|
Airconswitch posted:May you never take the Tobin Bridge. Granted, the different directions are on different levels, but it can be concerning when you consider that you are surrounded by Massholes on a 62-year-old bridge. I have fond memories of that area, though mainly because I'd spend hours in traffic there as a little kid, and always misread the Storrow Dr exit as "Sparrow Doctor." That and seeing the HOOD smokestack. The traffic's not as bad since they built the Zakim bridge, and I'm not sure whether you get to drive underneath the big Chinatown banner on the way north.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
The Tobin's just as wacky as it's always been. People aren't really DYING on it, though. I do feel like I'm taking my life into my own hands any time I drive on Route 1 from Boston to Danvers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
Would you do any special engineering for a curb that sees a lot of city buses pulling up? All the bus routes on campus got rerouted for a few years while light rail construction is under way, and the roads are just destroyed now where the new buses go. Since everything reroutes back to normal when construction is done, I'm wondering if they just said gently caress it and plan on redoing it all after construction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 14:49
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Would you do any special engineering for a curb that sees a lot of city buses pulling up? All the bus routes on campus got rerouted for a few years while light rail construction is under way, and the roads are just destroyed now where the new buses go. Since everything reroutes back to normal when construction is done, I'm wondering if they just said gently caress it and plan on redoing it all after construction. It may be different where Cichlidae is, but here in Vancouver bus stops have 40' of concrete instead of asphalt. Sometimes more than 40' if it's at a stop that services multiple routes and/or articulated buses. http://g.co/maps/tpk97 less than three fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Mar 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
Around here you're lucky if there's a place to sit. http://g.co/maps/ht9tr
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Would you do any special engineering for a curb that sees a lot of city buses pulling up? All the bus routes on campus got rerouted for a few years while light rail construction is under way, and the roads are just destroyed now where the new buses go. Since everything reroutes back to normal when construction is done, I'm wondering if they just said gently caress it and plan on redoing it all after construction. First off, you definitely want a concrete curb, not asphalt. Asphalt will get pulverized immediately. A chunk of concrete pavement is a great idea; if it's a bus pull-out, where normal cars don't travel, stamped concrete sets the area aside so people won't try to park there. If you're just talking about the curb itself, a 4" sloped concrete curb should be fine. It's enough to hold water, but not high enough to cause damage to wheels. Make sure you stick a handicap ramp in there, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:First off, you definitely want a concrete curb, not asphalt. Asphalt will get pulverized immediately. A chunk of concrete pavement is a great idea; if it's a bus pull-out, where normal cars don't travel, stamped concrete sets the area aside so people won't try to park there. I'll snap some pictures when I leave today and again when I get in, because holy poo poo. These potholes are like a foot or two across and probably six inches deep. There's gravel in there too, not sure if that's pulverized asphalt or whatever's underneath. The old bus stop had a concrete curb cut, but other spots along the (now closed) road were also high traffic but not falling apart nearly as badly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Those concrete pads for busses are all over the place here in Chicago. Stops that don't have them have hugely deformed asphalt. However, I still hate the pads because once when bicycling in crappy traffic I was forced over, and my wheel got caught in the groove where the asphalt and the concrete pad had widened apart and I got in a nasty wreck. Basically what I am saying is why can't everything just be perfect with no problems?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
Haha, I had to run to catch the bus so I couldn't snap pictures, but somebody put orange traffic cones into the worst two potholes on the Westbound stop. Not sure what good it will do...
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:If they were going to INTENTIONALLY make one, on the other hand, I've got to salute a fellow Mad Scientist in action. http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajerr%C3%A4cke
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
Groda posted:http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajerr%C3%A4cke Close, in the Netherlands we call them egg slicers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
We've got them up and down I-70 to stop semi-cross-overs during an accident. Nobody is worried about motorcyclists, they're more concerned to stop the semi from entering the opposite lane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
Groda posted:http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajerr%C3%A4cke Ah, that's just your typical 3-cable guide rail! We don't really use them anymore, since they have 10 meters of deflection and our clear zone is 10 meters. Basically, anything close enough to the road to pose a danger is too close for 3CGR to protect. I've never thought about what they'd do to a motorcyclist, though. Those things are about a meter off the ground at the highest...
