|
smackfu posted:I've been spending a lot of time in New Haven lately, and they have an interesting signal cycle on many of the downtown intersections: 1) Direction A goes straight and protected left (so no walk) 2) Direction B goes straight and protected left (so no walk) 3) Now the pedestrians need to walk. Somebody feel free to correct me. less than three fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Nov 5, 2010 |
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
Well, the way it works in Manhattan is that there are also no rights-on-red, but normal traffic signals. It just sucks to make a left or right turn because there are always pedestrians in the way. So maybe that is the motivation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 18:29
|
|
|
Scramble lights  Awesome for high-pedestrian traffic areas
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 20:35
|
|
|
In Dutch cities they use them everywhere for bikes. It looks messy but it works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 20:56
|
|
|
ijustam posted:Scramble lights Downtown Denver has these all over the place. quote:That pedestrian innovation was developed by Henry Barnes, Denver's traffic engineer from 1947 to 1953. It's so closely associated with him that, at least around here, it's known as the Barnes Dance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 22:37
|
|
|
smackfu posted:I've been spending a lot of time in New Haven lately, and they have an interesting signal cycle on many of the downtown intersections: Sounds like a normal split-phase intersection with two ped phases per cycle. Split phasing is the least efficient cycle, leading to long cycle lengths. Pedestrians won't wait more than a few seconds for a walk signal before they just cross by themselves. Putting in a second ped phase cuts that time in half, while sacrificing the vehicular LOS. Here in Connecticut, we'll stick a ped scramble just about anywhere. Suburbs, cities, anywhere a high-volume bike trail goes through an intersection. I love ped scrambles when I'm walking, because I can easily dash diagonally across the intersection instead of going corner-to-corner and hitting another button.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 23:40
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Sounds like a normal split-phase intersection with two ped phases per cycle. Split phasing is the least efficient cycle, leading to long cycle lengths. Pedestrians won't wait more than a few seconds for a walk signal before they just cross by themselves. Putting in a second ped phase cuts that time in half, while sacrificing the vehicular LOS. Is this related to countdown pedestrian timers that have a hand countdown going, get to 0, but then just reset back to the walking man and the green light continues? If not, what gives? It's messed me up many times, as I prepared to brake for the yellow light that never came. This is in the importance centre of Canada, Toronto.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 00:49
|
|
|
AmbassadorTaxicab posted:Is this related to countdown pedestrian timers that have a hand countdown going, get to 0, but then just reset back to the walking man and the green light continues? If not, what gives? Sounds like countdown ped heads on a concurrent actuated walk phase; Connecticut doesn't use pedestrian Walk/Don't Walk signal heads for concurrent phases, on state roads, at least, to avoid that kind of ambiguity. Think about it this way: * In concurrent phases, the pedestrian phase happens during an adjacent vehicular phase. * The countdown can't be paused or reset. * The vehicular phase has a variable length based on vehicle actuations. * If the countdown ends, but the concurrent vehicular phase is still being extended (or no conflicting phase is called), then it may as well revert to an untimed 'Walk' signal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 01:45
|
|
|
 This is a picture from a recently completed project here in Kentucky. It involved moving over 5 million cubic yards of dirt and rock for a new 2 mile, two lane road. The final price tag was somewhere around 50 million dollars and I was curious to see how much something like this would cost in the North East, where it seems projects like this are much more expensive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 01:46
|
|
|
One thing I've noticed over the past few years is that during construction, instead of just putting up cones or barrels there will also be new paint lines added on the roads. Now, I understand how this is a good thing from a safety standpoint. It is easier for drivers to know where the valid lanes. However, one thing that really bugs me is that when they remove the temporary lines you can totally see where they were for YEARS after they had been used. Is this something that bugs road designers too? It just ruins the pretty new pavement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 02:28
|
|
|
Trendy MySpace User posted:
I don't think it would be TOO much more expensive, maybe double that at the most, but that's not including right-of-way acquisition. Consider that a normal, small house here will cost $250k to acquire by eminent domain, and that parking spaces can go for as much as a quarter million apiece. 2 miles is a lot of real estate to buy up. Zero One posted:One thing I've noticed over the past few years is that during construction, instead of just putting up cones or barrels there will also be new paint lines added on the roads. We've mostly gotten around this problem like so: If we're marking up pavement that will be replaced in the end, we'll use all the paint we want. If we're shifting stages, we'll grind the paint off, which mars the pavement surface. Who cares, though? It's getting replaced! If it's fresh pavement, we use marking tape, which works about as well as paint but is very easy to remove. Because of that, it can't be used during winter, or it'll be scraped off. We can't paint final epoxy in winter, either, because the contractor won't insure it. Tape won't stick to unpaved roads, but that's fine, because we can use paint on those and don't have to worry about it showing up when the final layer is added.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 04:28
