|
Choadmaster posted:Unfortunately for the residents there, CalTrans decided not to spend an extra $12 million to build a frontage road and tunnel connecting La Conchita and Mussel Shoals, which would have given each side access to the other's on/offramp. This sounds like the work of a disciple of Robert Moses. (which makes Cichlidae guilty by association)
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
Mooecow posted:Any chance you are done with those plans and can post them? My dad drives through there every day so he is really curious how its going to change and screw up his commute to work Here is a better plan. North is up.  smackfu posted:I'm still not clear where this easy right of way between Waterbury and Hartford is coming from, unless the route swings out very wide. If we were in Europe, we could use some tunnels to help out. Here in Connecticut, though, people seem confused by the very idea of putting something underground. There is rail right-of-way in this area, and much of it could be upgraded to HSR, for a cost. Have a look: http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpt/rails2x3.pdf If you knocked out the Busway and took that rail corridor, that'll get you out to Bristol, then you cut through south of the city and right down to Waterbury. Varance posted:Edit2: The thing that sucks about having all these nice, non-clusterfuck roads is that we can't sell people on the need for public transportation. We've got plans upon plans for building a comprehensive multi-modal network, but nobody wants to hear it because the roads are too convenient. Speaking of HSR, you mentioned I-4's HSR corridor. I thought Florida burned all its HSR cash in a fit of Tea-Party-induced rage. Are there still plans, or is it just a distant dream at this point? Choadmaster posted:For about a mile. The 101 is freeway up until the onramp just prior to that, then they slap up an "END FREEWAY" sign (but you have to bike on the freeway prior to that) and the parking/terrible intersections at La Conchita happen, and then there's a "BEGIN FREEWAY" sign again (at which point the bike lane continues another mile or so to the next exit). Whether portions of the bike lane are technically on a "freeway" or not doesn't matter much to the bicyclist who has an SUV trying to insert itself into his rectum at 85 MPH. Alright, then. That is a crazy design. I get that there's not much room, what with the ocean being right there, but would it kill them to put up a concrete barrier, or even a curb?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 23:17
|
|
.
|
Where does traffic speed info on the Parkway come from? I know 95 has radar and cameras, but I'm pretty sure there are none on the Parkway. Is it all crowd-sourced from smartphones like Google Maps uses or are there other services?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 23:21
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Speaking of HSR, you mentioned I-4's HSR corridor. I thought Florida burned all its HSR cash in a fit of Tea-Party-induced rage. Are there still plans, or is it just a distant dream at this point? Rick Scott sent it all back and it probably won't ever happen now. However, there's a completely private push by Florida East Coast Industries for 110 mph service from Orlando to Miami called All Aboard Florida that they claim they're going to have up and running by 2014. They're intending to build 40 miles of new railway from the existing Florida East Coast railroad to Orlando. It'll be interesting to see if this actually happens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Speaking of HSR, you mentioned I-4's HSR corridor. I thought Florida burned all its HSR cash in a fit of Tea-Party-induced rage. Are there still plans, or is it just a distant dream at this point? Someone will probably make a commuter rail corridor out of it, if FECR's Miami to Orlando line becomes a success. That's the best we can hope for at this point. Varance fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Aug 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
Varance posted:The right of way will remain reserved in case it comes back up again, but the plans are otherwise comatose. The entire line was completely designed, shovel-ready and mostly funded before Scott killed it, too. I don't even know what he expected to accomplish. All that money just got sent to other states, so it's not like he was saving anyone money. Was it just a kickback to the oil lobby? Edit: I've been thinking about it for a while now, and no matter what angle I view the situation from, his decision is incredibly short-sighted. - If it was meant to pander to voters, any political opponent could point out that he cost the state thousands of private-sector construction jobs. - If it was meant to spit in Obama's face, a better option would have been to take the money, construct the rail line, and then refuse to operate or maintain it. - If it was meant as a rejection of rail as a whole, the same applies. Better to take it and waste it than to let other states use it for its intended purpose. - If it was an appeal to "fiscal responsibility," that fails to recognize that HSR is much more efficient than roads and will save money in the long run. - If it was done to spite the engineers who designed it, well, let's just say those aren't the people you want to piss off. You need them. GWBBQ posted:Where does traffic speed info on the Parkway come from? I know 95 has radar and cameras, but I'm pretty sure there are none on the Parkway. Is it all crowd-sourced from smartphones like Google Maps uses or are there other services? I've got no idea! It's not even in my district. Crowdsourcing seems like the best bet, though. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Aug 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I've got no idea! It's not even in my district. Crowdsourcing seems like the best bet, though. I forget where I read this in the past few weeks, but I've heard that cell companies are able to correlate the motion of cell phones across their towers with traffic on major highways. They then sell this information for fun and profit (actually it sounds like an excellent idea as long as it's anonymous).
