|
Lobstaman posted:So, how many bridges will you be rebuilding thanks to Irene. I was on vacation for a week, but now that I'm back at work, I found these in my inbox:     That's... going to take some work to fix.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
1995? That was built practically yesterday
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:1995? That was built practically yesterday That first pic was on an area that was under constant construction for what seemed like a decade. It just finished (relatively) and now, look at it. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
Fizzle posted:That first pic was on an area that was under constant construction for what seemed like a decade. It just finished (relatively) and now, look at it. According to the email, things aren't as bad as we'd have expected: Just wanted to share some photographs of the results of Hurricane Irene to our bridges and roadways that you may have heard about in the office. Some inspectors/engineers started checking bridges for scour last evening, which is being continued today by all Teams. We are also waiting for the water to recede so we can have divers check some scour critical bridges that reached critical water elevations. Luckily, so far, we have not seen the magnitude of damage to bridges that we experienced during the last major events (earlier this year or in March 2010). The following bridges are still closed: Br. No. 02613, Route 109, Washington Br. Nos. 01048, 01056, 01055 Route 67, Oxford Br. No. 03504, Rte. 72, Bristol Br. No. 00880, Route 20, Granby
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That's... going to take some work to fix. that is nothing compared to what happened in Vermont. Perhaps the state can loan some of you folks up that way to help. You keep busy and the state gets some revenue! http://mansfieldheliflight.com/flood/
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
Lobstaman posted:that is nothing compared to what happened in Vermont. Perhaps the state can loan some of you folks up that way to help. You keep busy and the state gets some revenue! Yikes, those guys got it a dozen times worse than we did. All that mud has washed down this way; the Connecticut River in Haddam was dirt brown yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
Arrgh. This is the stupidest loving thing I've seen in a long, long time. Take the PA Turnpike northeast extension to Wilkes-Barre. Exit the turnpike, make a left on 115 and head towards Wilkes-Barre. This is a big hill. It's fairly steep, but more importantly, it's loving long. It's also twisty. There are runaway truck ramps, the speed limit for trucks is 20mph, trucks over (I think) 30,000lbs aren't allowed on it. Every few years a big 18-wheeler tries to take it anyway and ends up over the side. This had, forever, been a 2-lane road each way. Recently, I'm not sure when, it was remarked so now it's only a one-lane road. The second lane in each direction is still there, but is constantly marked as a turn lane. This strikes me as grotesquely unsafe, or at the very least, impractical. You're coming down a miles-long hill, come around a bend, and there's a truck in front of you going 20mph. Or you're coming up the hill, and you're behind a truck, and you can't pass him even though he's grinding along at 15mph with his hazards on. And to top it off, the lane markings don't look right. It almost looks like they were painted on by hand. The turn arrows don't look as big as they should be, I don't see any reflective glass beads in the markings. It looks like the township or whatever decided to remark the road on its own and did it on the cheap, there's no way PennDOT would lay down markings that look like this. It's pretty hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 15:13
|
|
|
Do large housing/neighborhood developers consult with Traffic Engineers much? Where my folks live, the population has hugely increased due to large housing developments (Graham and Orting, WA - South of Seattle Highways 161 and 162). However, the main roads that feed into them weren't touched other than a few traffic lights and lowering speed limits. Traffic is bumper to bumper through the whole day and crawls at peak times. It's been interesting to see the changes the 18 years they've lived in the area. I just thought it surprising that such huge neighborhoods would be put in where farm fields once were, but the single lane roads connecting them to the freeways and commercial centers weren't made to accommodate. I'm curious what the cooperation might be like between road designers/maintainers and land developers and whether or not bureaucracy makes it easier to do nothing rather than address the problem. AzureSkys fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Sep 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 16:20
|
|
|
