|
Sonnekki posted:I have a theory about why people do sit in the left lane, even while going the speed limit. I'm not well educated in this area, though this thread is really informative, and is turning me into a budding traffic nerd. God, I hate the roads in and around Roanoke. I lived in Blacksburg for almost nine years and I never got over the ridiculous horrible mangled mess that is I-81 -> 581 -> downtown Roanoke and back. It's horrible.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
Edit: Nevermind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
Volmarias, I'm not getting mad, and I'd like to see what you had to say. I am capable of disagreeing without throwing a hissy fit. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
Am I a horrible person for not having much sympathy for people killed by trains when there's at least some sort of sign or bell ? It seems like most of the times cars and trucks and even people are creamed by a train it's some idiot who knew full well a train is there but impatiently tries to beat it. In a rural area put up a highly visible sign along with the correct road markings. In more built up areas make sure there's flashers and maybe a gate. If fatalities happen after that, it's suicide not a dangerous crossing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
I guess, but usually the root cause of that kind of accident is long, slow trains that really punish you for missing the crossing. Similar to how people are more willing to run a red light that a very slow cycle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
Wait how do you get hit by a train anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Am I a horrible person for not having much sympathy for people killed by trains when there's at least some sort of sign or bell ? At the crossing in question where the people I know were killed, there was nothing to warn you except the train's horn. It's coming from between two heavy tree lines, and from two of the three approaches, a train could be 15' from the road before you saw it, and if you didn't have your windows down, you probably wouldn't hear it until the WOOOO WOOOOOOO it makes as it actually goes across the road. In the 15 years since, the area has gotten built up enough that it has lights and an arm now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
Yeah, there's a difference between grade-level railway crossings and unprotected ones. Both are not ideal but they are different things. Unprotected ones scare the poo poo out of me, especially in the summer when there is limited line of sight due to the plants and such.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
Chaos Motor posted:Which is one reason I'm throwing out a completely unsupported theory that railways should be owned by the community they cross, and leased to the carrier, thus shifting the responsibility onto the community affected, and the railway simply has to deal with the increased costs to access the safer line. Geographically closer management is better management. Of course were also ignoring the small issues that cities/counties would have to buy the track from the RR first and that state/county DOTs already decide what type of crossing goes where.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
So when you guys say "unprotected" it means there's NOTHING? Like no signs nothing? Just track crossing a road, sometimes in a no to low visibility setting?? That's not cool at all. In a rural setting with decent visibility just a plain old sign should do, but if visibility is an issue it should HAVE to have a flasher at the least. I'm not expecting gates on a rural crossing but if there's no way to see if a train is coming short of stopping your car, getting out, looking down the tracks and then getting back in then that crossing needs to be upgraded. Speaking of upgrades, newish interchange near me. Most people HATE it saying it's confusing and over-engineered. It replaced a signal but there's absolutely no sign or future plans on it ever needing this much capacity. I think someone just LOVES circles. No one hear knows how to use traffic circles, but I guess it's the only way people will learn though.  And yes the road in the bottom right corner pretty much just services those few houses along the water. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Aug 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
I wanna build that in SimCity 5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
Wolfy posted:That's absolutely ridiculous. There's a lot of track that actually sees traffic in the US. So the railroads should be required to take out a lease with every single municipality they have a crossing in? You're telling me that multi-billion dollar intermodal transport owners are not accustomed to commplex issues? Or that we should just put lives at risk so that it's "easier" on the multi-billionaires that own the crossings? Wouldn't want to hurt their feelings? Maybe they'd get a case of the sniffles if they had to pay $0.003 per tonne more per crossing to improve its safety? In the real world, FedEx & UPS deal with more complicated fleet leasing agreements every single day. quote:Of course were also ignoring the small issues that cities/counties would have to buy the track from the RR first and that state/county DOTs already decide what type of crossing goes where. Sale / leaseback. Most crossings would experience zero changes. Dangerous ones would be made less dangerous as it was prioritized by the people affected, not some distant penny pincher. Did I offer a complete solution? Nope. Are the remaining, unaddressed problems unsolvable? Nope. Would the position I have taken result in an over-all more efficient system of allocating ownership, responsibility, and funding, while reducing fatalities? Yup. Baronjutter posted:So when you guys say "unprotected" it means there's NOTHING? Like no signs nothing? Just track crossing a road, sometimes in a no to low visibility setting?? The technique around here is to blow through the unprotected crossings as quickly as possible to reduce the period of danger. /s quote:Speaking of upgrades, newish interchange near me... I think someone just LOVES circles. No one hear knows how to use traffic circles, but I guess it's the only way people will learn though. I bet that guy was so embarrassed when the spaghetti fell out of his fanny pack onto the planning documents. He must have been too timid to tell them that there were noodles on their plans, and they just went ahead and built it. Chaos Motor fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Aug 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