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
A little ways back the thread was talking about the tree in the "middle" of the road. I reminded me of something, especially once it was pointed out that it was really more in the "parking lane", but I couldn't quite place why. Today, walking the same route home from work I take everyday, I realised why: I present to you Hawthorne Ave., in Ottawa!  Yes, every single hydro pole on the street is on the roadway, why do you ask? Now, for a bit of history, and how this ended up happening. Note that this is essentially the only route to a pretty major crossing of the Rideau Canal. The Pretoria Bridge (so named because it is the continuation of Pretoria Ave on the other side) was built in 1915. It links the communities of Centretown (mid to high density) and the Glebe (low to mid density) to Old Ottawa East (low density to mid density) and Lees Ave (a road that has both low density residential, and a bit farther down, due to the proximity of (Bus) Rapid Transit and the Queensway (a freeway, the 417), high density residential in the form of 4 20 storey buildings and a fatter 12 storey). As well, it is the only non-freeway crossing of the Canal between Laurier (east west) and Bank (north south), which are about 4 kms apart. So you can see why it's a major crossing, even though it's largely gonna be local traffic. In the 70's, it was discovered that road salt had compromised the bridge. The original plan was to build a massive bridge that would have decimated this section of Old Ottawa East and Centretown. So out came the nimbys (rightfully, in this case, in my opinion) who said that no, the bridge was a heritage structure, and the new design would decimate their neighbourhoods. So instead, the city re-used as much as they could, and designed the new parts of the bridge to match the character of the old. All in all, I think it worked out pretty good as far as the bridge is concerned. However, the city also redesigned the approaches. Both sides saw improvements, though there are still issues to be fixed. On the west side, Pretoria Ave was disconnected from the bridge that bears it's name, though it is possible to turn down Queen Elisabeth Drive and hang a right onto it immediately. Elgin now leads directly onto the bridge, though there is a spur that leads to Pretoria Ave. This is hell on pedestrians because at the time, the Car Was King, and there is no convenient crosswalk even today. On the East side, we have the issue up above. See, at the time, Hawthorne was just 2 lanes. The city wanted to increase to 4 to reduce congestion between Elgin (4 lanes), over the new bridge (4 lanes, now changed to 4 narrow as gently caress lanes and 2 bike lanes) and Main Street (4 lanes, and not really a main street). So the city widened the road, but there really isn't much room for the hydro poles, and cheaped out and didn't bury the lines. So now we have hydro poles on the roadway, albeit in the "parking lane."This situation has been ere for 40 years  holy poo poo that was longer than I was expecting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 01:29
|
|
|
Minister Robathan posted:A little ways back the thread was talking about the tree in the "middle" of the road. I reminded me of something, especially once it was pointed out that it was really more in the "parking lane", but I couldn't quite place why. Today, walking the same route home from work I take everyday, I realised why: If they were spending tens of millions (presumably) on a new bridge, they really should've dropped a few hundred thousand to relocate those poles. There's probably something more to it. Maybe the utilities refused to cooperate, or moving the poles would put them within 10 feet (3 meters) of the houses. The latter's based on US regulations that say that only qualified workers are allowed within 10 feet of live wires, but it might be different in Canada. Clearly, unless there are some severe underground conflicts, they should be relocated underground the next time that sidewalk is replaced.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 12:27
|
|
|
If it's anything like BC, those poles have been queued for relocation for at least a year  In another area of BC I did some work at where they were widening an existing highway in phases, poles from phase I still had not been relocated as phase III was commencing (~ 2 years post-phase I). I heard rumors someone took matters in to their own hands on one of the poles and kind of forced Hydro's hand with the others.But yea, everything pointed out above is also valid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
E^^^^ again, this has been like this for 40 years. I know strange things happen in large projects, I've been involved in a few myself (either as a worker for a sub-contractor or as the electrical consult during some big projects at a smelter during a coop) but this is nothing like that, imo.Cichlidae posted:If they were spending tens of millions (presumably) on a new bridge, they really should've dropped a few hundred thousand to relocate those poles. There's probably something more to it. Maybe the utilities refused to cooperate, or moving the poles would put them within 10 feet (3 meters) of the houses. The latter's based on US regulations that say that only qualified workers are allowed within 10 feet of live wires, but it might be different in Canada. The utilities company here is a wholly owned subsidiary of the city, so that's not a reason. As for moving the poles, it's honestly pretty similar here. The poles couldn't be relocated because there is literally no room in front of the houses. Of course, the opposite side has a park so they could've theoretically put them there. Even more than anything, it's the fact that it's been 40 years that is mind blowing to me. Minister Robathan fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Mar 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
