|
Bertrand Hustle posted:Still catching up, but I went to college with you! Donnerwetter! Jamestown's traffic situation makes a lot more sense when you consider that 138 wasn't a freeway until 20 years ago. The local roads carry probably a tenth the traffic that they used to.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
Well, since we're on the topic of RI-138 already, I think it's time for another exciting addition of "What's Wrong with this Picture!?" Pictured above is a crosswalk, connecting a golf club to the empty lot opposite it on Route 138 in Richmond, RI. As this is a rather popular golf club, the parking lot it has on the correct side of the road (not pictured) frequently fills up. Note the lack of stop signs, yield signs, or any kind of signalization! Observe the condition of the roadway itself - this section of 138 has a posted speed limit of 40 mph, and this one crosswalk is interrupting a pretty lengthy stretch of road that doesn't otherwise have any stop signs or signals on it between Kingston (where the road intersects RI-2) and Wyoming (where there's the town supermarket, pharmacies et cetera. It's all so very rural). So, suppose it's golf season and you and your buddies are off to the golf course. Well, the actual parking lot is full, so you park your car on the other side of the road. And then, you've just got to wait and hope that there's a break in traffic long enough for you to start crossing the street - and that once you're actually in the street, you're visible enough to drivers that they will know to slow down and stop, instead of getting within maybe 200 feet of the crosswalk and having to slam on the breaks. I haven't heard of any accidents here yet, which is a miracle in its own right, but I suppose it's only a matter of time. My question to Cichlidae: short of getting rid of this crosswalk, which is probably not an option considering the golf club, how would you fix this? Successful Student fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Jan 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
Successful Student posted:Well, since we're on the topic of RI-138 already, I think it's time for another exciting addition of "What's Wrong with this Picture!?" The volumes there aren't too high, though, and the sight distance is pretty good. Sure, speeds are probably up in the 55-60mph range, but there's no simple way to reduce them in the middle of an otherwise high-speed stretch of highway without entraining rear-ends. If there's a history of accidents there, then there are a series of progressively more expensive measures you can take to improve safety: - Put advance warning signs for the ped crossing - Add a pedestrian beacon - Build a raised crosswalk (warning: may not improve safety) - Signalize (warning: may not improve safety) - Add a pedestrian tunnel
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:- Add a pedestrian tunnel
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
grover posted:Does anybody ever actually use those? Every one I've seen has always been unused with people using the at-grade crossing instead. People use them all the time, especially if you block off grade-level crossing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
Who the hell is behind putting stop signs at round-abouts? It is the dumbest thing about road design in SoCal and that's saying a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
nm posted:Who the hell is behind putting stop signs at round-abouts? It is the dumbest thing about road design in SoCal and that's saying a lot. I haven't seen any stop signs at (real) roundabouts in Long Beach or Irvine. the lovely, vaguely circular constructions in 626 land aren't real roundabouts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
Here's a fun situation that I'm wondering the best way to tackle. The big road going through is actually a major highway that stops at a traffic light in this small village/town. On the left hand corner is a historical building that can't be moved as well as most of the town's small "main street" type area, so pedestrian friendlyness and a sort of urban/town feel needs to be maintained. Now imagine traffic to the right (north east) is going to dramatically go up from both the north and south. The light here is already a major bottle neck but you have pressure from the town to keep the speeds below highway speeds and to not build any sort of overpass. How could this situation be solved without ruining the intersection or historic centre? The only thing I can think of is to sink the whole highway down in a sort of big-dig project and have the south-west north-east route just a bridge over while having ramps further back away from the historic area. But that would be impossibly insane to justify spending on for such a tiny town. Maybe another idea would be to convert half of this highway into a more local road and bump the highway out with access before and after the town?? Here's the area on the googles http://goo.gl/maps/oHwCE Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Jan 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
