|
Cichlidae posted:Cops have guns, and they love working overtime. They have a history of bullying contractors and inspectors in order to get more work. Around here, they've gone so far as to arrest the inspector when he decided that flagmen would work just as well. Of course, no charges were filed, but that really hosed up the project. Must be a state-by-state thing, I've never in my life seen a cop directing traffic in a construction zone. Or anywhere else really, with the exception of a dead traffic light once, and a bike race (that cop was a huge dick). What's the (legal) justification for they use? Just because they can?
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 14:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
So everyone has their own ideas but I'd like to hear an expert's opinion. Why does LA traffic suck so much?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 15:54
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:So everyone has their own ideas but I'd like to hear an expert's opinion. Why does LA traffic suck so much? lowish density 2 subway lines 3 light rail lines Not an expert, but I'd suspect that'd do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 15:57
|
|
|
Holy poo poo! We have SUBWAYS?! I've lived in this thrice-damned shithole for 2 years and never knew.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 15:59
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Holy poo poo! We have SUBWAYS?! I've lived in this thrice-damned shithole for 2 years and never knew. Union station through downtown to k-town and hollywood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 16:07
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:So there's no advantage? I'm not sure Korea has those same problems. And there's no work site, it's just a normal intersection. If the officer is very good at directing traffic, they can get a slightly higher throughput than a signal, but mostly it's used to help with reducing violations. It's rather dangerous for the officer, as well, so it's not done much outside of construction and special events here. Choadmaster posted:Must be a state-by-state thing, I've never in my life seen a cop directing traffic in a construction zone. Or anywhere else really, with the exception of a dead traffic light once, and a bike race (that cop was a huge dick). What's the (legal) justification for they use? Just because they can? Many towns and cities here have statutes on the books that all work zones must have police presence for the entire time work is going on. Our state laws overrule that for state construction on state roads, but there is still ongoing debate at a high level over whether that is valid or not. Basically, the cops will harass us if we don't give them plenty of money, even though they're not strictly necessary and often harmful to traffic flow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
Here's a fun one for you. Very near where I grew up. This on-ramp is particularly fun when you're driving a terrible S-10 with a 4 banger that doesn't accelerate well. And it's probably been snowing and icing over because hey, Michigan. Stop sign with a very short acceleration lane into 55 mph traffic from a divided offramp. The problematic ramp there is from the northbound onramp onto M-14 on the east side of the highway. So: how do you fix this interchange? And, if it hasn't been brought up before, how would you improve Dupont Circle in DC? (Also, I just found this thread, and have to say, really enjoying it.) Kalman fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Jun 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 06:41
|
|
|
Kalman posted:So: how do you fix this interchange? A purely amateur speculation: You have Onder Park (and maybe some private property? I can't tell) to the east of the freeway, so you can't move the on-ramp any farther east. There's a river and what looks like a bike path to the south of the interchange, so you can't move the off-ramp south unless you want to do some significant bridging. The off-ramp is what's causing the problem for the on-ramp; it needs to have a certain amount of curvature so that the drivers coming off the freeway aren't making hairpin turns while they decelerate from 55 MPH. If the off-ramp weren't there, the on-ramp could be much straighter (and therefore remove the need for an extended merge lane, because vehicles could accelerate on the on-ramp). What I'd do is shave the shoulder coming off the on-ramp, and create an extended merge lane. M14 seems to be wider than usual up until about the sign on the southbound side of the freeway, which looks to my untrained eye to be 15-20 car lengths. By co-opting the shoulder and extending a merge lane out to that point, you'd remove the need for a stop sign and give entering vehicles plenty of space to come to speed. I'm not sure if shaving the shoulder like that is actually legal, but it's a way to improve merging from that on-ramp without any additional construction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
Another random CT question: what are the tarped signs right near the one tunnel in CT? I assume there is some situation where the police take the tarps off, but it is very odd. Bigger here: http://i.imgur.com/rQzn1.jpg
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