Chaos Motor posted:As was explained to us by representatives of the railway whose train killed a couple friends of ours, protected railway crossings cost $100K up, and most people's lives just aren't worth that much to them. It's awful to hear it put like that, but that's how pretty much all of our safety improvements are calculated. The cost of a fatal accident in the US is a bit over $4 million these days. Sonnekki posted:I have a theory about why people do sit in the left lane, even while going the speed limit. I'm not well educated in this area, though this thread is really informative, and is turning me into a budding traffic nerd. I can tell you it certainly has an effect, based on a class I recently took. There are a few factors at work: Non-freeways: - An additional through lane won't double your capacity, but only adds another ~20%. The main factor influencing whether people use the added lane is the amount of congestion. Believe it or not, distance to merge doesn't matter at all. - Where left-turn lanes are provided, but not right-turn lanes, people will tend to keep left. Where no turn lanes are provided, staying right is a better bet. - On a divided road, people will tend to keep left to avoid driveway traffic. - Anyone who is turning left in the next mile or two, especially in heavy traffic, will tend to stick to the left side. Freeways: - Avoiding on-ramp and off-ramp traffic is the big one here. - Some people are genuinely self-centered assholes who will decide that they are driving fast enough to keep left. - I've seen people get left several miles in advance of their left exit. - A lot of people just don't pay attention. Chaos Motor posted:Which is one reason I'm throwing out a completely unsupported theory that railways should be owned by the community they cross, and leased to the carrier, thus shifting the responsibility onto the community affected, and the railway simply has to deal with the increased costs to access the safer line. Geographically closer management is better management. What happens if one town on the 1000-mile run decides to shut the track down and build a bike path instead? Baronjutter posted:Am I a horrible person for not having much sympathy for people killed by trains when there's at least some sort of sign or bell ? It seems like most of the times cars and trucks and even people are creamed by a train it's some idiot who knew full well a train is there but impatiently tries to beat it. In a rural area put up a highly visible sign along with the correct road markings. In more built up areas make sure there's flashers and maybe a gate. If fatalities happen after that, it's suicide not a dangerous crossing. The vast majority of rail deaths in CT are apparent suicides. It's our job, though, (and our responsibility as engineers) to do everything in our power to save lives. That includes drunk drivers, impatient soccer moms, middle-aged guys testing out their sports cars, teen drivers with zero experience, and retirees in a mobile home. It's proven that quad gates are safer than single arms, which are safer than just flashers, which are safer than passive devices. If people are tempted to try to beat the train, then it's our job to STOP them from attempting it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:So when you guys say "unprotected" it means there's NOTHING? Like no signs nothing? Just track crossing a road, sometimes in a no to low visibility setting?? That's not cool at all. In a rural setting with decent visibility just a plain old sign should do, but if visibility is an issue it should HAVE to have a flasher at the least. I'm not expecting gates on a rural crossing but if there's no way to see if a train is coming short of stopping your car, getting out, looking down the tracks and then getting back in then that crossing needs to be upgraded. We have a lot of those, known as "Stop And Protect," on low-speed lines. Someone has to physically get out of the train, stand in the road, and block traffic until the train has passed. In rural areas, though, you end up with high-speed traffic, so you just pray your sight lines are good enough and listen for the horn. Baronjutter posted:Speaking of upgrades, newish interchange near me. Most people HATE it saying it's confusing and over-engineered. It replaced a signal but there's absolutely no sign or future plans on it ever needing this much capacity. I think someone just LOVES circles. No one hear knows how to use traffic circles, but I guess it's the only way people will learn though. I am almost certain I've seen this interchange before, in this very thread! Speaking from my somewhat vague memory, this was... somewhere in Eastern Canada?