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I don't even know what he expected to accomplish. All that money just got sent to other states, so it's not like he was saving anyone money. Was it just a kickback to the oil lobby? Its gets worse because during a frantic last minute attempt to save the line, two state representative sued the state to keep it. At trial the state supreme court ruled that it could be shut down because the state only spent a fraction of the money, but it turns out Scott's lawyers lied about the finances and it was actually around half the money was already spent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 03:06
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Its gets worse because during a frantic last minute attempt to save the line, two state representative sued the state to keep it. At trial the state supreme court ruled that it could be shut down because the state only spent a fraction of the money, but it turns out Scott's lawyers lied about the finances and it was actually around half the money was already spent. Ladies and gentlemen of America, your elected leaders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 03:22
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Edit: I've been thinking about it for a while now, and no matter what angle I view the situation from, his decision is incredibly short-sighted. Of course, this is Rick Scott we're talking about here, who watched his company defraud Medicare to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. The guy's definitely not a saint and is all about shady business practices and probably wants to invest in a private effort to re-introduce HSR, once he's out of office. I'd also venture a guess that he's got a financial stake in FECR's commuter line between Orlando and Miami. Varance fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Aug 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
So, I've been making note of all of the various intersections and highways that I use on a day to day basis. I've noticed a lot of inefficiency, and I think I can chalk a lot of it up to a lack of necessary funds to do things correctly the first time, and necessary short-sightedness. For reference, check out this Google Maps link: https://maps.google.com/?ll=32.882919,-80.015628&spn=0.012163,0.022724&t=w&z=16 I use 526 quite a bit in my day to day driving, especially the location near North Rhett. However, I'm noticing that there is a ton of weaving going on throughout the entire intersection. People are trying to merge onto 526 at the same time as people are pulling off for an exit ramp. So I've got a couple of questions here, for the Traffic Engineer and budding designers out there... What would you do differently? Specifically, you should note that this is a raised highway. I'm not 100% certain of the reasoning behind this, as I'd say a good 80% of 526 is raised highway, but I'm assuming that it would make modification to this road incredibly expensive. Is that a right assumption? As well, I've noticed that roads only come to a standstill (but can be reasonably relied on to come to a standstill) at a couple points during the day. Namely morning and afternoon rush (people going home from work, etc.). How long does traffic need to be stopped before a city will start looking at redesigning a road/intersection?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
kapinga posted:I forget where I read this in the past few weeks, but I've heard that cell companies are able to correlate the motion of cell phones across their towers with traffic on major highways. They then sell this information for fun and profit (actually it sounds like an excellent idea as long as it's anonymous). Maybe you got it from my post saying that a couple of pages back.  It's a neat idea, isn't it? Cichlidae posted:The Newport Bridge was built in 1969 and has 63m clearance and a 490m span, about the same as the Oresund bridge (2000). The Storbaelt bridge (1998) has 3 times the span with the same clearance, but it's a fixed link and includes a tunnel section. Vasco da Gama (1998) has 45m clearance and a 450m span. Might be worth noting that even the Storbaelt bridge can't accomodate the tallest cruise ships. A couple of new ships were built in Finland a couple of years back, and in order to get them under that bridge, they had to make a custom-made smoke stack that could be collapsed. And even then, they had to pass the bridge at speed in order to clear it (thanks to the squat effect)! (Yes, sounds terribly dangerous, and they did cordon off the bridge for the first (night-time) passage.) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39909997/ns/travel-cruise_travel/t/worlds-largest-cruise-ship-clears-bridge-obstacle/ Hippie Hedgehog fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Aug 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 20:36
|
|
|
Maybe the answer is for people to stop building such stupidly big cruise ships? Just a thought.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
Build a taller bridge and some jerkoff is going to take that as license to build a taller ship.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
Wikipedia posted:However, travelling at 20 knots (37 km/h) in the shallow channel, Oasis experienced a 30 cm squat, allowing sufficient room to clear the bridge safely. 30 cm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
