|
dexter posted:It's better than this retard poo poo in Point Loma. The best part is they don't light up, they're just poles in the middle of the street. Have fun driving through there for the first time at 2am when the power is out. The only place in the city I can think of that has real roundabouts is Bird Rock and the residents aren't too happy about them. Somehow I have a hard time feeling bad for dealing with that, you're a stone's throw away from Point Loma Seafood. Best fish and chips ever.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:44 |
|
|
Cichlidae posted:It looks like an older design, more like a mini-roundabout with a raised island, really. Remember that roundabouts work better than all-way stops for all volume conditions, so there's probably no reason not to have one there. Why wouldn't there be more? Roundabouts cost money, and not everyone wants them, nor is there enough right-of-way at all intersections. That one was built very small, probably to avoid property takes, but it would function a good deal better (and handle more truck traffic) if it had a larger radius. We have lots of these in Vancouver. Scattered around Residential areas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2010 19:14
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That's a permissive left, and they're pretty common in most places. They're not quite as safe as protected lefts, but they offer higher throughput and less delay, especially when volumes are light and cycle lengths are long. I'm surprised they're rare where you are; pretty much any signal with one- or two-lane approaches here has permissive lefts, albeit with a green ball rather than a flashing yellow arrow. I can honestly say I've never seen that in about a dozen states over the last few years. I wish they were in use in Ohio though, there are two lefts I sit at for way too long with no traffic I'd love to have that at. Hell, almost everywhere could use 'em.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 02:10
|
|
|
fix Auckland please http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCKDBHT3i74
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 06:11
|
|
|
jermsz posted:fix Auckland please the problem is that Auckland is basically the LA of New Zealand (low density with a high population -- for new zealand)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 06:13
|
|
|
nm posted:Auckland is pretty horrible. Traffic sucks too. it just shits me that we had such a decent tram system which got scrapped for fancy motorways in the 50's, that mindset is still going today. This is an exert from a question in parliment today to the minister of finance, in regards to major infrastructure funding. http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/4/9/2/49HansQ_20101021_00000001-1-Infrastructure-Insurance-Against-Future.htm posted:Dr Russel Norman: How will the $11 billion that his Government is spending on new high-cost motorways do anything to reduce the vulnerability of our economy to oil price shocks? FFFffffffffffffffffffffffffffFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFf (how can people make a choice to use public transport when THERE IS NONE) as a bit of background our current government (the right wing party) is pushing (and going to spend the majority of transport funding ($11 Billion) for projects called Roads of National Significance which seem to be roads of National Party significance. While a few of these roads are going to be usefull, many arent. The "Holiday Highway" (a stretch of road that only ever gets congested around new year) is to receive $1.5BILLION at a benefit to cost ratio of 0.8. A inner city rail tunnel (which has been on the cards since 1970's, and was to go ahead until an incoming national government scrapped it, to build more motorways) will cost the same, but provide so much more benefits. God drat I'm sick of NZ Transport planners, specifically in Auckland Ps. Almost every link was to the same blog, I realise, but that's because it's loving awesome jermsz fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Oct 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 08:35
|
|
|
jermsz posted:fix Auckland please Thanks for the documentary; it was very enlightening. It seems like Auckland's problem is its politicians. I don't understand how they could be so short-sighted, and keep getting elected... but I'm sure all that money from the road lobbyists goes a long way. jermsz posted:it just shits me that we had such a decent tram system which got scrapped for fancy motorways in the 50's, that mindset is still going today. This is an exert from a question in parliment today to the minister of finance, in regards to major infrastructure funding. At least it makes me feel a bit better that our policy makers aren't the only ones with their heads up their asses. The comparison of Auckland's current policy with the policies here in the 1960s is very apt; I don't think they have another 50 years to change their minds and shift toward transit, though, like we've had here. The era of cheap gas is drawing to a close.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 18:17
|
|
|
jermsz posted:fix Auckland please Oh wow. That was fascinating. Thanks for sharing that! Do you know if that series is going to continue? I kept thinking of L.A. all the while I was watching that. But hell, I thought we Americans were in love with our autos. Looks like we have nothing on Aukland! It was encouraging to hear that U.S. cities are becoming much more mass transit friendly. Personally, I can't wait. I hate driving, and I love trains.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 18:19
|
|
|