Minister Robathan posted:The utilities company here is a wholly owned subsidiary of the city, so that's not a reason. I envy you so much right now. If you could see one of our utility meetings, with a dozen different reps there all demanding tens of thousands to move their poles, and months of delay in the contract, you could see how great this is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2012 12:30
|
|
|
The same kind of thing also exists in La Prarie, Quebec. It used to freak me out when I would drive down these roads. http://g.co/maps/8kuky
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
EngineerJoe posted:The same kind of thing also exists in La Prarie, Quebec. It used to freak me out when I would drive down these roads. From a road safety perspective, utility poles are the worst thing. When any object is within a road's clear zone, which means at least 20% of vehicles departing the travel lane would hit it, one of two things needs to happen. Either it's designed to be breakaway (like sign supports or light poles), or it has to be protected by barrier, guard rail, or an impact attenuator. Utility poles, though, get a blanket exemption. We need to put in a few hundred feet of guide rail if there's a signal cabinet 10 feet off the edge of the road, but the utility pole sitting on the curbline doesn't get any protection. Sure, it's hypocritical (and after all, there are utility poles every hundred feet or so in most areas), but we'd need billions to relocate every pole in the state outside of the clear zone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 12:33
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:From a road safety perspective, utility poles are the worst thing. I'm actually curious. What are the disadvantages, aside from cost, of burying all of these lines. Difficulty hooking up new lines to customers homes (i.e. fios)? Do they have a tendency to wear through thanks to roots/creatures/etc and then get all mussed on the inside?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 13:03
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I'm actually curious. What are the disadvantages, aside from cost, of burying all of these lines. The only thing I can think of is that all your junction boxes and stuff now end up at ground level and you need to take land for that. No big deal in a new development, but would probably be crazy painful for existing houses. But I'm sure the cost is the biggie. Trenching is probably pretty reasonable as long as you don't have to go under the sidewalk, but tying in all the houses again is a lot of tedious work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I've never thought about what they'd do to a motorcyclist, though. Those things are about a meter off the ground at the highest... Entropist posted:in the Netherlands we call them egg slicers. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I'm actually curious. What are the disadvantages, aside from cost, of burying all of these lines. Difficulty hooking up new lines to customers homes (i.e. fios)? Do they have a tendency to wear through thanks to roots/creatures/etc and then get all mussed on the inside? Also difficulty in repairs. Buried lines are damaged less frequently than overhead lines, but when they do get damaged it's much more costly/difficult to repair them. So it's a choice between frequent, inexpensive repairs and rare, costly repairs, plus the much greater expense of burying everything in the first place. So basically the only way lines get buried is if you're putting in a new subdivision in an area without consistently lovely weather.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
The simple answer is that buried electrical runs are far more expensive than above ground. I much prefer it, because underground utilities are far more stable and don't take as many lightning hits or trees falling across lines. There are a lot of disadvantages, though, which temper that quite a bit. Here's a 2007 study done for the Florida Utilities. They estimate the cost works out to about $1M/mile for underground, which when combined with other costs works out to roughly $2500 more per residential customer than aboveground. http://warrington.ufl.edu/purc/docs/initiatives_UndergroundingAssessment.pdf
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
But does it eventually pay for its self via reduced upkeep?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
We're working on a utility corridor vault that sits under the sidewalk and the sidewalk acts as an access mechanism. The idea is to use them on every job site we can get away with, over time moving utilities out of the dirt and off of the poles into the sealed, managed vault. Yes, conversion is expensive, but our cities are not going away, and we need to upgrade our utilities and ROW management systems to ensure that we are able to meet the needs of our cities for centuries to come. Stringing lines on poles and running pipes and cables willy nilly through the dirt may have worked in the 1900s but it's not going to work moving forward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Thanks for the costs, Grover. People who live in New England like me will appreciate the benefits of buried utilities. I normally experience a half-dozen power outages a year; last year, there were two that lasted at least 24 hours. Not all outages are caused by trees falling on power lines or heavy winds, but the German students who shared my dorm told me that, in 20 years of living in Germany, where the utilities are predominantly buried, they'd never once experienced an outage. In each of those multi-day outages last year, I lost $100+ worth of food, had to spend a few hundred more on restaurants, and my productivity was basically nil. Multiply that by the number of people in your community, and you start to see why buried utilities are worth the cost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