nm posted:Who the hell is behind putting stop signs at round-abouts? It is the dumbest thing about road design in SoCal and that's saying a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Here's a fun situation that I'm wondering the best way to tackle. Short of grade separation, the best solution to ease congestion is to eliminate the intersection. Give Roberts Street and Transfer Beach Blvd right-only exit/entrance ramps and add on-street U-turns down the road. Alternately, you could maintain the Left onto/off of Roberts St with the N/B lanes of the Trans-Canada uninterrupted. Something like this:  Assuming there isn't much left turn traffic onto Roberts during Southbound peak, you come out ahead. Either way, Transfer Beach Blvd loses its straight motion. Upgrade Oyster Bay Dr, force coastal traffic to/from Ladysmith through the 1st Ave intersection to the north. Varance fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Jan 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Maybe another idea would be to convert half of this highway into a more local road and bump the highway out with access before and after the town?? Looks like they did that further up north, which is probably the way to go. Upgrading the existing corridor along the whole way through all those long-rear end towns is going to cost an insane amount of money. And if you fix this particular spot you'll only pass the problem on to downstream spots. I really don't understand where the big traffic push and pull comes from along this road. Is it commuting? Freight? Leisure? Koesj fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Jan 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
Well it's the only corridor up and down the island so lots of everything. And the reason I asked was because I want to build a bridge to the east over to that peninsula and build a whole city there 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Well it's the only corridor up and down the island so lots of everything. And the reason I asked was because I want to build a bridge to the east over to that peninsula and build a whole city there  This alignment also makes it easy to build a bypass highway that leaves Ladysmith intact, as well as a rail bridge.  This is all hypothetical, of course, as the land on the peninsula belongs to the Stz'uminus First Nation. Varance fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Jan 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Man all the good land is taken!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Here's a fun situation that I'm wondering the best way to tackle. There have already been a couple good suggestions, but I figure I'll throw in my simple fix: remove all of the left turns (all of them!) and the signal becomes two-phase.  The trick is convincing the locals that it's a good idea. Putting in that jughandle will definitely help, but if traffic to the northeast really goes up, you may want to reintroduce the southeastbound left turn. Now it's a three-phase signal, but it's still quite a bit more efficient than the current condition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:There have already been a couple good suggestions, but I figure I'll throw in my simple fix: remove all of the left turns (all of them!) and the signal becomes two-phase. Are there any rules about traffic backing up over level crossings? In the UK that would probably be questionable as the risk of traffic backing up over the crossing when trying to get onto the highway would mandate a crossing which allows signallers to check it's clear via CCTV before allowing trains to pass (which is more costly and is down for longer) and they might not even allow it at all. I suppose it depends how busy the highway gets and whether traffic actually does ever back up that far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
There's a situation just like that here where a railway crossing is only maybe 30m or so behind a fairly major intersection. There's a billion signs and painted poo poo on the road telling people to not stop there and not to block the tracks but every time I've driven the area someone stops there because people are selfish and impatient and just generally bad drivers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:There's a situation just like that here where a railway crossing is only maybe 30m or so behind a fairly major intersection. There's a billion signs and painted poo poo on the road telling people to not stop there and not to block the tracks but every time I've driven the area someone stops there because people are selfish and impatient and just generally bad drivers. Come to think of it, there's also a risk that traffic waiting at the crossing could back up onto the road, isn't there?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:Are there any rules about traffic backing up over level crossings? In the UK that would probably be questionable as the risk of traffic backing up over the crossing when trying to get onto the highway would mandate a crossing which allows signallers to check it's clear via CCTV before allowing trains to pass (which is more costly and is down for longer) and they might not even allow it at all. I suppose it depends how busy the highway gets and whether traffic actually does ever back up that far. It's generally illegal in the United States and Canada for you to have your car over a railroad crossing while waiting for a light or traffic. There are a lot of places where a grade crossing will be close enough to a signalized intersection or high traffic volume area for that to happen too. Sometimes it's even like this http://goo.gl/maps/ssqJC Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jan 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
How about this  This isn't an automatic crossing, so someone is physically present to let a train through, but still... nozz fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Jan 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:Are there any rules about traffic backing up over level crossings? In the UK that would probably be questionable as the risk of traffic backing up over the crossing when trying to get onto the highway would mandate a crossing which allows signallers to check it's clear via CCTV before allowing trains to pass (which is more costly and is down for longer) and they might not even allow it at all. I suppose it depends how busy the highway gets and whether traffic actually does ever back up that far. There was a really nasty accident several years ago, and ever since, the rule has been: If it's conceivably possible that, as a result of congestion, traffic will back across train tracks, and pre-emption will not solve the issue, the crossing must be closed. In this case, pre-emption should work pretty well, especially if it's a two-phase signal. Just have a loop detector near the tracks with a delay. If queues back across the loop, the signal immediately switches to side street green (after the normal clearance intervals, of course.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
