|
If the Grandview Triangle had one more axis, it'd look like yours! http://local.google.com/maps?ll=38.935244,-94.532204&spn=0.056195,0.115133&hl=en Thank God I don't have to drive yours, btw. Nothing against you or it, of course, but drat, that's a little much to navigate!
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:26 |
|
|
Dutch Engineer posted:Lol, Belgium
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 16:52
|
|
|
How about 16?!?!?!  (3/4 not shown for clarity) Chaos Motor posted:Thank God I don't have to drive yours, btw. Nothing against you or it, of course, but drat, that's a little much to navigate! That's where traffic engineers make all the difference. Some good signage will make it smooth as potage 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
Did you ever design tracks in Stunts? I preferred the F1 for the glitch, so I'd design with that in mind and get some pretty wile stuff. That's what your last image reminds me of. The guy that wrote Stunts hangs out on reddit, actually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 01:34
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That's where traffic engineers make all the difference. Some good signage will make it smooth as potage
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
Wolfy posted:Good one. I'm sure everyone will wreck as they realize they need to be in the left lane not the right one. Hey, there's not a single left exit in my design. That sort of thing is taboo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 03:21
|
|
|
One of my coworkers died in a fiery motorcycle crash last night. He was 25. For someone who looks into fatal crashes on a regular basis, you'd expect a traffic engineer to drive safely, but old habits die hard. RIP, buddy. On a more positive note, now that this thread has hit 100 pages, I'll be hosting the promised party! I'm thinking Joey Garlic's in Newington, CT, sometime in mid-November. Is anyone interested in attending?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:One of my coworkers died in a fiery motorcycle crash last night. He was 25. For someone who looks into fatal crashes on a regular basis, you'd expect a traffic engineer to drive safely, but old habits die hard. RIP, buddy. I'll be there
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:One of my coworkers died in a fiery motorcycle crash last night. He was 25. For someone who looks into fatal crashes on a regular basis, you'd expect a traffic engineer to drive safely, but old habits die hard. RIP, buddy. It really depends on the date. Is this the coworker that I am thinking of?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 03:00
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:It really depends on the date. His name was Bryant. I wouldn't have told you about him, so unless you're friends with more guys from Traffic, it's probably not the one you're thinking of. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Oct 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:His name was Bryant. I wouldn't have told you about him, so unless you're friends with more guys from Traffic, it's probably not the one you're thinking of. It's not, then. As long as it's not the twelfth, I could probably make whatever event.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 03:29
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:How about 16?!?!?!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 17:41
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:One of my coworkers died in a fiery motorcycle crash last night. He was 25. For someone who looks into fatal crashes on a regular basis, you'd expect a traffic engineer to drive safely, but old habits die hard. RIP, buddy. Remind me how dangerous it is to buy a motorcycle please
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 17:49
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:Remind me how dangerous it is to buy a motorcycle please Buying a motorcycle isn't dangerous in and of itself, but riding one? Yeah, that's pretty dangerous. ...oh, wait, were you trolling? I'm sorry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 18:07
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:Buying a motorcycle isn't dangerous in and of itself, but riding one? Yeah, that's pretty dangerous. Totally worth it, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 18:14
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:Buying a motorcycle isn't dangerous in and of itself, but riding one? Yeah, that's pretty dangerous. No, I'm actually not trolling. I just get occasional urges to purchase a motorcycle and be one with the road and 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:No, I'm actually not trolling. I just get occasional urges to purchase a motorcycle and be one with the road and Go here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=236 Read threads, ask questions, get informed about the actual dangers and the importance of good gear etc. It may not be for you, but if it is, it's a hugely rewarding hobby and tons of fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 18:48
|
|
|
Some guy around here made the GENIUS decision to split lanes at 70mph while weaving through traffic doing 50 due to construction. That fuckin guy... I'm all for motorcycles, but man, you really take your life in your hands that way, and you have to respect the risks you are taking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 20:02
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
I'd like to go, but the fact that I live in Plainfield makes it a bit of a hike. Depends on what day and time and such.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 21:53
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:Remind me how dangerous it is to buy a motorcycle please There's two kinds of riders: the ones that have had an accident, and the ones that will.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 03:59
|
|
|
Coasterphreak posted:There's two kinds of riders: the ones that have had an accident, and the ones that will. There are two kinds of riders, but they're the ones who walk away from accidents and the ones who are driven away in an ambulance. Wear your gear. All The Gear, All The Time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 11:37
|
|
|
porkfriedrice posted:I'd like to go, but the fact that I live in Plainfield makes it a bit of a hike. Depends on what day and time and such. Turns out I'm heading to France next Friday and I'm not sure exactly when I'm coming back. How's November 19 sound?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 12:24
|
|
|
Cichlidaie, your thread has kicked a phenomenal amount of rear end from day one. What is your opinion on super high speed rail? What, in your opinion, would it take for citizens of a country of this size to reap the benefits of efficient high speed travel?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 03:04
|
|
|
grillster posted:Cichlidaie, your thread has kicked a phenomenal amount of rear end from day one. I'm pretty interested in rail too, partly because I take the train to work every day. Apparently NJ Transit loses money running the rail service, and wouldn't be able to operate without significant subsidies. The answer I keep getting as to why is  UNIONS but can you elaborate on this?My personal is that Christie cancelled construction of the new tunnel into NYC, meaning that we're stuck with filled-to-the-brim trains in/out of NYC and the resulting clusterfuck across effectively ALL lines when someone breaks down in the only tunnel in and out of the city. And then there's always the PATH, if I feel like waiting an extra 30 minutes for no good reason...