ack! posted:Do large housing/neighborhood developers consult with Traffic Engineers much? Where my folks live, the population has hugely increased due to large housing developments (Graham and Orting, WA - South of Seattle Highways 161 and 162). However, the main roads that feed into them weren't touched other than a few traffic lights and lowering speed limits. Traffic is bumper to bumper through the whole day and crawls at peak times. It's been interesting to see the changes the 18 years they've lived in the area. Developers in Missouri must have the subdivision/development plans stamped by a professional engineer. However, a traffic studies or improvements to the public roadway would be dictated by the county/city/state guidelines. If it's a state roadway, then large developments would absolutely have to meet their basic requirements and the development plans would need to be approved by a MoDOT engineer. Access management and roadway improvement requirements can vary vastly between state/county/cities. The county to the north of me has basically no access management or development codes. It's not uncommon to see driveways within 100' of each other on a 50mph 2-lane road, or seeing a 100+ housing development spill onto a 20' wide road (with no shoulders of course). Of course developers love building up in that county because they can half rear end infrastructure and sell houses for basically the same price. Now the city I live in has developments codes and a long range transportation plan (LRTP) so developments are required to follow those. If I put in a development next to a roadway that has been classified as a collector/arterial in the LRTP then I would be required to upgrade a part of that road to that classification standard. Also, larger developments would require a traffic study to verify any improvements necessary to the roadyway/intersection to accommodate the larger volume of traffic. This is enforced by the cities development review which should have a licensed engineer that is well versed in traffic issues. Roadway improvements and traffic studies cost the developer money, so often I will see the developer bitch to a council man to get a variance. Usually the city council will side with the developer because, you know, "the development brings jobssss" and councils eat that poo poo up. Then years in the future the public wants to know why their commute is 40min of bumper to bumper traffic on a lovely 2-lane road. fishhooked fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Sep 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
fishhooked posted:Access management and roadway improvement requirements can vary vastly between state/county/cities. The county to the north of me has basically no access management or development codes. It's not uncommon to see driveways within 100' of each other on a 50mph 2-lane road, or seeing a 100+ housing development spill onto a 20' wide road (with no shoulders of course). Of course developers love building up in that county because they can half rear end infrastructure and sell houses for basically the same price. Guessing Wyandotte & Lenexa, respectively. edit: Oh hell, that's Kansas, you said MO. I was thinking those two because that's basically it, exactly, right across the state border. Changing guess to Platte / Blue Springs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
ack! posted:I just thought it surprising that such huge neighborhoods would be put in where farm fields once were, but the single lane roads connecting them to the freeways and commercial centers weren't made to accommodate. I'm curious what the cooperation might be like between road designers/maintainers and land developers and whether or not bureaucracy makes it easier to do nothing rather than address the problem. Varies widely based on the locality. In the metro Phoenix area, they make the developers fund road upgrades immediately adjacent to a new development. In fully developed areas this is fine, but in partially developed areas like mine it can be pretty funny. My neighborhood is on the northwest corner of an intersection where the southwest corner is pretty much undeveloped, and the two eastern corners are only partly developed. The arterial directly south of my neighborhood is three lanes at the intersection, drops to two lanes just past the intersection, and stays that way through the next major intersection - westbound, that is. Eastbound, because there's much less development on that side of the road, it is one lane only for much of that stretch. Other intersections in the area are much the same way. One a couple of miles away is paved in all four directions for three lanes all ways - and only has markings, signage, and signals for one lane each way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
Chaos Motor posted:Guessing Wyandotte & Lenexa, respectively. Was talking about Andrew and Buchanan (st. joe) counties. I've just moved to KCMO though, so I guess your not too far off. Platte County is a little weird. They have a county that owns roadway and they have a road district, an entirely separate entity, that also owns roadways. I've done a bit of work for the road district. While they have design standards/access management, their long range plans usually consist of "lets improve this road so that farmer is happy".