|
|
|
I'm only about halfway through reading the thread, but I encountered something so odd I've got to post it  This is right outside Columbia, SC (Google maps:http://goo.gl/maps/Zh26)  Click here for the full 1135x673 image. Thankfully it doesn't seem like a super high traffic interchange but man was it odd to navigate the first time
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
the yeti posted:I'm only about halfway through reading the thread, but I encountered something so odd I've got to post it Boy, there's no way that's not an extremely high accident location. A design like that would easily get double or triple the accidents of a similar-volume normal interchange.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 22:54
|
|
|
Cichlidae, do you think there will be any big changes for your projects as a result of Dan Malloy winning the gubernatorial election?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2010 23:52
|
|
|
patricius posted:Cichlidae, do you think there will be any big changes for your projects as a result of Dan Malloy winning the gubernatorial election? I'm hoping he will grab New Britain's state senator DeFronzo as the new Commissioner. DeFronzo is in the state transportation committee, former mayor of New Britain, and really hates the Busway. If he gets the job, he can exert the power necessary to shut down the Busway project and start putting money into other jobs. DeFronzo, I'm told, has real hands-on exposure to DOT projects and would be a great guy for the job, much better than the usual political appointees who wouldn't know a curb from a gutter (present Commissioner excepted, of course!). Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Nov 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2010 00:10
|
|
|
A while ago you posted a site with maps of traffic surveys for various towns, but I can't find it again. I'm highly doubtful of whether certain stop signs and lights around here are really necessary. Can you post it again?patricius posted:Cichlidae, do you think there will be any big changes for your projects as a result of Dan Malloy winning the gubernatorial election?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2010 20:20
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:A while ago you posted a site with maps of traffic surveys for various towns, but I can't find it again. I'm highly doubtful of whether certain stop signs and lights around here are really necessary. Can you post it again? This should give you everything you need to know. I'm glad I probably won't be laid off, though it would be an opportunity to finally move to Europe. I'd want to find a job over there first, though, and I really have no idea where to start looking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2010 23:13
|
|
|
I live near this intersection and it's usually pretty fine except between classes when the pedestrian traffic across this single intersection backs cars up down hearst avenue all the way to oxford. (the green building to the north is the computer science building and the math & physics buildings are to the south)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2010 07:01
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:I live near this intersection and it's usually pretty fine except between classes when the pedestrian traffic across this single intersection backs cars up down hearst avenue all the way to oxford. We had a similar situation in New Haven, down at Southern Connecticut State University. We built a pedestrian overpass, tied in with all the sidewalks in the area, much more convenient than people walking across the street. From what I've heard, though, people still cross at grade. Maybe someone who lives down in New Haven can give a better idea of how it's working currently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2010 13:36
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
If you like building bridges you can come to Denmark, we can't get enough of those it seems. Not satisfied with linking the country internally and linking permanently to Sweden they're now planning to also build a bridge to Germany. There's some sort of bridge building mania in this country. They should focus on fixing/expanding the motorway system instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2010 17:02
|
|
|
MrBling posted:If you like building bridges you can come to Denmark, we can't get enough of those it seems. Not satisfied with linking the country internally and linking permanently to Sweden they're now planning to also build a bridge to Germany. Have they learnt nothing from WWII? What languages do you speak, Cichlidae? From what I've read in the thread, it's English, German and French right? Dutch should be easy to pick up and we loving love well-designed roads, almost as much as the Germans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2010 22:59
|
|
|
MrBling posted:If you like building bridges you can come to Denmark, we can't get enough of those it seems. My last name is Danish, so I'd fit right in. I've even watched a Danish movie (Den Store Dag), so there you go. I'll build you some really sweet roads, how about that? jeoh-kun posted:Have they learnt nothing from WWII? I can already read a good deal of Dutch thanks to the German and English, so yeah, it wouldn't be particularly hard. Of course, I'd need to find a job first before I could emigrate. Edit: Unless it wasn't clear, yes, German, French, and English fluently. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Nov 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 00:06