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:What happens if one town on the 1000-mile run decides to shut the track down and build a bike path instead? Around here, everyone whose home is within the 49/63 district has grandfather clauses that says UMKC gets right-of-first-refusal to pay market prices for the home at the time of any sale. So you put your house up in the 49/63 neighborhood, UMKC waltzes over, shows you the market prices for the area, and writes you a check. No reason the sale / leaseback wouldn't include a 100 year term with required 5-10 year notary periods and transfer of ROW in the event of repurposing. This would delay any loss of line long enough to develop an alternative or resolve whatever conflict had arisen. Of course, in the model I describe, the city would be leasing the lines to the railroad, so they would lose income if they repurposed it for a bike trail. Through Missouri, a bigger problem is getting railroads to sell their rights to long-abandoned rail lines, which is one reason the Katy Trail still isn't continuous, there are areas where the lines haven't been run for 50+ years but the MO Cons Dept can't get the owner to let go of it even though it's isolated an there's no possible way for them to ever, ever, ever run rails across the property again. Cichlidae posted:In rural areas, though, you end up with high-speed traffic, so you just pray your sight lines are good enough and listen for the horn. That was the case here, and comments were made that persons concerned for their safety had every right to go up the road two miles to the protected crossing. They can do (IIRC) 50+ at the unprotected crossing b/c it was outside the city limits, but just up the road they had to do like 35 mph because it was an in the city limits, protected crossing. Another option the rail owner presented was doing a fund-raiser so that the community could pay for the protected crossing, and by transferring ownership to the community and having a lease-back to the railway, all you're really doing is streamlining this process. Anyway, I'm making up this model as I go, it's not like anyone's ever tried it before that I know of. Chaos Motor fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Aug 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I am almost certain I've seen this interchange before, in this very thread! Speaking from my somewhat vague memory, this was... somewhere in Eastern Canada? Yeah I posted I think the plans to this a while ago, it's on Vancouver Island. This is just a nice overhead shot of the finished thing. Thought I'd pop in in here since who doesn't like a good interchange picture!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
Chaos Motor posted:No reason the sale / leaseback wouldn't include a 100 year term with required 5-10 year notary periods and transfer of ROW in the event of repurposing. This would delay any loss of line long enough to develop an alternative or resolve whatever conflict had arisen. I'm not sure that any alternative would be reasonable in built-up areas in terms of finding a new ROW without incredibly prohibitive costs. For better or for worse, this would have a severe adverse effect on the future viability of long-haul freight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
What I hear from comments like that is, "They were here first, so we have to just deal with it, don't expect anything from them". I agree that problems exist but I also think they are eminently solvable if we really want to. And again, don't forget that I'm winging it here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Am I a horrible person for not having much sympathy for people killed by trains when there's at least some sort of sign or bell ? It seems like most of the times cars and trucks and even people are creamed by a train it's some idiot who knew full well a train is there but impatiently tries to beat it. In a rural area put up a highly visible sign along with the correct road markings. In more built up areas make sure there's flashers and maybe a gate. If fatalities happen after that, it's suicide not a dangerous crossing. I just saw on the news today that there have been four people killed recently by trains here in Sweden, all wearing headphones. The train drivers had all sounded the signal, but they were apparently not heard. The last victim was an 11-year old girl, who was hit by a tram yesterday but thankfully survived. The Swedish Transport Administration just went out and recommended that people should avoid wearing headphones in traffic, though there is not (yet) any law against it. So, flashers with bells might never have been idiot-proof, but considering the increasing amount of people listening to music, they are even less so now. Technology just gave us a new, improved, idiot... (For any Swedish speakers or GTranslate users: http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/horlurar-bakom-dodsolyckor_7432904.svd)
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
Before:  http://binged.it/NBNgfO Wow, they sure did something there... It used to be so simple, so easy to use, and there's even other similar signalized intersections along that road, so what's so special about this one? Now, I don't know what the design criteria was, or who was paying whom, but I'm sure there were many better options. A simple diamond interchange would have been perfect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
 I only see a massive upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