I know here at least the contractors that implement our work have to keep any construction, project information, or regulatory signs that are relative to new alignments/lane ways "bagged" if they do not reflect the current setup. Not doing so results in hefty fines.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
nm posted:Tell me about ramp meters. (Please?) As of today, they discovered it was broken and fixed it. Impressive Caltrans. Impressive
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
Kalman posted:So: how do you fix this interchange? And, if it hasn't been brought up before, how would you improve Dupont Circle in DC? For the interchange, there's really very little that can be done without buying land, but Besesoth's suggestion would work well as a low-cost safety measure. We routinely steal width from the shoulder, especially for climbing/accel lanes. For DuPont Circle, ideally I'd pave a couple more lanes into it and change the traffic control to match the Place de l'Etoile in Paris. It wouldn't be much safer, but the capacity would climb considerably. Realistically, I wouldn't touch it; the area is heavily historical, and you'd probably need a dozen permits just to break out a shovel. smackfu posted:Another random CT question: what are the tarped signs right near the one tunnel in CT? I assume there is some situation where the police take the tarps off, but it is very odd. I will check it out tomorrow. Edit: VVV Explained below VVV renzor posted:I know here at least the contractors that implement our work have to keep any construction, project information, or regulatory signs that are relative to new alignments/lane ways "bagged" if they do not reflect the current setup. Not doing so results in hefty fines. These are permanent signs, installed by the state. We actually have specifications about what kind of bags contractors are allowed to use, though: burlap is specifically outlawed because the signs are still visible at night. nm posted:So I contacted Caltrans about this the same day I posted thus. Awesome! Probably a broken detector or something. Loops fall out of service constantly. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Jun 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Another random CT question: what are the tarped signs right near the one tunnel in CT? I assume there is some situation where the police take the tarps off, but it is very odd. They get uncovered in winter when there are icy conditions in the tunnel
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 02:38
|
|
|
Any way to fix this other than just making it a freeway? http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&c...043988&t=h&z=15 This is Mission Blvd. It is the link between 880 and 680. Any traffic coming from much of San Jose to Pleasanton and points north pass through here (and in reverse). Basically it takes 30 minutes to go >2 miles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 05:03
|
|
|
nm posted:Any way to fix this other than just making it a freeway? It's pretty close to being a freeway already. Just knock out those two signals (or, at the least, close off the median and make them right-in, right-out) and upgrade the cloverleaf with 680, and the capacity will jump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 12:28
|
|
|
Lobstaman posted:They get uncovered in winter when there are icy conditions in the tunnel
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2011 14:17
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:If the officer is very good at directing traffic, they can get a slightly higher throughput than a signal, but mostly it's used to help with reducing violations. It's rather dangerous for the officer, as well, so it's not done much outside of construction and special events here. And at Main Ave / Glover Ave / Merritt Parkway in Norwalk every weekday afternoon. Some cop sits in his car next to the traffic control box, with the air conditioning or heater running, and manages to totally gently caress up the intersection. It truly can't get any worse than this guy, who lets the light sit at one phase for literally 3 to 4 minutes, which backs up traffic in most directions, including across the railroad crossing. He basically falls asleep until the honking horns and red light runners wake him up enough to press the button again. Some day I want to go down there and snip the traffic control button wires so he "thinks" he's doing a good job but it's really just the signal computer. I can't believe my tax money is going to pay for someone to make an intersection *more* dangerous. Every weekday afternoon for the past 5 years this travesty is perpetuated, and I cannot even understand why. The light seems to work fine when in automatic mode. Here's an actual question: How does manual advancing of a signal work? Will it allow you to dangerously advance phases by rapidly hitting the button? Does it always advance through every phase, even if they are normally actuated? I noticed that when cops manually advance the light at Charles St and Riverside Ave in Saugatuck during afternoon rush hour (which they actually with do with competence), they must always advance through the Barnes-dance all walk pedestrian phase, but it only lasts for about a second or two, if there are no pedestrians waiting. I was surprised the signal controller would let you do that. Would it also allow you to give a 2 second green light to cars? It's like the Kongregate I Love Traffic game, but in real life!