nm posted:Auckland is pretty horrible. Traffic sucks too. Aucklands problems has never been "density", its always been money being spent on the wrong things because doing any plans out beyond the next election cycle is too hard. http://transportblog.co.nz/2010/10/04/a-solution-to-the-density-dilemma/ There are plenty of cities with lower density than auckland with much better public transit systems. Probabaly the main reason why rail is so crippled in auckland was that the public rail system was sold to asset strippers in the 80's/90's and languished since then. The scary thing about auckland (but I can't source it) is that some people quoted some Ministry of Health stats that show the recent uptake of cycle commuters has led to a decrease in the number of deaths due to air pollution by 5, but was offset by a increase in cyclist fatalities by 5. So not only does auckland have a terrible public transport system, it has terrible drivers as well. Every day I ride my bike, I leave before 6:30am because then you don't have to deal with all the road zombies droning away to work. Cichlidae posted:Thanks for the documentary; it was very enlightening. It seems like Auckland's problem is its politicians. I don't understand how they could be so short-sighted, and keep getting elected... but I'm sure all that money from the road lobbyists goes a long way. This was well illustrated by the southpark episode on the election, poo poo sandwich or turd burger. The man (Len Brown) who won the auckland city mayor position campaigned on not being the other front runner (John Banks). Thats how crap it is. Our Green party is a bunch of idologues who tend to only support extreme positions and can't work out a middle ground (eg. they will reject options that don't match their ideas but that are still better than the status quo). Cichlidae posted:At least it makes me feel a bit better that our policy makers aren't the only ones with their heads up their asses. The comparison of Auckland's current policy with the policies here in the 1960s is very apt; I don't think they have another 50 years to change their minds and shift toward transit, though, like we've had here. The era of cheap gas is drawing to a close. We have never really had cheap gas in NZ, because we have always paid the international market rate for it, and then had huge amounts of tax stuck on it (which doesn't go to transport funding though). Wibbleman fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Oct 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 23:24
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Thanks for the documentary; it was very enlightening. It seems like Auckland's problem is its politicians. I don't understand how they could be so short-sighted, and keep getting elected... but I'm sure all that money from the road lobbyists goes a long way. Well until this year the greater Auckland area was made up of a number of seperate cities with different councils, Auckland City Council, Manukau City Council, North Shore City Council, Waitakerie City Council, Franklin District Council and Rodney District Council. The Auckland Regional Council was then set up to oversee all of these councils but they didnt have much of a say. So Auckland had 7 Mayors. This all changed when the current government got elected and decided (without public consultation) to combine all these councils into one, and create what has now been dubbed the Super City (or Super lovely). The whole process has been set up from the right wing perspective, and what many assume was to get a right wing mayor in there so they can sell of the assets (Auckland International Airport, Ports of Auckland). Fortunatly for us, noone bought it, and the left wing Labour Party mayor from Manukau City was elected, he campeigned on building new transport infastructure, specifically rail. In fact the entire country (with the exception of Christchurch which just suffered from a massive earthquake, causing the mayor to go from 20% approval to 80%) voted left in their local elections. Unfortunatly the government has been quick to squash Len Browns rail plans saying they're uneconimic and they cant afford it, they're already spending $1.5billion on Aucklands rail (thanks to the previous government), however they're still happy to spend $11Billion on motorways (apparently they reduce congestion) TLDR: Yes our politicians are to blame, theyre loving retarded, luckily Auckland just elected a Mayor who campeigned on creating a rail network! (however the government still says gently caress off) jermsz fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Oct 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2010 23:54
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:My city is actually installing a similar setup they refer to as speed cushions. There are some of those in my area on residential side streets, I can get by with driving over them - whether or not I let the wheels go through the gaps - at 20mph comfortably, meaning 40 for an emergency vehicle. *** Just realized I replied to a post made later the same day, the last time i looked at this thread... hmm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 01:26
|
|
|
jermsz posted:TLDR: Yes our politicians are to blame, theyre loving retarded, luckily Auckland just elected a Mayor who campeigned on creating a rail network! (however the government still says gently caress off) Story as old as time, innit? Just have to hope that, during their eternal waltz of deception and backstabbery, everyone eventually stumbles in the right direction. ---- Sorry if I haven't been posting much lately, but I've got guests over, and I wrecked my car on the way back from the airport. The whole front end of my car got smashed, and my clothes reek of sodium azide. drat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 16:01
|
|
|
nm posted:Auckland is pretty horrible. Traffic sucks too. I posted a big thread about this in D&D a few months ago.  The only cities where mass transit is successful and a better choice than a car are those that are SO dense and congested, it's faster to walk. I don't believe cities do dense and with so automotive congestion so bad that it's faster to walk is desirable. In fact, quite the opposite. I don't want to derail this into a thread on mass transit (D&D is a much better place for that) so I'll stop there and try to get back on track. Aside from obvious things like carpooling in electric cars, what can Auckland do to improve the roads? grover fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Oct 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
Do you know anything about Las Vegas? I've been working here for a few months and it's the worst-designed city and road system I've ever seen. I'm assuming it just grew so fast that there was zero attempt to plan or organize anything, but I don't really know. I miss subways. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