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
fishhooked posted:Roadway improvements and traffic studies cost the developer money, so often I will see the developer bitch to a council man to get a variance. Usually the city council will side with the developer because, you know, "the development brings jobssss" and councils eat that poo poo up. Then years in the future the public wants to know why their commute is 40min of bumper to bumper traffic on a lovely 2-lane road. That sums it up well, I guess. I figured the City/State would have to fund existing road restructuring or something of that sort. It's just interesting to me to see how much it screws things over in neighborhoods since this is the longest my folks have been in a one place (moved there my Junior year of HS). The main road traffic crawls, people spill into side roads that soon start to crawl, too. I lived in Houston for a few years and was amazed at the traffic engineering there having been in the Seattle area for so long. However, land is plentiful down there so it's easier to spread things out nicely for wide freeways and main roads. It was interesting to see a large 2 lane each way/center turn lane road be in the middle of no where. Then awhile later a new neighbor would form and traffic work nicely. Here we're stuck between lakes, mountains, and the Puget Sound where everything is connected by old farm roads/highways. There's no positive scenario other than billions of surplus cash to address it it seems. I've worked odd hours most my time here primarily to avoid traffic. An hour change in my schedule this Summer has made my commute time double. Slightly off topic, but traffic related, what do folks think about the standard work day of 5 eight hour days turning more to 4 tens? It would save a day of commuting for people, but I don't know how productivity in certain jobs would be affected. Perhaps congestion wouldn't change too much as industries vary so much in regard to hours of operation and workplace population. Some of the major large industries here (primarily Boeing) seriously affect traffic when shift change comes around. Traffic Engineering sounds pretty fascinating, actually, given all the variables and finding a happy medium for things to work. I thought about Civil Engineering when first starting school but ended up in Aerospace.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
ack! posted:Slightly off topic, but traffic related, what do folks think about the standard work day of 5 eight hour days turning more to 4 tens? It would save a day of commuting for people, but I don't know how productivity in certain jobs would be affected. Perhaps congestion wouldn't change too much as industries vary so much in regard to hours of operation and workplace population. Some of the major large industries here (primarily Boeing) seriously affect traffic when shift change comes around. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
ack! posted:Slightly off topic, but traffic related, what do folks think about the standard work day of 5 eight hour days turning more to 4 tens? It would save a day of commuting for people, but I don't know how productivity in certain jobs would be affected. Perhaps congestion wouldn't change too much as industries vary so much in regard to hours of operation and workplace population. Some of the major large industries here (primarily Boeing) seriously affect traffic when shift change comes around. This is fairly common in the Netherlands. Except we only work 4x9 because we're lazy communists. I read it only takes a 10-20% reduction in traffic volume to completely eliminate traffic jams (at least that is the situation here). You can really notice Monday and Friday are not as busy any more because most people prefer a long weekend. Tuesday and Thursday are the busiest days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 23:04
|
|
|
Developers here get off rather easy: First off, they don't need to project the future traffic impacts of the development. Everything is designed for build year. Sure, it might break down to LOS F a year later, but whatever! Only major developments are required to have their plans approved. Smaller developments, like a Dunkin Donuts, can certainly have a major impact on traffic, but they don't have any responsibility to mitigate impacts. Each developer is only responsible for its own impacts. If you're putting in a Target, an Applebees, and condominiums, each owner might only have to pay for minor signal revisions even though ten miles of extra lanes are needed. The developer is generally only held responsible for impacts on a local scale. Building a BJ's might require an extra turn lane on an additional off-ramp, but we don't expect the developer to pay the ten billion dollars to bring the main line up to modern standards, even though he's turning it into a parking lot during the afternoon peak. Developers love to cheat on their traffic analysis. If they're building a mixed-use development with 200 houses, they'll say that all of the volumes should be reduced by 200 because it's all internal circulation. They'll tweak every parameter in simulation software to make their impacts look negligible. It takes a skilled traffic engineer to catch everything, and we simply don't have the staff. The net effect is that they get away with much more than they perhaps should, and make life worse for the rest of us. ack! posted:Slightly off topic, but traffic related, what do folks think about the standard work day of 5 eight hour days turning more to 4 tens? It would save a day of commuting for people, but I don't know how productivity in certain jobs would be affected. Perhaps congestion wouldn't change too much as industries vary so much in regard to hours of operation and workplace population. Some of the major large industries here (primarily Boeing) seriously affect traffic when shift change comes around. As far as traffic impacts go, it might make the peak hours a bit worse on those days everyone is working (Tuesday-Thursday), since there will be less flexibility in arrival/departure times. The Friday peak, however, should be lessened, and that's usually the worst one, anyway. Personally, I'm all for 35-hour workweeks. It gives much more flexibility, such as the option to easily work 4/5 or 4/4 weeks, and the option to take Friday afternoons off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