|
|
|
Long time listener, first time caller. First off, as a resident of Tucson for the past 10 years, I feel I must defend the HAWK. It's a great solution, at least here, because of the long distance between signalled intersections on 6-lane divided arterials. On a particular section of road I drive often, there are actually a combination of HAWKs and regular RYG lights that are solely for pedestrian use. The HAWKs are better for both the peds, and the drivers. The RYG lights, as one might expect, are green all the time unless the button is pressed. The problem is that these lights, because they can't have a short ped signal for granny, are timed in with the rest of the lights on the street, so you might end up waiting as a ped for up to a minute before the light changes, and as a driver, even if it's a cyclist who's gone across quickly, you get to sit at a red light for nothing. The HAWKs on the other hand, stand alone. A press immediately activates it, and so there's only a small delay during the yellow phase. As a driver, it's great because the sold red changes to flashing red after about 10 seconds, so it's now a standard stop, and if the pedestrian has cleared the intersection, you can go through. Only the flashing red phase waits for the full granny duration. It's a pretty great solution that inconveniences both users less than a regular light. That's not the primary reason I wanted to jump in though. I'm here because after 15 years, AZ-210 will finally connect to I-10. Sort of. But let me start at the beginning. Here in Tucson, at least from the perspective of those up north, we're completely anti-freeway. That's only partially true. What we're really against is the continuity breaks that a freeway creates in a city. Tossing up a raised freeway to connect A->B at the expense of a continuous central urban area is a poor compromise. Most of the proposals that ADOT has made over the years have been way-oversized. One from the 70s had a freeway a stone's throw from anywhere in town practically. What's the point of getting to a place, if once you get there, all you find is more ways to get other places. Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex is the best (worst) example of so many ways to get nowhere. Here's a map of Tucson, as it is now.  Click here for the full 964x707 image. There are two major freeways, I-10 and I-19. In 1995, ADOT built AZ-210, the "Aviation Parkway" highlighted in red. It was supposed to connect from I-10 to DM AFB. The alignment from just east of downtown to DM was easy-- get some railroad right of way, use the bridges that already existed for the rail, and bam. Freeway connection to DM, and Golf Links road. (which is practically a parkway, and a major E-W route). The problem was downtown. Here's the red area, as it is now, and was when 210 was built.  Click here for the full 1101x563 image. You can see the end of 210 in the lower left, where it dumps onto broadway/toole. Here's what ADOT had it doing:  Click here for the full 1101x563 image. 3 lanes either direction, as a combination raised/lowered freeway that was going to wipe out significant swaths of historic neighborhood to the north of the railway, as well as reduce connection to the north to a few major streets, as the alignment closest to the freeway diverges from the train track and cuts of even more streets than the railway does on its own. Tucson overwhelmingly rejected this proposal and told the state to stop 210 just east of downtown, and the city would finish it. We passed a sales tax specifically for it, and after years of debate about which buildings are worth saving and which aren't, we have this:  Click here for the full 1599x942 image. A 4-lane, parkway style connection, with some connections to local neighborhoods. The route minimizes impact to historic areas, opens up a new swath of developable land where the alignment curves above 6th street, and although signalled in 3 places and set at 30mph, is far more efficient than taking 6th or Congress as it is though the heart of downtown. In addition, it will include a bike path, and shaded walkway. I think it's a far better solution than a straight freeway connection. That's an incredibly long lead in to ask, what do you think? Given that 210's east endpoint is another parkway-style road, I think it fits the bill nicely, even at the expense of throughput.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 20:59
|
|
|
It would certainly go a long way to making 210 useful. I lived in Tucson for two years (and still travel down there on occasion) and I think I've been on it twice, ever. Really, I'd settle for a way to get across town roughly aligned with Speedway, just not doing an average of 10-15mph in traffic. For reference, Speedway is signed around 35-45 most of the time. Edit: For reference, the first year I lived in Tucson I was in a dorm on the southeast end of campus, and the second year I spent in an apartment on 10th street that is literally only barely outside of the last photo in your post there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Really, I'd settle for a way to get across town roughly aligned with Speedway, just not doing an average of 10-15mph in traffic. For reference, Speedway is signed around 35-45 most of the time. So would the rest of us. Assuming the RTA money holds out, by 2013 ( edit: this is only for the grant/oracle area, the whole project is slated to finish in the early 2020s ) you'll be able to get cross-town via the result of the  Grant Road Improvement Plan Grant road is going to be widened to 3 lanes where it's not already, along with the addition of making it more bike and ped friendly.  3-laning it the whole way won't make that much of a difference on its own, that's why most of the major intersections will be indirect left only, negating the need for the trailing left arrow, and giving more green time to both directions.  Bonus Signal Timing Porn:  I think the smartest thing about the plan is that they're clearing enough ROW to add streetcars / light rail at some point in the future without having to tear the whole thing up again. Qwijib0 fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Nov 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 23:15