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 13:47
|
|
|
excitebike1 posted:And at Main Ave / Glover Ave / Merritt Parkway in Norwalk every weekday afternoon. Some cop sits in his car next to the traffic control box, with the air conditioning or heater running, and manages to totally gently caress up the intersection. It truly can't get any worse than this guy, who lets the light sit at one phase for literally 3 to 4 minutes, which backs up traffic in most directions, including across the railroad crossing. He basically falls asleep until the honking horns and red light runners wake him up enough to press the button again. Some day I want to go down there and snip the traffic control button wires so he "thinks" he's doing a good job but it's really just the signal computer. There is a little button inside the police box on the controller cabinet. Each time you press it, it advances the controller to the next phase, sequentially. It's basically split phasing. Each phase has to run through its preset yellow and red clearance, so there's no way to cut the phases short in a dangerous way, thankfully. I'm sure the ped phase works differently with respect to clearance intervals, but I've never tried using the button at an intersection with a ped phase.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Another random CT question: what are the tarped signs right near the one tunnel in CT? I assume there is some situation where the police take the tarps off, but it is very odd.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Unless they replaced them those say "REMOVE SUN GLASSES AT TUNNEL" People actually have to be told to remove their sunglasses when entering a tunnel? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:People actually have to be told to remove their sunglasses when entering a tunnel? I always thought you were just supposed to turn on your brights 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:People actually have to be told to remove their sunglasses when entering a tunnel? I wear my sunglasses at night. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2011 05:49
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I wear my sunglasses at night. This is only acceptable if you are in Italy or a Blues Brother.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2011 17:10
|
|
|
The city I live in has decided to paint stop bars in front of pedestrian crossings with "Yield to Pedestrians" signs, both midblock crossings that used to have yield triangles and at unsignalized intersections with heavy pedestrian crossing but no stop control in that direction. I just noticed them driving around an area I was familiar with last night and thought I'd accidentally run a recently added stop sign because of them. Am I missing something in the new MUTCD? Section 3B.16 seems pretty clear that you're not supposed to do that. MUTCD posted:Except as provided in Section 8B.28, stop lines shall not be used at locations where drivers are required to yield in compliance with a YIELD (R1-2) sign or a Yield Here To Pedestrians (R1-5 or R1-5a) sign or at locations on uncontrolled approaches where drivers are required by State law to yield to pedestrians. It's possible they put up "Stop Here for Pedestrians" signs instead now. I'll have to go look again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 15:33
|
|
|
Speaking of crosswalks, I know the trees are just there for shade/decoration, but they make it drat impossible to see pedestrians in the median here. Similar problem here, but at least that's an actual signalled crosswalk with a ped phase.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:The city I live in has decided to paint stop bars in front of pedestrian crossings with "Yield to Pedestrians" signs, both midblock crossings that used to have yield triangles and at unsignalized intersections with heavy pedestrian crossing but no stop control in that direction. I just noticed them driving around an area I was familiar with last night and thought I'd accidentally run a recently added stop sign because of them. Yes, that is absolutely not in compliance. The stop bar needs to go along with a stop sign. The stop bars really should be behind the crosswalks as well; putting them in front could lead to pedestrians getting run over from crossing between stopped cars. Roflex posted:Speaking of crosswalks, I know the trees are just there for shade/decoration, but they make it drat impossible to see pedestrians in the median here. Similar problem here, but at least that's an actual signalled crosswalk with a ped phase. Believe me, I'm completely with you: street trees in the median suck. They block sightlines, they act as fixed objects when cars depart the road, they block emergency vehicles that need to cross the median, they create debris that covers up pavement markings and blocks catch basins, they harbor animals that end up becoming roadkill, they invite pedestrians (especially children) that get run over, and their roots crack the pavement and curbs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 17:26
|
|
|
Would something like this be a good solution for the first one? Or would it just be better to take out that crosswalk altogether and have people use the ones one block up or down? I never actually see anyone using the unsignalled one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 17:32
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Yes, that is absolutely not in compliance. The stop bar needs to go along with a stop sign. The stop bars really should be behind the crosswalks as well; putting them in front could lead to pedestrians getting run over from crossing between stopped cars. Sorry, I meant "behind". The stop bars are before the crosswalk, but it's pretty obvious they were painted over yield triangles in both cases. It's great because there's another intersection where a T intersection was converted to a three-way stop, but they didn't bother to paint new stop bars on what used to be a free-flowing movement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 17:43
|
|
|
Roflex posted:Would something like this be a good solution for the first one? Or would it just be better to take out that crosswalk altogether and have people use the ones one block up or down? I never actually see anyone using the unsignalled one. That seems like overkill. I believe that rectangular rapid flashing pedestrian beacons have much higher compliance, are cheaper to install, and don't make a huge eyesore. As to proximity to other crossings, 300' is a good guideline. If it's within 300' of another crossing, then it shouldn't have been created, unless there's a park/school/church/elderly housing nearby.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