Comparing anyone's infrastructure and efficiency to Germany just seems unfair.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
In NYC on the FDR Drive going uptown, the 96th Street exit is totally hosed up. The second-avenue-Subway idiocy doesn't help. The things's a mess of directional lights that prioritize southbound-on-the-FDR over people getting off by twisting the exit around so that it crosses the main lane. Why would they do that and how can it be fixed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:In NYC on the FDR Drive going uptown, the 96th Street exit is totally hosed up. The second-avenue-Subway idiocy doesn't help. The things's a mess of directional lights that prioritize southbound-on-the-FDR over people getting off by twisting the exit around so that it crosses the main lane. Why would they do that and how can it be fixed? It's really hard to see what's going on there, but from the looks of it, the diagonal underpass simplifies operations at the SB off-ramp signal by cutting out a NB phase. It adds a phase to the eastern signal, but the volume there should be lower, so now you have two signals with roughly equal capacity instead of two unbalanced signals. Easy to fix? Sure, just a bit expensive. Build another underpass south of the existing one, and cross NB entering traffic to the east side of the off-ramp. You might have to cantilever it over the river, but you'd eliminate a signal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:It's really hard to see what's going on there, but from the looks of it, the diagonal underpass simplifies operations at the SB off-ramp signal by cutting out a NB phase. It adds a phase to the eastern signal, but the volume there should be lower, so now you have two signals with roughly equal capacity instead of two unbalanced signals. This may seem really demanding or stupid, but I haven't been able to read the whole thread and therefore haven't picked up on all the terminology. Could you explain this a bit more... infographically? Seriously, this poo poo is fascinating, but I can't make heads or tails out of this. Maybe later I'll take some pictures or video so you know what I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
grover posted:The simple answer is that buried electrical runs are far more expensive than above ground. I much prefer it, because underground utilities are far more stable and don't take as many lightning hits or trees falling across lines. Don't forget Apache helicopters 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:This may seem really demanding or stupid, but I haven't been able to read the whole thread and therefore haven't picked up on all the terminology. Could you explain this a bit more... infographically? Seriously, this poo poo is fascinating, but I can't make heads or tails out of this. Maybe later I'll take some pictures or video so you know what I'm talking about.  Existing situation is on the left, proposed interchange is on the right. For any signal, the minimum number of phases is equal to the number of conflicting entering legs. More phases means a lower capacity for the signal, as it needs to serve more conflicting directions of traffic. On the left side, both signals have three entering legs, so require three phases. In my proposed plan, there is only one signal, and it only needs two phases. That means better operations for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
Wow, this is fantastic! The merges that currently exist aren't just inefficient, they're actually kind of dangerous. Too bad Bloomberg is horribad and the ticket revenue made from the Box on 1st Avenue at this intersection make money off the horrible design.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
edit: nevermind, I thought the blue road continued north, didn't realize it was just south and answered my own question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
John Dough posted:Don't forget Apache helicopters
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
exo posted:The other question I have is relating to a massive interchange currently under construction... Two and a half years later, this is done!   
exo fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Mar 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
Looks like the spaghetti fell out of somebody's pocket...
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Do they not put warning lights on tall things over there? I'm having a hard time imagining how pilots flying with night vision could manage to not notice them. Helicopter pilots in general and Apache pilots in particular are a special kind of crazy. And by special I mean like the "special" kids in school that wore helmets to the cafeteria. Case in point: "Think I can make it between there?" "Nope." "Oh ye of little faith, look how big that is ... OHSHIT" "Dammit." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4CQfaBGWSo I'm sure the powerline collision went something like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 06:59
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!