Wolfsbane posted:Maybe the answer is for people to stop building such stupidly big cruise ships? Just a thought. What's the point of building a cruise ship if you're not going to make it as needlessly huge as possible? Seems a bit strange though that that bridge was built with 63 meter clearance instead of 65 like the Akashi Kaikyō, 67 like the Golden Gate or 69 like the Verrazano-Narrows. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Aug 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
Extra cruise ship height is probably pure profit as long as you don't make the draft too deep. Especially if you can get a whole extra deck. If it requires a collapsible stack, so be it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:So, I've been making note of all of the various intersections and highways that I use on a day to day basis. I've noticed a lot of inefficiency, and I think I can chalk a lot of it up to a lack of necessary funds to do things correctly the first time, and necessary short-sightedness. If it were just two adjacent exits causing a weaving conflict, I'd use a basketweave. Since there are so many closely spaced exits, though, a full collector-distributor road with slip ramps would be a better idea. This could be prohibitively expensive, because, as you mention, it's mostly raised. Exits are not supposed to be closer than 1 mile from each other, so combining ramps like that is the only way to get rid of the weaving, other than closing off exits entirely, which tends to piss people off. SquadronROE posted:Specifically, you should note that this is a raised highway. I'm not 100% certain of the reasoning behind this, as I'd say a good 80% of 526 is raised highway, but I'm assuming that it would make modification to this road incredibly expensive. Is that a right assumption? That is a very good assumption. That type of road is called a viaduct, and it's quite a bit more expensive than a surface roadway, and much harder to upgrade or repair. To upgrade the 3-mile section between those two bridges, adding C/D roads, you'd be looking at somewhere between 1 and 5 billion dollars, depending on the local construction and land costs, subsurface conditions, right-of-way, environmental issues, etc. SquadronROE posted:As well, I've noticed that roads only come to a standstill (but can be reasonably relied on to come to a standstill) at a couple points during the day. Namely morning and afternoon rush (people going home from work, etc.). How long does traffic need to be stopped before a city will start looking at redesigning a road/intersection? Roads are typically designed for 20 years after construction, and at that 20 year mark, they should only experience congestion for 30 hours per year. If there is congestion on a weekly basis, let alone daily, the roadway has already exceeded its design limits and is considered functionally obsolete. If we had the money, that would be time to replace the road (planning should have happened years before). Now that everyone's strapped for cash, though, good luck getting it done within a decade.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:If it were just two adjacent exits causing a weaving conflict, I'd use a basketweave. Since there are so many closely spaced exits, though, a full collector-distributor road with slip ramps would be a better idea. This could be prohibitively expensive, because, as you mention, it's mostly raised. Exits are not supposed to be closer than 1 mile from each other, so combining ramps like that is the only way to get rid of the weaving, other than closing off exits entirely, which tends to piss people off. Excellent information as always. Thanks! It's making my daily travels around Charleston far more interesting. You should offer a weekly class on traffic engineering or something, I'd hurl money at you to learn more about this in a structured manner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Roads are typically designed for 20 years after construction, and at that 20 year mark, they should only experience congestion for 30 hours per year. If there is congestion on a weekly basis, let alone daily, the roadway has already exceeded its design limits and is considered functionally obsolete. If we had the money, that would be time to replace the road (planning should have happened years before). Now that everyone's strapped for cash, though, good luck getting it done within a decade. I know this is the theory but has replacing roads when they get congestion once a week actually ever happened?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Extra cruise ship height is probably pure profit as long as you don't make the draft too deep. Especially if you can get a whole extra deck. If it requires a collapsible stack, so be it. Exactly, it's like a hotel with stupidly huge fixed costs to get the thing built at all, the incremental costs of extra storage for self-loading cargo that buys stuff on-board is low enough that it makes up for it over the life of the ship. The lowest anybody (that isn't on the payroll of the line) pays for a room on those things is $200 for something on the inside with no windows and a queen-size bed. Add in literally anything they buy on board, line-organized excursions, and that revenue management can make the same room cost $1000 at times and it's easy to see why they want those fuckers as massive as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Alright, then. That is a crazy design. I get that there's not much room, what with the ocean being right there, but would it kill them to put up a concrete barrier, or even a curb? How about this? https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Sorr...246451052038466 I'd say average speed is between 70 and 80mph when you're heading down that hill.I don't know why Street View blurred that bicycle sign, but it says "on the shoulder."