The exit of Emerson Hospital in MA uses a yellow line to separate left/right turning traffic, instead of a white line like it should. http://g.co/maps/n7gn The other day it was raining pretty hard and I almost turned into the left-turn lane going the wrong way. Who does the paint for private roads like this? Now, this isn't too bad, but how often do you hear about a contractor loving up signs in a dangerous way?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 01:18
|
|
|
Large Hardon Collider posted:The exit of Emerson Hospital in MA uses a yellow line to separate left/right turning traffic, instead of a white line like it should. The property owner is responsible for the striping, with the exception of the stop bar, which is maintained by the owner of the major road. The yellow stripe is the hospital's responsibility. quote:Now, this isn't too bad, but how often do you hear about a contractor loving up signs in a dangerous way? Not very. Usually, the inspector will catch a mistake himself, or call us if he isn't sure. Otherwise, we won't find out unless there's a bad accident or we do a random inspection. Hasn't happened with me yet, luckily.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 12:33
|
|
|
I just took 691 thru Meriden to 66 to 9S. 66: talk about roads that just end, what is up with that. Cruising along the expressway when BAM heres lovely middletown. 9S: please re pave this for the love of god. Its not bad south of the aircraft rd exit though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 18:10
|
|
|
I've been looking into Belgium, and they have a setup where you can turn onto a main road with right of way. Do many countries do this? Was it a population-control measure?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
Groda posted:I've been looking into Belgium, and they have a setup where you can turn onto a main road with right of way. This came up in this thread about a year ago, and I was as boggled as you. The Netherlands does it too, if I remember correctly, and France for certain (and I'm sure there are more). I emailed a friend of mine who'd recently moved to France as soon as I heard about it, and he claims it works fine once you get used to it. I still think it is insane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 09:28
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:I just took 691 thru Meriden to 66 to 9S. Hey, at least we've got it 2 lanes all the way up to Main Street now. Most of that drive used to be one-lane. quote:9S: please re pave this for the love of god. Its not bad south of the aircraft rd exit though. I believe this is scheduled for sometime soon. Up to the guys in Pavement Management, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:
This only happens when there are no other priority issues involved so I'm not sure what you guys are getting at here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 02:29
|
|
|
Koesj posted:This only happens when there are no other priority issues involved so I'm not sure what you guys are getting at here. I don't what you mean by "other priority issues" (pedestrians?). As I take it (and I may well be wrong, do tell) people turning right onto a main road from a smaller side street do not have to stop - the traffic on the main road has to yield to them. I see a few issues with this: 1) It seems like it would impede traffic flow on the main road, as drivers on the main road have to constantly stop/slow to yield to people driving in from the side, rather than the good old  way where people stop and wait on the side street for an appropriate gap in traffic.2) It seems like people on the main street are going to have to pay an inordinate amount of attention to each and every side street they drive past. It presumably would make driving on a main street (where traffic would be moving faster) a lot more stressful. 3) It sounds like it would produce many more dangerous points of interaction. Because I assume these would be there in either scenario, let's ignore signalized intersections (as you'd find where larger streets cross) and 2- or 4-way stops (as you'd find in a network of smaller streets - ie. a neighborhood or some such), and look at my trip from home to the local grocery store. I'm going to make my way out of my neighborhood and over to Johnson St., and then I'll take Johnson St. six blocks to the store (counted by the major/signalized cross streets; over the course of a block there may be zero, one, two, or three smaller side streets entering onto Johnson). Here in the US, there is one point where I have to yield to someone else lest I get mowed down by a soccer mom carrying a single bag of groceries in her 8-seat SUV: the stop sign at the exit from my neighborhood onto Johnson St. In your wacky land of socialized medicine and speedoed men, I'm free to drive onto Johnson at my whim (yay!) but then have to concern myself with the 10 other side streets I'm going to pass on my way to the grocery store (boo!). Now, maybe I'm totally wrong about this. As I said, my friend who moved to France says it works fine. But I'm an American, dammit, so I refuse to accept your ridiculous European ways. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 08:53
|
|
|
The NTSB just released an accident report that I thought the people in this thread might be interested in (it's dated July, but that was when the report was adopted, I'm pretty sure it went up this week): Rollover of a Truck-Tractor and Cargo Tank Semitrailer Carrying Liquified Petroleum Gas and Subsequent Fire [PDF] This is an accident where a Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) tanker rolled over on a curved highway exit ramp, resulting in the tank striking bridge support structures, bursting, then an ignition of the released vapors. The relevant part to this thread is Section 1.11.1, the Cross-Slope Break. It was found that the cross-slope break exceeded 10%, dropping the rollover speed to within 2mph of the design speed, assuming optimal driver input and no shifting of the cargo. While the direct cause of the accident was the driver's inappropriate rapid steering input after entering the right shoulder (as the result of oversteering to compensate for drifting into the left lane), the vehicle may well have overturned without that when the excessive slope combined with the sloshing of liquid inside the tanker, even though he wasn't speeding. On that note, I'm actually really surprised that tankers don't have anti-slosh baffles to reduce risks, that seems like it would be a no-brainer for transport tanks. The severity of this accident was increased because, when the tank struck the bridge support and came to a sudden stop, the liquid in the tank surged forward and basically punched out the damaged portion of the front of the tank. If there had been anti-surge/slosh baffles the onset of the fire may have been delayed and its severity reduced, reducing the burn injuries suffered in the accident. Alereon fucked around with this message at 11:39 on Sep 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 11:33