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 13:10
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Apparently NJ Transit loses money running the rail service, and wouldn't be able to operate without significant subsidies. The answer I keep getting as to why is All public transit loses money, or at best barely breaks even, as a whole. There may be some runs that actually do turn a profit, but they'll be balanced out by those that don't. If it was possible to run in a profitable manner, it wouldn't need to be public. The basic idea is that the net gain to the citizens and businesses of the area covered is greater than the cost of operation. I live in a city that's a bit far out to be considered a suburb of Cleveland, but is still roughly in the "metro area". If they were to extend the reach of the RTA down to my city, the idea would be that Cleveland would benefit from the fact that Medina residents could more easily get downtown to work and spend money, while Medina would also benefit from being a more appealing place to live to those who have to commute in to Cleveland every day. Both also potentially get the benefit of reduced need for personal vehicles to be used, thus reducing traffic and the need for more roads. Whether it actually works out like this is of course the important question that decides whether such an extension would be worth the cost. Looking at public transit from a simple dollars in, dollars out perspective always ends up with it seeming like a loser, thus why those who lean right tend to focus on that. edit: VVVVV I guess I should specify public transit as we think of it today, a network of road and rail transportation covering enough of the region to be useful as general purpose transportation. While I don't have hard numbers to back it up, I doubt we'd see many private routes even in the absence of no-compete laws outside of shuttle style service covering airports, sports venues, and shopping districts. No-compete rules allow the public transit carrier to partially balance their costs with these more profitable routes while still providing accessible transportation for those who may not be able to afford to drive. As for the private services in the 20s and 30s, back then cars were still in large part an expensive luxury, so you had a lot more interested riders. wolrah fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Nov 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 21:40
|
|
|
Hey now, PubTrans was often privately run prior to the major GM buyouts in the, what, 30's, where they bought up the private tram, train, and bus lines and put them out of business to pressure uptake of private cars ownership? Public lines re-emerged after WWII in response to the shutdown and liquidation of private holdings. Also, lots of cities have regulations against setting up "competing" private bus lines, so we don't know where private lines would run if not for the anti-competition regulations. Furthermore, a private entity has no obligation to provide for every route, and would only run profitable routes, so it's entirely possible that a reallocation of routing would result in profitable lines, or at least, privately held lines where profitable. This is a reason for anti-compete regulations, to keep from having the public subsidize the non-profitable routes while a private entity makes a profit from the good ones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
wolrah posted:The basic idea is that the net gain to the citizens and businesses of the area covered is greater than the cost of operation. The operating and infrastructure costs of different transportation modes vary, which means that each mode of transportation is suited for a specific context. I drew a quick schematic graph of two variables assuming similar levels of service, but there are many more (such as length of the trip, speed, convenience etc.)  As you can see, once passenger density reaches a certain point, the cost of expanding roads exceeds other methods of providing transportation. None of these turn a benefit in themselves, but the difference between the cost of a bus lane and the cost of two extra lanes for cars counts as "gain" for the bus lane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
Alright, pretty reasonable explanations all. I understand the concept of public utility, I guess I'm just surprised that some lines aren't run more profitably (i.e. very large vehicles on mostly empty runs, etc).