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 05:30
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I know this is the theory but has replacing roads when they get congestion once a week actually ever happened? Back in the 50s and 60s, sure. Sometime around the 1970s, our strategy changed from "network improvements," building bypasses and high-speed alternate routes, to "targeted improvements," which is fixing the worst bottlenecks. Some parts of the country (typically quickly growing rural areas) are still in that first stage. At some point, while targeted improvements are still done occasionally, the majority of new construction will be upgrading the existing infrastructure to be more friendly to multimodal traffic. dexter posted:How about this? Speaking of which, this is how not to upgrade your infrastructure to be more friendly to multimodal traffic. Putting a sign on a freeway doesn't turn it into a bike route.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 12:21
|
|
|
 So you've got a right turn lane that isn't channelized but needs quite a large radius due to the angle of the intersection, but you've also got a bike lane. What is the safest/best practise in this situation? Just pretty much as I've drawn with a "please don't cut off and run over cyclists when turning right" sign?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:
Bicycle lanes are supposed to go to the left of the right-turn lane. You used dashed lines to cross them over at the taper, like so: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
Ah ha!! thank you that seems so obvious. So the people in the bike lane would go straight or be able to turn right from that spot? Now that you mention it there's a a situation exactly like that near me and I see bikes go straight left and right from it. I can't quite read the bottom sign though. Top is clearly "right lane must turn right" but what's the previous? Something about yielding to the bike lane?  Oh duh I can just look it up. Wonder if there's a Canadian equivalent or if we just use the same sign. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Aug 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Ah ha!! thank you that seems so obvious. So the people in the bike lane would go straight or be able to turn right from that spot? Now that you mention it there's a a situation exactly like that near me and I see bikes go straight left and right from it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze4K2W7S6Fs 
Varance fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Aug 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Ah ha!! thank you that seems so obvious. So the people in the bike lane would go straight or be able to turn right from that spot? Now that you mention it there's a a situation exactly like that near me and I see bikes go straight left and right from it. If the bike wants to turn right, it should be in the right turn lane. (Ditto left/left turn lane though there isn't one in that diagram.) Choadmaster fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Aug 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
Canada definitely has the exact situation Cichlidae posted, we've got a few in Victoria anyways. Now Cichlidae might have his fancy traffic modelling and simulating software but I have physical models! Ask me about being a model traffic engineer! Even drew little diamonds! But they're way too small... What I'm struggling with now is where to put the stop bars and poo poo. There doesn't need to be any sort of crosswalks going left, but there definitely needs to be a crosswalk going across the tram tracks. This is such a confusing intersection just due to the non-90 degree geometry and the fact that it's a T. Also no don't worry about bikes getting their wheels stuck in the tram tracks, they'll totally use those rubber strips that tram wheels can depress but bike wheels just drive over. I hope you guys don't mind me posting questions and pictures relating to this here. Model roads is as close as most of us in this thread will get to designing or building roads!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Also no don't worry about bikes getting their wheels stuck in the tram tracks, they'll totally use those rubber strips that tram wheels can depress but bike wheels just drive over. I never heard of those rubber thingies, does anyone have pictures of those? My city has tons of trams, but bicyclists just have to learn to cope with the tracks. I've only seen someone fall over once (though that was a pretty bad). As long as you cross at more than a 40 degree angle or so, it's generally no problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 08:48
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Also no don't worry about bikes getting their wheels stuck in the tram tracks, they'll totally use those rubber strips that tram wheels can depress but bike wheels just drive over. Do these actually exist? I've never seen any, and since Portland has a lot of cyclists, you'd think it would eagerly adopt this if it was available...
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 08:56
|
|
|
Varance posted:Toronto and other municipalities use bike boxes. Very few and far between, though - just like dedicated right turn lanes. Canada isn't anywhere near as car-friendly as the US is, if only because the traffic volumes rarely if ever require dedicated right turn lanes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 13:44
|
|
|
They aren't used very much because they have to be replaced often but rubber flange fillers are used. Generally not for tram tracks, more for railroad crossings. But I'm sure they could be used at key trouble-spots on some tram lines. We have the technology, it's just too expensive for most transit systems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:They aren't used very much because they have to be replaced often but rubber flange fillers are used. Generally not for tram tracks, more for railroad crossings. But I'm sure they could be used at key trouble-spots on some tram lines. We have the technology, it's just too expensive for most transit systems. Cool, thanks, now I could google "rubber flange filler" and find out more. Was missing the proper term for it. I found this in a comment on a traffic blog, so take it with a grain of salt, but it seems like flange filler is not practical for trams. =( quote:Flange filler: Zuerich & Basel both tried it out, and it works for train tracks where train traffic is occasional (3 -5 times per day), but tram tracks have a different geometry, and the hard rubber gets compressed too often and crumbles. VBZ (Vertrieb…zuerich) did extensive tests over many years, and finally they had to conclude that it was a no-go. If we have similar types of wheels, he predicts Full report at http://www.altaplanning.com/App_Content/files/pres_stud_docs/Bicycle_Streetcar_Memo.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 12:14