|
|
|
Alereon posted:The NTSB just released an accident report that I thought the people in this thread might be interested in (it's dated July, but that was when the report was adopted, I'm pretty sure it went up this week): Our cross-slopes are really approximate, especially in superelevated areas. I've got a pretty impressive accident story to tell, but unfortunately, there's still ongoing litigation. Here is the brief version: the superelevation was supposed to be 6%, but when we went out to measure it, it was 2-3%. This particular curve was signed for 35 mph, but it's at the end of a freeway, so it's not uncommon to see people going 50+. Turns out the design speed should be bumped down to 25 mph. Oops? There was a massively spectacular accident a little while ago involving three cars, one of which knocked over a jersey barrier and both supports of a side-mounted sign support. Edit: Reading in more detail, there was some impressive incident management as well. Good going, Indy. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Sep 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 14:38
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Now, maybe I'm totally wrong about this. As I said, my friend who moved to France says it works fine. But I'm an American, dammit, so I refuse to accept your ridiculous European ways. (1&2) It's actually pretty drat rare to see a heavily travelled uncontrolled right priority intersection here in the Netherlands! Almost all well-travelled routes have got either traffic lights or roundabouts at intersections. The same goes for Germany and the small parts of Belgium where I've been driving around. Then again, in my hometown (which isn't any different from other Dutch cities) traffic lights are switched off at night and on sundays/holidays. Most intersections've will still have yield signs abound. Like here, just around the corner from my place. Notice the sign underneath the leftmost signalpost and the triangles pointing towards you on the surface ahead (haaientanden - shark's teeth). (3) This is where I often park my car. Potentially major fuckup waiting to happen with people turning onto the main road from the right? No. While the untrained eye might think there's no indication on who's got priority coming out of the sidestreet on the rig, the fact that you'll have to cross the pavement here makes it mandatory to yield, no exception! This eliminates the majority of right of way-issues inside built up areas since most side streets will just be designed to cross depressed pavement or an angled curbside ramp (with the added benefit of better access for the disabled). Spot the main roads which have red cycling lanes, trianguler yield signs and surface markings and signalposts on intersections with other main roads. Every single secondary road intersecting with them will have you crossing the curbside before turning onto the main street. And while there's lots of unmarked crossings inside residential areas and out in the country, traffic is either slow enough to make any potential right of way issue moot or it's practically nonexistant anyway. Rules Section 2.5/2.7: priority rules don't necessarily apply when turning! There at least used to be some difference between the NL and Germany with some of the specifics here. Section 2.17: Pedestrians have got right of way, you're in a residential street, never shift higher than second gear or you'll def. hit a small child who just decided to kick his soccer ball across the street from behind some ornamental bushes planted in a chicane as a traffic calming measure! Signs (Appendix A, p.60): B1: Congratulations, you're probably on a country road (N-route) and have priority, keep on trucking until you hit the next controlled intersection/roundabout every, say, 500 meters. B2: Ignore any cars waiting to turn onto the road you're travelling on, they've got mandatory insurance to worry about. Instead, mind pedestrians and cyclists who don't have any qualms making some kind of insane maneuver since it's only their very lives at stake Koesj fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Sep 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 15:01
|
|
|
Do you have any idea why the Route 63 bridge in Naugatuck (Bridge No. 01034) was four lanes, and why they replaced it with a new four lane bridge (that is just being finished)? The connecting sections of the road aren't four lanes so it seems like a very expensive choice. Is it future-proofing, or easier to replace like-with-like, or what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 17:57
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Do you have any idea why the Route 63 bridge in Naugatuck (Bridge No. 01034) was four lanes, and why they replaced it with a new four lane bridge (that is just being finished)? The connecting sections of the road aren't four lanes so it seems like a very expensive choice. Is it future-proofing, or easier to replace like-with-like, or what? It's a major connection. There aren't many bridges over the river, so if there is an evacuation, you don't want it to be a chokepoint. Route 8 is on one end, and that definitely merits four lanes. Sticking the extra lanes underneath a diamond interchange gives much more storage, and it's good form to continue that extra width just in case it needs more widening in the future. Moreover, there is room for four lanes downtown on the West end of the bridge, so it's conceivable that it might be widened at some point in the future. You don't ever want bridges to be a bottleneck, since they're the most expensive thing to widen/replace.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 20:39
|
|
|
Koesj posted:I'm going to trust you and assume this works great and is less complex in practice than it sounds to read it... because now I'm more disturbed by the apparent fact that you guys separate multiple lanes of same-direction traffic AND opposing lanes of traffic with the same dashed white lines  . I can at least understand how the right priority thing might work. How the hell do you guys not run head-on into each other all the time? (Clearly it must work somehow!)