Near Baltimore Pike and PA252, I think they're sticking in some new traffic light control system. Basically, this entire area is hosed up, with traffic from one light routinely backing up into the previous intersection. Now what they've done is dug narrow trenches at each intersection along this route, from corner to corner, like this:  I assume this is some different kind of sensor from the sensor loops that are usually placed within the lanes at the lights. I can't tell whether this is making things better or worse, but I can tell that the light just further east, at an intersection with two little-used side streets, now turns red a lot more when there's no cross traffic. So you get through the one intersection and than almost invariably get stopped at a red light for no apparent reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 15:41
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Near Baltimore Pike and PA252, I think they're sticking in some new traffic light control system. Basically, this entire area is hosed up, with traffic from one light routinely backing up into the previous intersection. The trenching is probably for cables between the mast arms, if they're using mast arms. Once they lay down conduit, they can pull all the wire they need through without having to dig up the pavement again. I don't know of any kind of detection currently in use that requires trenching. The side streets probably come in so often because their detection is broken, forcing the phase to be recalled each cycle. Hopefully, if they're upgrading the signal equipment, they'll cut new loops / put up video detection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 17:09
|
|
|
Too much signage and flashing warning lights detracts drivers from paying attention to what they should be paying attention to. Driver's attention will be drawn to warning signs and fail to pay attention to the pedestrian. Flashing lights have some weird hypnotic effect on drivers where it draws every bit of their attention. On highways especially, a cop car with flashing lights on the side of the road will invariably cause other accidents when drivers glance at the police car without paying attention to the slowing traffic in front of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 17:30
|
|
|
I've got a question about an annoying intersection that I have to drive through every day! http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...,276.47,,1,0.92 This thing gridlocks so bad, in all directions. This approach can gridlock, then a couple cars trickle through, then the next approach that gets called will gridlock too! Options for fixing it are nil, I'm sure, since it's surrounded by historical buildings (not the least of which the State Capitol!) That light has problems too. I've had to bug the DOT about it on a couple of occasions. Last month the right side signal head (not the left) was on flashing red, and people kept running the light. Oh, and that pedestrian crossing mid-block? I wouldn't touch that thing with a 10-foot pole. No way do I trust people to stop at that thing. I cross either at Trinity or Oak.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 03:10
|
|
|
Silver Falcon posted:I've got a question about an annoying intersection that I have to drive through every day! Problem easily solved: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 03:21
|
|
|
Wow and you even left that weird horse statue intact!  But now I'll just be sad when I drive by there, thinking of what will never be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 03:23
|
|
|
It's hard to tell where the major flows of traffic happen but Buckingham Street could be widened by eating up some of that parking lot to the north. That could alleviate some of the traffic on Capitol Avenue and allow for some good flow around that big stone building. I am weirded out by the driveway coming out of the Capitol building right in to the center of the intersection. That could easily be changed which would most likely solve some problems. The entire driveway is a hideous design and using the area around the Capitol as a parking lot is beyond gross. If you need extra parking then bury a parking structure under Bushnell Park and leave the surface area as a park/public assembly area.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 03:43
|
|
|
Neutrino posted:It's hard to tell where the major flows of traffic happen but Buckingham Street could be widened by eating up some of that parking lot to the north. That could alleviate some of the traffic on Capitol Avenue and allow for some good flow around that big stone building. Oh man, you can't touch that parking lot. That building is the Department of Administrative Services, and if you touch their land, they'll make your life a living hell. quote:I am weirded out by the driveway coming out of the Capitol building right in to the center of the intersection. That could easily be changed which would most likely solve some problems. The entire driveway is a hideous design and using the area around the Capitol as a parking lot is beyond gross. If you need extra parking then bury a parking structure under Bushnell Park and leave the surface area as a park/public assembly area. Perhaps we could sneak that in as part of the I-84 relocation 10 years out. That's what Providence has: a nice underground parking lot for state employees underneath a landscaped park.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 12:31
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Oh man, you can't touch that parking lot. That building is the Department of Administrative Services, and if you touch their land, they'll make your life a living hell. Heh, heh. The "sea of surface parking lots" behind the Administrative Services building is passe. That went out of fashion in the 1970s. You think they'd want to hide this embarrassment of civic design and show their commitment to the 21st century by doing something green. Or is CT, the place where everyone still drives vintage caddies and smokes big cigars?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 14:19
|
|
|
Neutrino posted:Heh, heh. The "sea of surface parking lots" behind the Administrative Services building is passe. That went out of fashion in the 1970s. You think they'd want to hide this embarrassment of civic design and show their commitment to the 21st century by doing something green. Or is CT, the place where everyone still drives vintage caddies and smokes big cigars? Nice try. I don't even know what DAS does other than hiring, but it's certainly not keeping abreast of the latest trends. When you step inside the building, it's like you've been teleported into the 1950s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2011 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
I've never actually been inside the DAS building. I would like to see some more subterranean parking around there, though. Or heck, more parking garages in general. There's a parking garage in the basement of the office where I work, but only higher ups and State vehicles get to park there. There's also a parking garage under the Legislative building, but again, only Legislatures can park there. Scrubs like me have to park several blocks from the offices and fight downtown rush hour traffic. Oh, and the lot where I can park? It's also overflow for the Legislative building, so when they're in session, sometimes I can't get a space at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2011 01:21
|
|