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Alright, pretty reasonable explanations all. I understand the concept of public utility, I guess I'm just surprised that some lines aren't run more profitably (i.e. very large vehicles on mostly empty runs, etc). I would imagine in many cases the smaller options are not significantly lower in TCO, thus it makes more sense to run a homogeneous fleet and simplify maintenance while also allowing vehicles to be swapped between lines without problems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 00:57
|
|
|
That, and the politics involved in setting the routes for a public trans system. As it happens in KC, the east-west black-white divide means that bus routes are heavily concentrated in the eastern part of the city, even though they could accommodate more passengers if they extended west a bit more - but politically, it becomes an "our bus system" issue for the black citizens to the east, and a "their bus system" issue for the white citizens to the west. This is obviously simplifying things considerably.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 01:11
|
|
|
Sorry guys, my power was out for the past several days. It was so bizarre driving down the freeways with nothing but vehicle headlights, and the surrounding suburbs were pitch black.wolrah posted:I live in a city that's a bit far out to be considered a suburb of Cleveland, but is still roughly in the "metro area". If they were to extend the reach of the RTA down to my city, the idea would be that Cleveland would benefit from the fact that Medina residents could more easily get downtown to work and spend money, while Medina would also benefit from being a more appealing place to live to those who have to commute in to Cleveland every day. Both also potentially get the benefit of reduced need for personal vehicles to be used, thus reducing traffic and the need for more roads. Whether it actually works out like this is of course the important question that decides whether such an extension would be worth the cost. It's not just the businesses that benefit; mass transit has some huge positive externalities. Reduced delay cost for drivers means that the cost of living for all citizens, even those that use cars, goes down. Less congestion also reduces fuel consumption, which has a twofold effect: not only do commuters have to tank up less often, but carbon emissions are reduced as well. This is a very real benefit, and extremely important, but it's somewhat intangible and difficult to quantify the monetary effects of pollution. If proponents of mass transit really wanted to push the issue, we'd have free transit, and pay for it in taxes. The benefit/cost ratio, once you factor in time savings, fuel cost, and environmental damage, should be way over 1.0 for pretty much any metropolitan area in the US. It's just hard to get into peoples' heads that they're actually paying LESS, even if they're not using the transit, than they were before the tax hike. I'd love to start an advertising campaign that paints opponents of subsidized transit as villains, showing the environmental and health damage from vehicle emissions. Really kick the pathos into overdrive, and I bet it would have an effect, too. Free bus rides, save the rainforest, keep a kid from getting lung cancer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 12:38
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Sorry guys, my power was out for the past several days. It was so bizarre driving down the freeways with nothing but vehicle headlights, and the surrounding suburbs were pitch black. I think you underestimate the effectiveness of certain types in running counter campaigns on UNIONS GONNA TAKE ARE OUR MONEY and OBAMA GONNA TAKE ARE CARS and FREEDOMS I'll just stop now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 12:47
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I'd love to start an advertising campaign that paints opponents of subsidized transit as villains, showing the environmental and health damage from vehicle emissions. Really kick the pathos into overdrive, and I bet it would have an effect, too. Free bus rides, save the rainforest, keep a kid from getting lung cancer. Mass transit is one application where electric power actually works and it works today. Busses travel a set route all day every day, so you know exactly how much range you need (not that much) and where to put charging stations. Quick-charge stations top up the battery while the bus is stopped, it only takes a couple of minutes while people shuffle in and out of the bus. http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/proterra-ecoliner-electric-bus/1361158/
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 13:26
|
|
|
You can't discount the independence aspect of private transportation. With public transportation, you don't have any control over the vehicle, schedule, or destination. With private transportation, you have some measure of control over what you ride in, where you go, and when. That is probably the biggest issue in most cities - people want to know that they have control over their transportation. I, for one, would much rather spend more to have a car and leave now than wait for some dirty old bus full of weirdos that's always late and requires three transfers and still only gets me two miles from my destination. If we want widespread public transportation to be acceptable to the general public, we have to be able to arrive within a quarter or half mile of our destination, within five minutes of desiring to leave, with minimal transfers. In a city like Kansas City, that's a massive requirement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 15:28
|
|
|
Chaos Motor posted:You can't discount the independence aspect of private transportation. With public transportation, you don't have any control over the vehicle, schedule, or destination. With private transportation, you have some measure of control over what you ride in, where you go, and when. That is probably the biggest issue in most cities - people want to know that they have control over their transportation. I, for one, would much rather spend more to have a car and leave now than wait for some dirty old bus full of weirdos that's always late and requires three transfers and still only gets me two miles from my destination. You benefit from mass transit, even if you don't take it. That's the whole point of what I was saying. And with free transit, we can increase ridership quite a bit, leading to shorter headways and better service!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 17:10
|
|
|
Chaos Motor posted:You can't discount the independence aspect of private transportation. You can't discount the benefit of the other 80% of the population using public transit!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 17:39
|
|
|
The combination of trains and bicycles is pretty neat too. Bike gets you from your home to a station in the general vicinity, train gets you to another station in the vicinity of your destination, bike gets you the rest of the way. The only problem is building trains that fit enough bikes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
nielsm posted:The combination of trains and bicycles is pretty neat too. The problem is getting fat lazy Americans to ride bikes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 19:06
|
|
|
Jasper Tin Neck posted:What's the source on this and why are none of the axis labelled?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:26 |
|
|
Guys, you don't have to convince me, you have to convince the general public - especially the general public in cities that were largely designed for individual transportation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2011 20:16
|
|