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:First off, as a resident of Tucson for the past 10 years, I feel I must defend the HAWK. It's a great solution, at least here, because of the long distance between signalled intersections on 6-lane divided arterials. On a particular section of road I drive often, there are actually a combination of HAWKs and regular RYG lights that are solely for pedestrian use. The HAWKs are better for both the peds, and the drivers. As the most vocal anti-HAWK guy in the thread I feel I must rebut you. None of what you describe requires a HAWK signal head. It can be done identically with a normal, familiar signal head, with the added bonus that it doesn't break the "if none of the the signal head's lights are on, it must be broken/power is out and you should treat it like a stop" rule.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 00:15
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:As the most vocal anti-HAWK guy in the thread I feel I must rebut you. The normal signal head would require a full cycle for the pedestrian phase, and thus must be timed to match the other signals. A HAWK allows traffic to proceed during the pedestrian phase when it is safe to do so, and can be immediately actuated. I'm not sure how the HAWK is confusing. Yellow = slow. Red = Stop. Flash Red = Stop Sign. The signage accompanying all of them say CROSSWALK. If there is no light at a crosswalk and there's nobody in the road, then you just drive on through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 01:08
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:The normal signal head would require a full cycle for the pedestrian phase, and thus must be timed to match the other signals. No, a normal signal head can be set up to do whatever your city drat well pleases. It is perfectly possible for a normal signal head to actuate immediately, stay red for five-ten seconds, then blink red for another ten. It's just a bunch of lights wired to a controller; there's zero need to come up with a completely different signal head configuration to alter how the lights are controlled. Qwijib0 posted:I'm not sure how the HAWK is confusing. It's a matter of standardization and sticking to what people are familiar with. We train people to respond to these things to the point that it becomes subconsciously habitual (if not nearly instinctual). If the city started putting in Japanese-style triangular stop signs you could say the same thing: How is it confusing? It's red and it says stop! Why throw in something unfamiliar/different for no reason whatsoever?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 02:32
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Have a look at our bids: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2288&q=453990 I know this is late, but how in the world can the bids on the same project be different by an order of magnitude here? $3,812,000,000 is basically ten times larger than $357,000,000, or am I reading wrong?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 02:54
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:No, a normal signal head can be set up to do whatever your city drat well pleases. It is perfectly possible for a normal signal head to actuate immediately, stay red for five-ten seconds, then blink red for another ten. It's just a bunch of lights wired to a controller; there's zero need to come up with a completely different signal head configuration to alter how the lights are controlled. I guess I didn't get what you were getting at-- you mean that there should be a standard RYG head that operates as a hawk, but with a green ball in it's default phase, then yellow, solid red, flash red, then green? I think the flashing red->green transition would be more unusual to see, and be more confusing (same light geometry, different usage). One of the benefits of the HAWK over the implementation above is that the light configuration is different. In the same way that the yellow-green signs are more noticeable because they're new so is a HAWK. Once a driver reads the sign once, he can then remember the hawk geometry and usage for future reference-- and the flashing lights will continue to get his attention. The other benefit is that you're not burning the green light all the time. There are some TOUCAN crossings where the greens are out because they're never off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 02:55
|
|
|
Drivers are stupid and doing anything that could cause confusion is a terrible terrible idea. Ergo HAWK is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 03:17