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
Koesj posted:This is an objectively terrible system, but thanks a million for the rules of the road brochure! I think I'll opt for walking while I'm Groningen, though...
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:I'm going to trust you and assume this works great and is less complex in practice than it sounds to read it... because now I'm more disturbed by the apparent fact that you guys separate multiple lanes of same-direction traffic AND opposing lanes of traffic with the same dashed white lines
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
Groda posted:This is an objectively terrible system, but thanks a million for the rules of the road brochure! I think I'll opt for walking while I'm Groningen, though...
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:I'm going to trust you and assume this works great and is less complex in practice than it sounds to read it... because now I'm more disturbed by the apparent fact that you guys separate multiple lanes of same-direction traffic AND opposing lanes of traffic with the same dashed white lines Nah there's no 4 lane roads with only dashed lines left, they used to exist though and you'll still see them in some of the less 'cultured' parts of Europe (Belgium lol). You'll hardly see any 4 lane roads without some kind of median and otherwise it'll be two solid lines between them. This is a perfectly normal urban intersection: curbed medians as soon as there's turning lanes, a seperate phase for the bikers and sufficient road markings and yield signs for when the lights are switched off or inoperable. The only counterflow system operational is on the A1 near Amsterdam although they're building another stretch on the A10 between the A8 and new A5 interchanges though. There aren't any on non motorway roads afaik. Koesj fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Sep 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2011 21:28
|
|
|
Koesj posted:The only counterflow system operational is on the A1 near Amsterdam although they're building another stretch on the A10 between the A8 and new A5 interchanges though. There aren't any on non motorway roads afaik. There's one on the bridge from Rotterdam to Spijkenisse. http://g.co/maps/k9hx8
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
 those markings. Glad I don't live near there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
If you notice, they have lights to show you which lanes are going your way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2011 23:39
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Nah there's no 4 lane roads with only dashed lines left, they used to exist though and you'll still see them in some of the less 'cultured' parts of Europe (Belgium lol). You'll hardly see any 4 lane roads without some kind of median and otherwise it'll be two solid lines between them. I'm confused, because in your link all I see are four lanes separated by identical dashed white lines, three of which are traveling one direction and one of which is traveling the other... no medians anywhere. Looking around on Google maps it seems you separate opposing lanes of traffic by dashed white lines most of the time, but you definitely also separate multiple same-direction lanes the same way. On Hereweg, where you have both opposing traffic and multiple lanes, you're using a solid white to separate the opposing traffic, but that doesn't seem to be the case everywhere (including your link). It's hard to find examples just randomly scrolling around an unfamiliar town though. BTW, what's with the triangabout??
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2011 23:59
|
|
|
In Europe generally we never use a different colour for separation of traffic. This might seem like a big problem in America where there seem to be many more single carriageway roads with more than 2 lanes. In Europe this is limited to some inner city areas only, a median of some sort is much more common. The solution in Europe is usually a combination of signs and arrows painted on the road, and usually the dividing line is either unbroken or significantly less broken, e.g http://g.co/maps/6k9c5 In the UK we use yellow for parking restrictions, as seen there. There is no plan at all to introduce yellow lines or any other colour to separate direction of travel. However I do agree that Priority to the Right is loving retarded and I glad we don't use it in the UK (well, it would be to the left here!). If it says "Give Way" you give way, that's it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
Choadmaster posted:BTW, what's with the triangabout??
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2011 01:57
|
|