Chaos Motor posted:You're telling me that multi-billion dollar intermodal transport owners are not accustomed to commplex issues? Or that we should just put lives at risk so that it's "easier" on the multi-billionaires that own the crossings? Wouldn't want to hurt their feelings? Maybe they'd get a case of the sniffles if they had to pay $0.003 per tonne more per crossing to improve its safety? You're not going to help your case much arguing this way. I don't disagree with you on the basic idea and don't know enough to go deeper, but having lived a lot of my life in rural areas where a trip to town involved a number of railroad crossings marked only by signs and occasionally lights it is a completely valid argument that many of these crossings do not make sense to light/gate. Once you put active signals at a crossing, you now have a responsibility to maintain these signals. If they are not operating properly, the crossing is more dangerous than it would have been with only a sign because people assume no active signal = no train. I'm not a lawyer but I'd imagine someone getting creamed after passing a failed signal would be a lot worse for the railway than someone who attempted to cross a sign-only crossing without slowing/stopping. This means that beyond the initial cost of installation the regular maintenance cost goes up significantly. There are also operational costs, now it needs electrical power. Another concern which is significantly higher for remote crossings is vandalism. We've all seen the road signs full of holes because Cletus was bored/drunk/methed up and spotted a shiny target. Anyways that's basically just going back to the same old equation, is the cost of the safety equipment over time less or more than the cost of injuries or deaths from it not being there. It sucks, especially when you know the victim(s), but that's reality. Emotion should not be involved here. Chaos Motor posted:What I hear from comments like that is, "They were here first, so we have to just deal with it, don't expect anything from them". I agree that problems exist but I also think they are eminently solvable if we really want to. And again, don't forget that I'm winging it here. No, that comment meant exactly what it said. Working in telecom, I'm aware of what's involved in getting right-of-way to run cables. It's not easy to get access to a continuous string of land between your desired start and end points which does not go so far out of the way as to defeat the purpose. That's just for telecom, where once it's installed those living/working nearby won't even notice its existence. Railroads require many times the property and make a fair bit of noise which makes them undesirable neighbors for many. The routes they have were in many cases laid out decades ago when there was a lot more area full of nothing but farm land. The challenge of rerouting rail traffic is significant. All that doesn't even factor for the costs involved, and last time I checked the rail industry wasn't exactly swimming in money. At some point it does come down to the fact that because of simple physics a train must logically (and does legally) have right-of-way at a crossing. If someone chooses to not slow down for a crossing where they can not clearly see that they can safely cross, that's their decision for which they are responsible. If the crossing is not clearly marked that's another matter and I'm sure that kind of bad crossing is out there, but in ten years of driving around rural Ohio as well as numerous cross-country trips I have yet to notice a single one. The plains have a lot of no-sign crossings, but they're on roads that might get a car a day and in places where there's literally nothing but fields in all directions, so if there's a train coming you know it 20 minutes before it gets there. Please note that I'm not attacking your overall idea, I believe there is a strong benefit to government (be it local, state, or national) of all forms of infrastructure where a natural monopoly is in play (roads, rails, utilities, telecom) due to the fact that competition in such environments is impossible or impractical. That's another thing for another thread though. What I am trying to point out is that taking the emotional position based on the values assigned to your friends lives is not only illogical but unhelpful to your argument. Apologies if that rambled a bit, it's been one of those days at work so my brain's a bit scattered. wolrah fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Aug 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
wolrah posted:You're not going to help your case much arguing this way. I don't disagree with you on the basic idea and don't know enough to go deeper, but having lived a lot of my life in rural areas where a trip to town involved a number of railroad crossings marked only by signs and occasionally lights it is a completely valid argument that many of these crossings do not make sense to light/gate. I learned to drive and spent many years driving in a rural setting. I agree completely, and notice my argument is not that all crossings should be upgraded. My argument is that the community should have say over the upgrades, not the railroad, and posited a sale/leaseback plan that put the community in control, and able to upgrade the crossings as needed, while turning over a portion of the cost to the railway in increased lease fees. quote:Once you put active signals at a crossing, you now have a responsibility to maintain these signals. .. We've all seen the road signs full of holes because Cletus was bored/drunk/methed up and spotted a shiny target. Agreed and understood. None of this is at contention. Only in contention is the ownership/management arrangement that enables unsafe crossings to exist despite the will of the community they occur in. quote:Anyways that's basically just going back to the same old equation, is the cost of the safety equipment over time less or more than the cost of injuries or deaths from it not being there. It sucks, especially when you know the victim(s), but that's reality. Emotion should not be involved here. I agree, emotion doesn't play a part. Not the greed emotion that puts minutely increased profitability ahead of recognition and avoidance of real risks, nor fear based in having lost someone. I am simply trying to say that the most efficient mechanism to control all the costs of the system is by placing control at a more local level. quote:No, that comment meant exactly what it said. ...All that doesn't even factor for the costs involved, and last time I