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:Long time listener, first time caller. You're right, throughput isn't everything. I'm interested to see how putting bottlenecks at both ends of a freeway will affect its level of service. The freeway can't get congested if not enough volume can reach it, right? As much as I'd prefer a full freeway alignment, there's something to be said for preserving the existing city and not cutting downtown in two. Letting the City work on its own alignment likely bypassed a whole lot of NIMBY. In the end, it's an improvement, and if it needs to be upgraded again in 20 years, so be it. Qwijib0 posted:Grant road is going to be widened to 3 lanes where it's not already, along with the addition of making it more bike and ped friendly. This is called a Michigan Left up here. Excellent phasing if you have the room for U-turns, and room is not something Arizona lacks. Saving right-of-way is especially wise given how young the city is, relatively speaking. BuckT.Trend posted:I know this is late, but how in the world can the bids on the same project be different by an order of magnitude here? $3,812,000,000 is basically ten times larger than $357,000,000, or am I reading wrong? A bit of history might help. This is one contract in a large project that was originally bid all at once. The bid went out, came back, and.... nobody bid on it. Zero contractors. So, once it was split up into smaller portions and went back out to bid, I'm betting the last-place bidder (Tully Construction Co) was hoping that nobody else would bid on it, just like last time. Almost any reasonable bid they placed would be accepted at that point, or at least used as a starting point for further bargaining. Whether $3 billion is reasonable or not is up to interpretation, of course, but in an alternate universe, they might have pulled it off! quote:HAWK stuff Obviously there are good arguments on both sides of the table, or else we wouldn't be talking about them, but I'd like to address a couple points. First off, being recognizable due to being different isn't a plus. That novelty eventually wears off, and then you have two different standards. It's better to converge on a single standard. Second, burning the green light isn't nearly as big a deal with LED heads as it is with incandescents. LEDs have such a long service life, and fail gradually, that they can easily be replaced before they all go out. Third, pre-emptively before it's brought up, there's a new type of pedestrian beacon, rapid-flashing rectangular yellow. They go on the side of the road, and basically act as a strobe when the button is pushed. In studies done in Florida, DC, and (IIRC) Chicago, they were shown to have an obedience rate tenfold higher than standard ped beacons, and that rate even lasted over time, which shows that it has some staying power. We're installing one soon to test them out, and if that works, I'll heartily recommend them over any other kind of ped beacon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 03:23
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Drivers are stupid and doing anything that could cause confusion is a terrible terrible idea. Ergo HAWK is a bad idea. FHA Study posted:The before-after evaluation results were as follows: Maybe drivers aren't all as bad as we assume?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 03:24
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:I think the flashing red->green transition would be more unusual to see, and be more confusing (same light geometry, different usage). I don't think you can get "more unusual" than a completely new light setup, but beyond that, flashing red is a standard and familiar behavior on a normal signal head. It is used for a wide variety of reasons (failsafe mode for the controller, road construction, switching between a 'stop' and normal signal behavior at different times of day, etc.). Switching from blinking red ('stop') to green ('go') isn't confusing at all; certainly not more than switching from blinking red ('stop') to nothing ('...?'). Qwijib0 posted:One of the benefits of the HAWK over the implementation above is that the light configuration is different. In the same way that the yellow-green signs are more noticeable because they're new so is a HAWK. Once a driver reads the sign once, he can then remember the hawk geometry and usage for future reference-- and the flashing lights will continue to get his attention. You are overestimating the intelligence of the average US driver. Everyone already knows what a red light means! Also, like anything that is more noticeable simply because it is novel (like the "debris" painted on the road that supposedly slows drivers down), that feature is inherently temporary. Qwijib0 posted:The other benefit is that you're not burning the green light all the time. There are some TOUCAN crossings where the greens are out because they're never off. I'll grant HAWK signals this, but (especially with modern relatively low-power-consumpiton/long-lived LED lights) I don't consider a bit of money savings worth throwing in an unnecessarily different type of signal head. Edit: beaten by Chichlidae
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 03:37
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:Maybe drivers aren't all as bad as we assume? I read through that entire study and unless I missed it they never say what was in place before the HAWK crossings, but the implication (based on All 21 HAWKs included in this study were located either at a minor intersection (where the minor street was controlled by a STOP sign) or at a major driveway...) is that these crossings are installed where there was no signal before. This is the same error that every pro-HAWK study put forth so far makes. If you go from an unsignalized crosswalk to a HAWK crossing, no loving poo poo there's going to be a huge reduction in pedestrian accidents. The real question is then: what kind of reduction would you get with a normal signal head there? It would probably be exactly the same - and if you included the initial 2 month "learning period" that your cited study didn't cover, I bet normal signals would do better. Since these HAWK studies never seem to be properly comprehensive I don't know if we'll ever know that for sure though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 03:58