Gat posted:How about this That's quite something! Though like I say, it's not so much a problem if it's signaller-controlled. I imagine that was grandfathered in though - I doubt you'd ever get anything close to that as a newbuild, though if a bridge isn't practical I've no idea what they would do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:I haven't seen any stop signs at (real) roundabouts in Long Beach or Irvine. the lovely, vaguely circular constructions in 626 land aren't real roundabouts. The ones I saw in pasadena sure looked like real roundabouts. Except the stop sign.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
nm posted:The ones I saw in pasadena sure looked like real roundabouts. Except the stop sign. BLAST FROM THE PAST http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3177805&pagenumber=84&perpage=40#post390929028
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:BLAST FROM THE PAST Ha. I did see an older 5.0 mustang power sliding around one at Los Robles and Glenarm (Hilariously expensive neighborhood for those not in socal, really near the mansion in Chinatown), so I guess they have some value.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
How did I ever miss this thread? Anyway, Manbury is missing something completely: Torchweald Lake, and the hydro-electric dam that comes with it. Great thread Cichlidae, and I will think of you (and pray) every time I drive from US-7 SB to I-84 Exit 8.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:Are there any rules about traffic backing up over level crossings? In the UK that would probably be questionable as the risk of traffic backing up over the crossing when trying to get onto the highway would mandate a crossing which allows signallers to check it's clear via CCTV before allowing trains to pass (which is more costly and is down for longer) and they might not even allow it at all. I suppose it depends how busy the highway gets and whether traffic actually does ever back up that far. Are you referring to small commuter-type trains, or are things a lot more different over there than I thought? The idea of someone watching a crossing and allowing or disallowing trains just doesn't fit with the usual sort of trains around here. They're massive machinery moving at a decent rate, they're not stopping for quite some time. If someone's on the tracks, they'd better move before the train gets there. Just a few miles from me there's a railroad that runs through the center of town. http://goo.gl/maps/YoII4 In about a half mile there are six grade crossings, three of which are very close to signals on roads that get a fair bit of traffic. While a few of the nearby signals recently got no-left lights which seem to be activated by the railroad, there doesn't seem to be any preemption or anything more complicated. More than once I've seen people have to drive off road or in to the oncoming lane because they found themselves on the tracks at a bad time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
Woah that whole town is concrete roads
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
wolrah posted:The idea of someone watching a crossing and allowing or disallowing trains just doesn't fit with the usual sort of trains around here. They're massive machinery moving at a decent rate, they're not stopping for quite some time. If someone's on the tracks, they'd better move before the train gets there. No "full barried" crossings, ie 4 gates covering the entire road, are fully automatic in the UK, meaning that someone is always watching to see if its clear. This level crossing I found is on an very busy intercity route where trains reach 125mph and there is a good amount of freight as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqMVt3UBbcA (warning, boring video) The answer seems to be to have a long enough long wait from when the sirens go off to the train actually arriving, long enough for anything to stop. nozz fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Jan 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Gat posted:No "full barried" crossings, ie 4 gates covering the entire road, are fully automatic in the UK, meaning that someone is always watching to see if its clear. This level crossing I found is on an very busy intercity route where trains reach 125mph and there is a good amount of freight as well. Yeah, the aim is to have barriers down, crossing checked and protecting train signal cleared before the train itself even sees a cautionary signal aspect. This mode of operation was standard when we had manual gate crossings but started going out from (I think) the 70s and is now only used in special cases (like that one) where cars are likely to get "stuck" or lines where trains go at >100mph. As you can imagine (and see in that video) the barriers are down for some time. If there's a lot of trains coming, they can sometimes be down for many minutes which causes friction with the local community - Lincoln station crossing, for example, is sometimes down for 50 minutes every hour despite being on a main road. (However, I imagine they'd be a lot more annoyed if their cars were getting hit by trains all the time.) Jonnty fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Jan 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