checked the rail industry wasn't exactly swimming in money. Understood and agreed, I'm not talking about closing crossings or taking out rails. The community having better control over them doesn't mean that anything goes away. Most of the crossings around here many have been raised so that they're all at the same height, and coincidentally can pass traffic underneath, which is actually more efficient for the train because there's less grade changing. It's a strawman to say having closer local control over crossings will ruin the rail business. And while commuter / regional rail travel may be basically dead, rail for cargo in the US is the best in the world and does quite well for itself. quote:Please note that I'm not attacking your overall idea, I believe there is a strong benefit to government (be it local, state, or national) Note I never said "government", I only said community. How the community decides to implement this is up to them. quote:of all forms of infrastructure where a natural monopoly is in play (roads, rails, utilities, telecom) due to the fact that competition in such environments is impossible or impractical. That's another thing for another thread though. "Natural" monopolies are often in fact created by the government, but as you note, that's not a discussion for this thread. quote:What I am trying to point out is that taking the emotional position based on the values assigned to your friends lives is not only illogical but unhelpful to your argument. And to think my argument is based in emotion is to misunderstand my argument. I used the fact that I knew people who died as an example to frame the discussion, not as the content of my argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
You keep saying "It's the community, not the government!" but I don't really understand how this can be. It's not going to be the community that's leasing this space, it's going to be the municipal government. You think HoA are bad with someone's house? Imagine if they could basically hold freight lines hostage. That's what you're proposing. You basically assume that community organization would force the big bad railroads to put up signage, but what's more likely is that the squeaky wheels of the community would demand that EVERY crossing gets a full gate guard, because they're important. There has to be safety, everywhere! Think of the children! Think of the terrible things that could happen! No price is too high! No demand too unreasonable! Also, don't run freight trains during the evening or the morning or the night or the afternoon or ever or we'll raise your rents! Also, I heard that Norfolk Southern is run by I mean, I lean pretty far to the left, and I think this is a bad idea. Volmarias fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Aug 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
I used to work on the railroad at Busch Gardens in Tampa. Yeah, yeah, it's a theme park railroad - but they have 6 protected crossings along the route. Not little skinny arms, either - full on Class 1 railroad crossings with proper arms, lights and signage, same exact install and design that CSX uses around the country. I can't tell you how many times I had to emergency stop as a result of people ignoring the bells/gates at less than 7 MPH. And by that, I mean the front end of my train would already be in the crossing and they're still trying to go through. The bottom line is that, unless the train operators were negligent in their horn-blowing duties, any fatality that happens on a railroad crossing is almost always the result of blatant stupidity borne out of impatience or a belief that one's personal belongings are worth more than their life. As long as people are greedy and/or stupid, they will continue to die at railroad crossings (protected or not). Varance fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Aug 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
Chaos Motor posted:What I hear from comments like that is, "They were here first, so we have to just deal with it, don't expect anything from them". I agree that problems exist but I also think they are eminently solvable if we really want to. And again, don't forget that I'm winging it here. Those crossings should simply be blocked off from through traffic on the road leg, if people keep creamed by trains and the crossing's not important enough to get barriers. There's a lot of roads out in the countryside in NJ that have over the years been blocked off at the train track crossing instead of having protections added. Here's a few examples: http://goo.gl/maps/cOe2V http://goo.gl/maps/i5Mxj The second one, the map shows the road going across, but you can see from satellite that it's actually not a through road. Varance posted:A long, long time ago, I worked on the railroad at Busch Gardens in Tampa. Yeah, yeah, it's a theme park railroad - but they have a good 10 or so protected crossings along the route. Not little skinny arms, either - full on Class 1 railroad crossings with proper arms, lights and signage. I can't tell you how many times I had to emergency stop as a result of people ignoring the bells/gates at less than 7 MPH. And by that, I mean the front end of my train would already be in the crossing and they're still trying to go through. The best are the people who manage to drive onto the tracks while the gates are going down and get stuck on 'em.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:The best are the people who manage to drive onto the tracks while the gates are going down and get stuck on 'em. Most (read: all) crossings like that should have High Point signage indicating that there's a possibility of bottoming out on the crossing - in that case, you're supposed to stop before going through the crossing for the same reason. If dumbass gets stuck and that sign's up, the accident is 100% their fault. 