grover posted:I posted a big thread about this in D&D a few months ago. ...where every argument you posted was proven to be wrong. Also, that graph shows that rail transit uses significantly less energy than the typical one person per car, without even touching on the maintenance issues that causes on roads.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 19:00
|
|
|
rt4 posted:...where every argument you posted was proven to be wrong. Cichlidae, please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't cars cause negligible wear to roads compared with trucks and buses? Like, one truck/bus does more damage than 50,000 cars?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 19:38
|
|
|
grover posted:Not this poo poo again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 20:12
|
|
|
Nesnej posted:You just chose to ignore the fact that it doesn't really matter how energy efficient a mode of transportation is per km travelled, but how much energy is consumed per trip. People in dense cities tend to ride shorter trips because land use is more efficient (mainly because they don't have metric shitloads² of space taken up by parking lots). Add to this the fact that people who live in dense cities tend to make fewer trips per day and the result is a lower net energy expenditure within a given span of time. You must consider that mass transit rarely goes directly from your point A to point B, so you have to add extra length to that. I'd rather drive 2x as far (or carpool 4x as far) in a hybrid on a well designed and congestion-free freeway system, and also be able to carry a week's worth of groceries home with me, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 20:59
|
|
|
grover posted:
Mass transit in well-developed urban areas isn't any less convenient than a car, and often is a lot more convenient once you add in the cost and hassle of parking and driving in city traffic. Even Boston's T, despite its many failures, is more convenient than actually driving into the city. A certain amount of that is congestion, yes, but land values in the city have raised parking costs to the point where it's prohibitively expensive to make a habit of driving in for anything other than tourism. Of course, I also live in a smaller northeastern city that developed pre-automobile, have a spacious house and a backyard because I'm *gasp* earning above the poverty level (although not by much... gotta keep my hipster cred somehow,) have a grocery store and farmers market a block and a half from my house, own a bicycle with a basket and rack for hauling poo poo that would be unwieldy on a bus and work 1 mile from where I live. (and even here, mass transit is still more convenient than driving when I want to head downtown on weekdays) Urban living doesn't mean NYC. corgski fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Oct 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2010 22:01
|
|
my mcmansion, 2 car garage, and 2 and a half children
|
33 people on a commuter train? Really? I just took a train back home from work (at 1 AM) and there were more people in my CARRIAGE.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 02:06
|
|
|
jeoh-kun posted:33 people on a commuter train? Really? I just took a train back home from work (at 1 AM) and there were more people in my CARRIAGE. Divide the number of passengers on your train by the length of their commutes and you'll have the answer. It's a great feeling, to board a nearly empty bus knowing I won't have to sit next to someone of questionable hygiene/sanity. But at the same time, I know it's a tremendous waste of resources.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 04:31
|
|
|
grover posted:I'd rather drive 2x as far (or carpool 4x as far) in a hybrid on a well designed and congestion-free freeway system, and also be able to carry a week's worth of groceries home with me, too. Is there any developed country with a congestion free freeway system?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2010 20:07
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Is there any developed country with a congestion free freeway system? There is no such thing by definition. There's a weird phenomenon where adding more capacity just increases the amount of use, so congestion doesn't actually go down. Short of computerized bumper to bumper robot cars there's no way to eliminate it. Good design can make it better, but the only way to actually reduce it is a proper public transportation system that can take the load off the roadways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 04:06
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:There is no such thing by definition. There's a weird phenomenon where adding more capacity just increases the amount of use, so congestion doesn't actually go down. Short of computerized bumper to bumper robot cars there's no way to eliminate it. Good design can make it better, but the only way to actually reduce it is a proper public transportation system that can take the load off the roadways. Sorry I haven't been able to post much, turns out car accidents can gently caress you up pretty badly. I'm not entirely sure if it's possible to build a congestion-free network, but it's theoretically possible that, if density remains below a certain threshold, there might not be enough demand to saturate the road. In practice, it's incredibly hard to limit density, because growth is seen as a necessity of a healthy town. Kevin Lynch contends that a healthy town could be stagnant, or even shrinking, neither of which poses much challenge for traffic engineers. I would argue that, if ample resources are set aside for future high-density transit expansion, freeways can provide excellent service in low-growth areas. Of course, I learned traffic engineering from playing SimCity, so take that with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Sorry I haven't been able to post much, turns out car accidents can gently caress you up pretty badly. Cichlidae posted:I'm not entirely sure if it's possible to build a congestion-free network, but it's theoretically possible that, if density remains below a certain threshold, there might not be enough demand to saturate the road. In practice, it's incredibly hard to limit density, because growth is seen as a necessity of a healthy town. Kevin Lynch contends that a healthy town could be stagnant, or even shrinking, neither of which poses much challenge for traffic engineers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2010 23:13