A few posts back I commented about a stretch of construction in the Northwest Houston suburbs contracted out to a company responsible for two different segments of the road improvement. My concerns were of the construction zone safety, uncontained construction waste, failure to adequately accommodate rush hour volumes (leading to gridlock) and durability of the road improvements as a whole. Later that week I spoke with a manager at the local precinct traffic office for the better part of a cup of coffee; I was confident the person was understanding of my concerns, but manifestations of change have yet to occur. The residents of that area are, frankly, being ripped off. One only has to drive fifteen minutes away to Cypress-Rosehill Road to understand this. Only a few years ago was that road ripped up and new concrete laid down, and the traffic has destroyed the alignment of the new concrete sections. I suspect using a minimal road bed thickness for a high volume road is part of the problem. Back at Spring Cypress, none of the safety or environmental concerns were ever addressed. Right turns out of neighborhoods still require drivers to make sure both traffic lanes are clear. Sometimes you can drive a few meters down the new unopened section to the next opening to hang a right, allowing yourself to merge in more parallel to traffic, but the company sometimes deliberately blocks these shortcuts with their heavy equipment. They successfully knocked over a school zone sign weeks ago and haven't bothered to re-align it. Traffic signal timing still hasn't been addressed. I've also had the opportunity to chat recently with a local office responsible for signal coordination. For years the traffic signal system as a whole in a particular precinct of Houston has gotten progressively worse as volumes steadily increase due to development. I called the number on the side of a controller box to suggest some signal timing improvements. Apparently this number rings a different office than where the online form deposits. Competent and keeping the power on, at best, but these guys don't even use LEDs and don't hesitate to put a four-way stop sign up at the slightest inclination of a dangerous situation. Even the manager I spoke to at the precinct stated that roundabouts were considered a liability to the state, therefore they were hesitant to build them. The man on the other end at the signal office cowered at the end of each of my stern suggestions for signalization improvements. These people may be busy, but they're giving us the impression that they're powerless to make change for the good and that the perpetual cycling 3 am traffic light makes sense in a world where cheap fuel rules over intelligent design. It's not even something to get mad over; the gross lack of respect for the taxpayer dollar really says it all. I'm confident that the citizens of that area of Houston will eventually tire of such careless development and demand the precinct engineers to fix these issues with the resources they already have. Cheap doesn't mean acceptable, and those making decisions at the precinct only have to turn to The Woodlands to see it done correctly the first time. edit: Cichlidae you should move down to Houston for a bit and fix this for them grillster fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Jan 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
Gat posted:No "full barried" crossings, ie 4 gates covering the entire road, are fully automatic in the UK, meaning that someone is always watching to see if its clear. This level crossing I found is on an very busy intercity route where trains reach 125mph and there is a good amount of freight as well. Here the barriers are usually two gates, four is usually only seen if there's a big problem with gate running. Here's a video I found taken from the east side of the South Broadway crossing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrpdFgNrma8 Even with that old show train taking it easy the lights and gates don't even activate until about 30 seconds before it's in the crossing. They're only fully down with about 20 seconds to spare. This is normal here. Few if any crossings are watched in real-time, and none I'm aware of in the freight network have any kind of signal indicating whether they're clear to the train crew. Some transit lines may have such things, but the freight world basically (rightfully IMO) runs on the "we're massive and will win in a collision" logic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
From what I understand it's good to have the crossing gates and warnings only sound as late as possible otherwise people learn "oh I got like 30 seconds to just go through what ever". DING DING DING = train is here now don't loving drive there or you will get hit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:From what I understand it's good to have the crossing gates and warnings only sound as late as possible otherwise people learn "oh I got like 30 seconds to just go through what ever". DING DING DING = train is here now don't loving drive there or you will get hit. It doesn't help when you aren't paying attention. http://hamlethub.com/redding-life/cat/police-blotter/24956-driver-of-suburu-involved-in-west-redding-train-crash-dies
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
What would you do if a one lane road has large straight and left turning volumes? Expanding the road is not an option. Left turn traffic gets blocked by straight traffic when both dedicated lefts are green and straight traffic gets blocked by left turn traffic when both straight lights are green. It takes about 20 minutes to cross this intersection in a car during rush hour. Map: http://goo.gl/maps/8JBgs Street view: http://goo.gl/maps/W1hMH Why is the dedicated right arrow green when the pedestrian light is also green? I have no idea...