Varance fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Aug 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
Varance posted:Most (read: all) crossings like that will have signage indicating that there's a possibility of bottoming out on the crossing - in that case, you're supposed to stop before going through the crossing for the same reason. If dumbass gets stuck and that sign's up, the accident is 100% their fault. Huh! So is that why school busses are supposed to always stop at railroad crossings? I just assumed that some driver managed to plow into a train and now they all stop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Huh! So is that why school busses are supposed to always stop at railroad crossings? I just assumed that some driver managed to plow into a train and now they all stop. Edit: here's a state-by-state rundown of the crossing rules. The other type of vehicle that usually has to stop by law is something like a lift truck or crane that isn't typically operated faster than 10 MPH and/or would easily bottom out on a crossing. The only times you're allowed to blow through a crossing without stopping are if there's a cop at the crossing, if there are specific traffic signals dealing with the crossing (IE a crossing tied into a nearby intersection) or a crossing has an exempt sign posted - and in the latter two cases, school buses must still stop.  Exempt signs are typically posted at signalized or disused/low-traffic crossings. Varance fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Aug 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I can tell you it certainly has an effect, based on a class I recently took. There are a few factors at work. Thanks for your input, Cichlidae! ConfusedUs posted:God, I hate the roads in and around Roanoke. I lived in Blacksburg for almost nine years and I never got over the ridiculous horrible mangled mess that is I-81 -> 581 -> downtown Roanoke and back. It's horrible. It really is. To boot, next year two projects on 581 are starting which are improving one of the Valley View Mall interchanges, and also boosting the capacity/improving sub-standards of the really busy Elm Avenue interchange. Both are planned to last until 2015, and until then, I'm curious as to how this will affect traffic on 581. Elm Avenue map plan, oriented north  Valley View map plan, oriented east 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
Sonnekki posted:Thanks for your input, Cichlidae! Ahahaha oh man, that's going to suck for my mother-in-law's twice-weekly commute to Roanoke. Between that and the construction on I81...lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 16:02
|
|
|
Saw something interesting recently - a flashing stop sign. Can't see it in street view, but (at least at nighttime) the STOP text and outline pulse light. A cheap way to increase visibility without resorting to signaling the entire intersection, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
You only actually have to stop when it's lit up, so if you time it right you can blast through.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
i barely GNU her! posted:Saw something interesting recently - a flashing stop sign. Can't see it in street view, but (at least at nighttime) the STOP text and outline pulse light. A cheap way to increase visibility without resorting to signaling the entire intersection, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
i barely GNU her! posted:Saw something interesting recently - a flashing stop sign. Can't see it in street view, but (at least at nighttime) the STOP text and outline pulse light. A cheap way to increase visibility without resorting to signaling the entire intersection, right? I've seen similar LED / neon signs for DO NOT ENTER and NO LEFT TURN, at an already signalized intersection with 6 lanes and lots of traffic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
i barely GNU her! posted:Saw something interesting recently - a flashing stop sign. Can't see it in street view, but (at least at nighttime) the STOP text and outline pulse light. A cheap way to increase visibility without resorting to signaling the entire intersection, right? You're much better off putting flashers mounted atop the sign, or overhead. All it takes is one kid with a baseball bat, and there goes your stop sign! Certainly very effective, all the same, so long as your sign is still easily visible when the power goes out. NightGyr posted:I've seen similar LED / neon signs for DO NOT ENTER and NO LEFT TURN, at an already signalized intersection with 6 lanes and lots of traffic. These typically aren't on all the time, and only need to be on in certain situations. Or, if the municipality is lazy all the time, they're left on constantly, require lots of maintenance, and provide absolutely zero guidance in a power outage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 22:00
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:I've seen similar LED / neon signs for DO NOT ENTER and NO LEFT TURN, at an already signalized intersection with 6 lanes and lots of traffic. My hometown has replaced at least some of the "School speedlimit when flashing" signs with that style of LED lit sign.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
Bow TIE Fighter posted:Before: I commuted over the new interchange for sometime and it was fine, they where still adding additional signs etc. I am not really sure why people complain about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
drat, those rich fucks in Marblehead are polite. I wonder if this has any effect on accident rates (there was also one below at least one speed limit sign).
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:31 |
|
|
Dread Head posted:I commuted over the new interchange for sometime and it was fine, they where still adding additional signs etc. I am not really sure why people complain about it. The roundabout I just installed is fetching a ton of complaints, mainly because they were only supposed to make it single-lane during construction, and beef it up later. Instead, they went full-build right away, with no lane use signs, deficient pavement markings, and no driver education, and they're surprised when people get confused. Airconswitch posted:drat, those rich fucks in Marblehead are polite. I wonder if this has any effect on accident rates (there was also one below at least one speed limit sign). I imagine it works quite well for out-of-towners. Clearly, it caught your attention! If I drove past it every day, though, I'd be just as inclined to ignore it as I would a normal stop sign.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 12:17
|
|