|
|
|
Nesnej posted:What happened? Merging in from the HOV lane on I-91 SB, I saw someone coming up fast behind me into my blind spot, so I turned to make sure I wasn't getting sideswiped. When I looked back in front, the van ahead of me had stopped. The pavement was wet, so I couldn't stop in time. Poof, there goes the front half of my car, and that airbag smoke hurts. I managed to get to the shoulder and my car got towed away. I got a ticket for following too closely. Nothing hurt at the time, but I've had a wicked sore back since. Ah well, it was unavoidable. Just not looking forward to paying the deductible, ticket, and increased rates. quote:I doubt that would translate well to real world situations though, because politicians always seem to figure that if infrastructure doesn't display any obvious faults, it doesn't need funding. Funny how that works, huh? I doubt traffic engineers would make good politicians, but politicians make awful traffic engineers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 02:00
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Funny how that works, huh?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2010 17:28
|
|
|
Nesnej posted:I've gotten a few odd looks from several different flatmates who had never realised that you're supposed to vacuum the back of your fridge every year or so. You mean *behind* the fridge, right? Because if you mean the inside, that's a new rule for me, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 11:37
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:You mean *behind* the fridge, right? Because if you mean the inside, that's a new rule for me, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 12:43
|
|
|
Alereon posted:You clean off the radiator to keep it operating efficiently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 17:24
|
|
|
I was visiting Delft and came across this on the way back from the hostel: Click here for the full 1280x960 image. What am I looking at? What do these markings mean? I was there visiting architecture students, so it was fitting that 50 m later I happened upon the headquarters of WAM Architecture. Never heard of them?:  Click here for the full 550x815 image.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 20:48
|
|
|
Groda posted:I was there visiting architecture students, so it was fitting that 50 m later I happened upon the headquarters of WAM Architecture. Never heard of them?: Ah yeah, obnoxious PoMo that also looks like cheap poo poo. I was hoping that era had ended. ProTip: If an architect ever uses the word "witty" to describe their design... run.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
I walked in and asked them if they had designed it. A tall man with a pony tail and purple suit jacket said, "You don't like it?  "
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 21:01
|
|
|
Someone played too much animal crossing
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 21:02
|
|
|
Groda posted:I was visiting Delft and came across this on the way back from the hostel: The triangles are called 'shark teeth' and they indicate that whatever traffic is on the pointy side of them, has to yield. In this case, to the bikes on the bike path. The triangular sign with the red border also indicates this. The stripes just mark where the bike path goes. Seems like these markings are fresh and also pretty sloppy, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 21:14
|
|
|
Yeah, they're shark teeth, but there are two rows of them on Spoorsingel. How does that work? Also, they seem to just go diagonally across the street (Havenstraat).
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 21:25
|
|
|
Groda posted:Yeah, they're shark teeth, but there are two rows of them on Spoorsingel. How does that work? Also, they seem to just go diagonally across the street (Havenstraat). One of them is for the pedestrian/bike path; both directions have to yield to that. The other is... a bit bizarre, as you noted. I'd take it to mean an all-way yield. Also, it's delightful to see a street called Bolwerk. I get pretty irrationally upset at streets named "boulevards" here that weren't originally city walls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 21:58
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Also, it's delightful to see a street called Bolwerk. I get pretty irrationally upset at streets named "boulevards" here that weren't originally city walls. Man, you must be pretty upset over the street in West Hartford named just "Boulevard"  Actually there's a good segway - what, exactly, drives street naming (outside of planned grids)? Is it pretty much arbitrary choices/political points?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
Groda posted:Yeah, they're shark teeth, but there are two rows of them on Spoorsingel. How does that work? Also, they seem to just go diagonally across the street (Havenstraat). Okay, yeah it looks like something went wrong with the second row... There should only be shark teeth on the right side of the road, there. Maybe they got confused because the Havenstraat is one-way, or something. And there's also the bike path of Bolwerk merging with the Havenstraat. Can't blame them for getting confused
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:44 |
|
|
Derpes Simplex posted:Man, you must be pretty upset over the street in West Hartford named just "Boulevard" I choose to believe that, at some point, West Hartford had a big-rear end wall downtown (probably with ornamental luminaires and mast arms), and I'll gladly avoid seeking out the truth. quote:Actually there's a good segway - what, exactly, drives street naming (outside of planned grids)? Is it pretty much arbitrary choices/political points? Private roads are pretty much the decision of the landowner. The most ridiculous street names are in private areas. Public roads can be named by the town council, chosen by a city planner or mayor, or chosen by fiat if the engineer uses a name on plans and nobody complains. The latter is how we get roads like Old Route 740 or, in a more extreme case, Old West High Street #4.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2010 01:37
|
|