Doris and Tyler, I could probably sneeze on a napkin and make a more realistic diagram. ----- And while we're talking about railroad crossings... If a signal is within a few hundred feet of a train track, there's the possibility that a queue could extend back over the tracks. This is, predictably, very dangerous. Every time we have a signal near the tracks, we set up railroad pre-emption. The train trips a track circuit when it's ~50 seconds from the crossing, and the signal enters a track clearance phase designed to reduce the queue as much as possible before the gates come down. Yes, we can put up "do not stop on tracks" signs, but people just ignore them. Even school buses, which, more than anything, should be cautious, have a tendency to stop on tracks or try to race over the crossing when the lights start to flash. Of course, even with that track clearance phase, sometimes those queued cars have nowhere to go. If the next intersection down the road is the bottleneck, all the green time in the world won't clear the queue. In that case, we have to pre-empt the adjacent signal as well. Unfortunately, this means we need much more warning time, as the clearance phase has to last long enough for all the queued cars between the signals to move. That means moving the track circuit way down (a mile or more) to provide enough time, as well as giving the cross streets a couple solid minutes of red. Ouch. We have one such situation on the Busway (of course). One of the signals we're putting in at the train tracks could be blocked by the queue from an adjacent signal, which is, in turn, gridlocked thanks to a signal 3 lights and 2/3 of a mile down the road. Unfortunately, one of those signals is already pre-empted, in a different direction. What happens when the track needs to clear in two directions, but the two clearance phases conflict with each other? KABOOM! But that's all moot; despite the fact that we hooked up pre-emption at this intersection that's only 200 feet from the track and backs up over it several times a day, it is a town signal. And what did the Town of West Hartford decide to do once we turned the signal over to them? That's right, disconnect the railroad pre-emption. Someone almost died there a while ago, but they don't care; they'd rather skip the track clearance phase and allot a little more time to their roads. The signal in question: 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2010 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
That business of school buses on railroad crossing reminds me of a show I watched years and years ago (probably on Discovery, but don't quote me on that), talking about the time a substitute bus driver had to stop at a signal after the train tracks. The rear end end of the bus ended up hanging just over the tracks, a train hit it, ripped the passenger compartment off its chassis, flipped it around 180 degrees, and killed several kids. Horrible. Despite my tongue-in-cheek treatment of that railroad safety book, railroad crossings are no joke! 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2010 01:14
|
|