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Third, pre-emptively before it's brought up, there's a new type of pedestrian beacon, rapid-flashing rectangular yellow. They go on the side of the road, and basically act as a strobe when the button is pushed. In studies done in Florida, DC, and (IIRC) Chicago, they were shown to have an obedience rate tenfold higher than standard ped beacons, and that rate even lasted over time, which shows that it has some staying power. We're installing one soon to test them out, and if that works, I'll heartily recommend them over any other kind of ped beacon. Choadmaster posted:The real question is then: what kind of reduction would you get with a normal signal head there? It would probably be exactly the same - and if you included the initial 2 month "learning period" that your cited study didn't cover, I bet normal signals would do better. Since these HAWK studies never seem to be properly comprehensive I don't know if we'll ever know that for sure though. The key to ped safety may just be some very high-visibility way to signal drivers that "hey, this crosswalk is actually in use right now"-- Whether that's a standard signal, HAWK, or strobing beacon. A hawk does that with two red lights, and the strobe is much brighter than its surroundings. It's an interesting evolution-- a HAWK has good compliance rate, and it's less than a signal, and the strobe appears to do well and it's less than a HAWK. In the end, the most cost-effective (both in install, and accident) way to accomplish the same task as well is the right one. The strobe needs a good bird name though  FINCH Flashing Intense Notifier of Crosswalk Happenings
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 16:26
|
|
|
Do you know anything about the development of Las Vegas? After living there four months I've decided it's the most hosed up city design on the planet and everyone involved in building roads there should be smacked. But I'm curious what the thinking was, or whether the city just grew so fast that they didn't bother planning anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 16:54
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:The key to ped safety may just be some very high-visibility way to signal drivers that "hey, this crosswalk is actually in use right now"-- Whether that's a standard signal, HAWK, or strobing beacon. A hawk does that with two red lights, and the strobe is much brighter than its surroundings. It's an interesting evolution-- a HAWK has good compliance rate, and it's less than a signal, and the strobe appears to do well and it's less than a HAWK. In the end, the most cost-effective (both in install, and accident) way to accomplish the same task as well is the right one. "Intense" doesn't even begin to cover it. We set up a demo beacon at one end of the building and it was still bright enough to cast a shadow in daylight 300 feet down the hall. Less than 10 feet away from it, it's like looking at the sun. You have to cover your eyes or look away. Grand Fromage posted:Do you know anything about the development of Las Vegas? After living there four months I've decided it's the most hosed up city design on the planet and everyone involved in building roads there should be smacked. But I'm curious what the thinking was, or whether the city just grew so fast that they didn't bother planning anything. Las Vegas is pretty typical of American southwestern city growth. Build some basic infrastructure, fill in with mile after mile of suburb. The more you build in the outskirts of the city, the higher the commute time climbs, and the more stressed the inner-city streets become. It's pretty basic stuff for anyone who's played SimCity, but unfortunately, SimCity didn't come out until the 80s and that part of the country was planned out a couple decades prior. It's more into the realm of architecture than urban planning, but you might want to check out the book Learning from Las Vegas if you'd like a late-70s look at Las Vegas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 17:08
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:"Intense" doesn't even begin to cover it. We set up a demo beacon at one end of the building and it was still bright enough to cast a shadow in daylight 300 feet down the hall. Less than 10 feet away from it, it's like looking at the sun. You have to cover your eyes or look away. That sounds terrible, you can't actually put something like that out on the streetside, right? I don't know if this is the same sort of thing you're talking about, but I drove through Cambria, CA about five years ago and that town had a bunch of strange traffic signs with strobe lights similar to this one (not just stop signs, but yellow warning signs like "curve ahead" and stuff). The strobe frequency was insanely fast (5-10 times per second), sufficient to trigger seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy and headache-inducing enough to me that I really wanted to close my eyes every time one came up. (The Tapco ones I just linked seem to blink once per second and aren't painful to look at.) There's a pretty solid line between getting people's attention and creating a driving hazard and I always wondered how those ever got installed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
Choadmaster posted:That sounds terrible, you can't actually put something like that out on the streetside, right? It's a fine line, which is why the FHWA has banned strobes on signs, but has given us provisional permission to use the rapid ped beacon at this site. It's also a dozen feet in the air, so pedestrians won't be looking directly into it, and its intensity tapers off as the viewing angle increases. As an aside, it's interesting what you have to do to get FHWA approval. The request must be on official DOT letterhead, but it has to be submitted electronically. We scanned the letterhead and used it as a background for the document file, and then the secretary printed THAT out onto letterhead, and got really confused because everything was doubled. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Nov 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 22:56
|
|