|
|
|
I'm still working through the whole thread, so sorry if these have been answered already: 1. Are bike trails actually cost-effective at reducing traffic? It seems like an awful lot of infrastructure for what results in a relatively small number of people served. 2. Austin and most of Texas' highways have the "frontage road" design, where you always have a separate road system running along the highways that you have to use to get on and off of highways. Is this a good design? How about the horrible two way frontage roads? 3. I don't know if you know much about the TX highway system, but why the hell are the overpasses so tall in Texas? Seriously, there are various places where the overpasses are a solid 50' in the air with nothing below them, all over Texas. Every time somebody visits they ask about them, even when they're from much bigger cities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:For about a mile. The 101 is freeway up until the onramp just prior to that, then they slap up an "END FREEWAY" sign (but you have to bike on the freeway prior to that) Doesn't really make sense that a bike lane just appear out of nowhere if they are. Are they meant to just hop over the concrete barrier on the side? Just had a double check, apparently it's only restricted if there is a sign at the on-ramp. wut. Still wouldn't want to ride on that road or any other high speed road. Used to see people on bikes travelling along the Hume Fwy (not really since it has at-grade intersections galore... and bus stops...) in Victoria, sometimes against 110km/h traffic. Bloody crazy. DogGunn fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Aug 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:- If it was done to spite the engineers who designed it, well, let's just say those aren't the people you want to piss off. You need them.  Maxis - so right on so many levels. I've got to throw some more love to the local transportation departments; rules are around here that when a developer actually develops a parcel of land, they have to upgrade the road. Problem is, where I'm at is still half undeveloped, a fact that probably won't change for quite some time thanks to the housing bust. So main arterial roads will go from three lanes to one and back to three, all within the span of a mile, because half of the land next to the road is still undeveloped desert. Thankfully, the city finally decided to improve one of the worst sections like this next to my house - a dire a high school, maybe only fifty yards long at most, was completely undeveloped on both sides, and this meant no sidewalks too. The city must've found some money somewhere because they went ahead and finished out the one lane that was getting cut off, and put sidewalks on both sides. They did also install speed cameras in the school zone, but I have a hard time hating on those there. The only thing I wish they would do is adopt Tempe's school zone laws - on 40/45MPH arterials, school zones in Tempe are 35MPH at all times. The cameras on a timed school zone (7:30-4:30) weird me out a bit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
Imaduck posted:1. Are bike trails actually cost-effective at reducing traffic? It seems like an awful lot of infrastructure for what results in a relatively small number of people served. Bike stuff isn't about reducing traffic, it's about making it safer for people to get around without a car. Occasionally doing that does reduce traffic but it's not a primary goal most of the time. Lots of the people causing traffic on nearby roads are far too lazy or inconveniently located to bike to work on the specific bike path being built.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:The cameras on a timed school zone (7:30-4:30) weird me out a bit. Lower speeds the entire time they're in school is just loving stupid. I hate it when they do that. Just turn on the flashers for 30-45 mins before school and after. There's no reason to ticket someone while all those kids are safely inside the building.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
Imaduck posted:I'm still working through the whole thread, so sorry if these have been answered already: Not really, though a big part of that is because we have so much infrastructure for cars, and so little for bicycles. I know I have nowhere to park a bike at home or at work. When the weather is bad, I wouldn't be able to bike, anyway. In some rare places (like Portland, maybe), they do make an appreciable difference, but for most of the country, it's done at a loss. Part of transportation engineering is transportation equity. Even though bikes and mass transit usually won't turn a profit, everyone has an equal right to transportation, so we must provide for every mode. Imaduck posted:2. Austin and most of Texas' highways have the "frontage road" design, where you always have a separate road system running along the highways that you have to use to get on and off of highways. Is this a good design? How about the horrible two way frontage roads? It's great, if you have the room to spare. Keeps a lot of local traffic off the freeways. They offer some cool interchange options, too, but they can be impediments to later growth if you don't make provisions early on. Imaduck posted:3. I don't know if you know much about the TX highway system, but why the hell are the overpasses so tall in Texas? Seriously, there are various places where the overpasses are a solid 50' in the air with nothing below them, all over Texas. Every time somebody visits they ask about them, even when they're from much bigger cities. Texas has nothing but room. There are some trucks that are very tall, by the way. When I worked in France, transporting nuclear reactors and windmills required a ton of space. Those things had to be at least 20' wide and 20' tall. 50' is a bit much, but if there's another bridge nearby, cutting through at 25', that could easily be the cheapest design. Much better than the situation here: everything's below standard, and even with warning signs, our bridges get smashed up constantly. You'd be amazed how often dump trucks accidentally leave their beds up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2012 21:58
|
|