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Here the barriers are usually two gates, four is usually only seen if there's a big problem with gate running. To understand why our level crossings are the way they are you've got to understand that in the UK we've come from a situation where 19th century laws required all road crossings to look something like this:  with big wooden gates that close across the road when a train's coming. They were usually interlocked with the signalling system, so that if the gates were closed across the track any distant signals further up must be at caution so the train can stop before crashing through them. Obviously there were accidents where trains (and motorists!) didn't stop in time, and all the usual silliness with pedestrians ignoring them, but broadly they were very safe, particularly compared to other parts of the railway at the time. However, come the late 50s and 60s, British Rail was losing lots of money and there was a need for modernisation to save cash. Each major gated crossing needed someone there to open and close it, be it the local signalman or a dedicated "crossing keeper." These people needed to be paid for all (usually 24) hours that trains ran, and so BR realised that getting rid of them would save bucketloads. A secondary concern was probably roads getting busier and this mode of operation becoming more impractical. In the railways, it goes against the grain to upgrade to something less safe that what went before, so BR did a lot of research in Europe and elsewhere, and came up with a few solutions at various points. They came up with the automatic half barrier crossing which is similar to the type you describe and is not interlocked with signals. These use a treadle to detect approaching trains, and with modern speed detection technology the train can deliver down-times that are actually frighteningly small - less than 30 seconds from the lights starting to flash to the train passing. However, this type of crossing was only deemed safe in certain circumstances - where trains pass at less than 100mph over a normal double-track railway where the chance of stationary traffic backing up over the crossing is minimal. Anything more risky and the full-barrier, fully interlocked solution was chosen for upgrade. (There are still some that have stayed as the traditional gated style too, and there are other types on less used lines which usually involve the traincrew operating them and checking they're clear before proceding, some of which don't have barriers at all.) So that's why some of our crossings are like that. Network Rail, who now run the railways, have recently become quite concerned with level crossing safety as they've been accused of taking a lax attitude towards them, and as other parts of the railway get safer they start to look quite bad in comparison. So they might get even safer. Having said that, it sounds quite dangerous to have full-barrier crossings that aren't monitored by someone. They'll probably go down right-hand-side barrier first, but even then, what if a slow-moving vehicle gets trapped? This has reminded me I have a book about all this which is actually quite interesting, particularly about the events that triggered particular changes (spoiler: they usually involve a lot of blood.) Jonnty fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Jan 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Here the barriers are usually two gates, four is usually only seen if there's a big problem with gate running. Oh, don't get the idea that all of our crossings are like that, we have plenty of 2 barriers, no barriers (though I'm fairly sure all of these are actively being upgraded, there probably wont be any in a few tears) and even a few with no warning system at all. With a non-monitored crossing then then the rules are I guess similar to yours: the alarm is set off at a reasonable length before the train is due to arrive, and if you are in the way then its your fault. The monitoring system is mainly for the 4 barrier crossings only, where cars can potentially get trapped inside the crossing if they time it incorrectly. Bonus crossing where you have to press a button to summon the gate keeper Here's another where you can see the levers, seems like its locked open for the road usually Bonus crossing where cars have to manually open the gate (read the sign!) Edit: haha I didn't expect another UKer to be posting at this time of night about loving level crossings
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
Gat posted:
Sexy. Have one where a man in orange appears in a car to close it (and another), one where you have to manually raise the barriers with a special button and finally one where you have to use a hydralic hand pump! 
Jonnty fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Jan 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:...one where youhave to manually raise the barriers with a special button... I've seen that one in action. It's quite cool and unique, even if I did probably break a few laws continually pressing the button! That and I'm sure the motorists on the A9 were a bit amused to see a group of anoraks taking pictures of a level crossing and several road signs!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 11:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
HiHo ChiRho posted:How did I ever miss this thread? Definitely gotta update the map. I figured I'd add a nice big dam in the 30s, as part of the WPA, to make things a bit more period-appropriate. grillster posted:edit: Cichlidae you should move down to Houston for a bit and fix this for them I have my own trainwrecks up here to deal with! You should keep a video/photo log of what's been going down, maybe get a blog running and attract some press. There's no excuse for that kind of waste. mamosodiumku posted:What would you do if a one lane road has large straight and left turning volumes? Expanding the road is not an option. Left turn traffic gets blocked by straight traffic when both dedicated lefts are green and straight traffic gets blocked by left turn traffic when both straight lights are green. It takes about 20 minutes to cross this intersection in a car during rush hour. If it's over capacity, it's going to stay that way unless one of two things happens: -Capacity increases (not likely to happen, since there's no room) -Demand decreases That second one is something we can work on. If you disallow left turns, or even lefts AND throughs, and force people to turn right, then you can build in a mid-block U-turn pocket. Basically, a Michigan Left. That's what I'd do, if I had a few thousand bucks and the backing of my bosses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 23:01
|
|