|
What are all those dirt rectangles in the area around it, oil wells?
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
There's no shortage of gravel gas roads and ATV trails out there. You're probably looking at gravel gas well access roads. And this part of Utah is very sparsely populated. And it gets icy, both of which make these roads very fun to drive on, I might add.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 15:08
|
|
|
grover posted:What are all those dirt rectangles in the area around it, oil wells? I was about to say ICBM field but A. they're too close to each other and B. I think those are pumpjacks visible in each of those rectangles 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Koesj posted:I was about to say ICBM field but A. they're too close to each other and B. I think those are pumpjacks visible in each of those rectangles
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Seeing Paint Road is actually pretty horrifying, since (at least in Canada) all yellow paint used up until 2011 actually still contained lead chromate. I can't imagine that environmental legislation elsewhere would be too different. The Ontario Ministry of Transport wanted to move to an all-white system since alternatives at the time would fade out in the sun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
AmbassadorTaxicab posted:Seeing Paint Road is actually pretty horrifying, since (at least in Canada) all yellow paint used up until 2011 actually still contained lead chromate. I can't imagine that environmental legislation elsewhere would be too different. The Ontario Ministry of Transport wanted to move to an all-white system since alternatives at the time would fade out in the sun. Yeah, the epoxy we use has a maximum lead content, and we're phasing out the lead chromium arsenate bridge paint. Too bad it's so tremendously toxic; it apparently does one hell of a job of keeping bridges free of corrosion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
Koesj posted:I was about to say ICBM field but A. they're too close to each other and B. I think those are pumpjacks visible in each of those rectangles ROFL ICBM fields... those are all active gas pumps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
Small, inland rectanguler subdivisions  but yeah I know where the real ones are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Looks like someone has been doing simulations for the upcoming rebuild of the N7 in my hometown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg8gIlEbrwg This is how it looks right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 10:46
|
|
|
Terminal Entropy posted:Since everyone is talking about level rail crossings: how about a level runway crossing!: I know I'm a bit late here (a month now), but I thought this was even more crazy: http://goo.gl/maps/594XW A runway and rail level crossing. I wonder what has priority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 13:46
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Looks like someone has been doing simulations for the upcoming rebuild of the N7 in my hometown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg8gIlEbrwg Yay for VISSIM! That existing condition looks like it backs up pretty badly. The northbound left turn lanes have to be almost a kilometer long! DogGunn posted:I know I'm a bit late here (a month now), but I thought this was even more crazy: I'd imagine they have a derailer on the track approaches. The consequences of a train derailment are a bit less grim than those for a plane crash.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
DogGunn posted:I know I'm a bit late here (a month now), but I thought this was even more crazy: There is surely a scheduler that allows a generous separation in time between the two, so that there's no chance that the twain shall ever meet. This isn't exactly a situation where you can HAVE a priority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:There is surely a scheduler that allows a generous separation in time between the two, so that there's no chance that the twain shall ever meet. This isn't exactly a situation where you can HAVE a priority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Yay for VISSIM! That existing condition looks like it backs up pretty badly. The northbound left turn lanes have to be almost a kilometer long! It's either the busiest, or second busiest signalled intersection in the Netherlands so the project should really help. Clockwise the adjoining sections have got AADTs of somewhere around 25k, 85k, 75k and 70k so it's high time something got done. Those NB and SB tunnels that're still under construction in the Gmaps images didn't help that much since that's one of the weaker relations. Because it's VISSIM I immediately thought of this thread  , but it's funny anyway. I've 'been' with this project for 10 years now, first as a road enthousiast, then from the political side where one of the local opposition parties decided to join the city council in their support of it  , and now as a regular user of those roads and stakeholder in the public consulting process. There was no chance this would have gotten done before 2030 until a proposed maglev connection with the Western part of the country got canned a couple of years ago (it had a horrendous c/b ratio). Cue €2b reserved for that particular boondoggle being freed up for more 'local' projects, and presto, the €650m rebuild of this road is now slated for 2015-2020. I don't see VISSIM used very often with these kinds of high profile things but here they had to alleviate local concerns over noise and air quality around residential blocks. There's been a giant stink over the vid of course. The company that did the calculations posted it on YouTube as a portfolio thing and one of the NIMBY groups dredged it up as evidence of "the engineers withholding vital information!!!!111". Cue three instant dislikes and 500 views. Ahhh, manufactured outrage within a process that has involved all stakeholders like never before 
Koesj fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Mar 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
grover posted:Air traffic control would simply have to hold flights whenever a train is coming through. Per the airport diagram and info plate: quote:Caution: Bird haz. MET balloons released dly. When extn clsd trains have rgt-of-way and opr anytime. Acft ldg Rwy 32R and Rwy 27 exer caution if trains hldg on E side ofRwy 14R-32L. Translation: If the tower is closed, OR the aircraft is not equipped with a radio, OR the runway signal lights are out of service, OR are illuminated red, the full length of runway 14R/32L is not available, and aircraft treat it like a shorter runway, with the approach end of 32L being the north side of the train tracks. You can see the hash marks designating the shorter portion on the runway itself. It then gives the modified runway lengths for when the extension is unavailable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Yeah, it seems that the tower has control if they're there, but the default mode is rail versus runway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh-gL7_UgHs&t=159s
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
Koesj posted:It's either the busiest, or second busiest signalled intersection in the Netherlands so the project should really help. Clockwise the adjoining sections have got AADTs of somewhere around 25k, 85k, 75k and 70k so it's high time something got done. Those NB and SB tunnels that're still under construction in the Gmaps images didn't help that much since that's one of the weaker relations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Entropist posted:Heh, I think I posted about this intersection some years ago in this thread when those tunnels were being built. Good to see they're finally doing something about the signals, though it seems like they need quite a bit of space for that. I was about to ask whether or not we're neighbors or something but if you didn't know this project was quite this far along up until now, well, I guess you're not proper 050 anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
I think they've given up on delivering the local newspapers to the student dorms or something. I only hear about such things when I run into the road closed signs
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Because it's VISSIM I immediately thought of this thread Any news at all about who's actually going to build it? I've been searching but can't even find a timetable for the bidding process.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
In Tucson, I-10 past downtown has traintracks running parallel to it, with a lot of the exits dipping under the tracks, or have an overpass. Problem is, this mainly for the downtown exits and neglected for the exits past that, which also happens to be in the area of town with the biggest growth: http://goo.gl/maps/skgHB (Maps photos are a bit out of date as the railroad crossing now has two tracks.) ADOT and the county have been looking at doing road improvements in the area, mainly a way to handle the congestion that happens at the exits and on ramps for Cortaro Farms Rd and Ina Road when ever a train comes along and stops all East/West movement. It seems to me the only real option they have would be to tear them both up, dig a big hole, and have the roads dip below the tracks, most of the interchanges in town do this already. There is work a couple exits South from this, Prince Road, where I-10 is being expanded to four lanes at the same time it is being flattened out so that an over pass can be built. It doesn't seem like this is an option at all for Cortaro, and would be hard to squeeze in for Ina. Any ideas how these two could be improved?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
Would it be more economical to instead drop the tracks into a trench beneath the road? Seems logical, as the train will be heavier and more predictable to engineer for. Dropping cars below the tracks seems like it'd introduce an air quality issue if not a point of congestion where momentum carries vehicles of different types and weights down, then up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
I really can't image the state doing a temporary shut down of the tracks there to alleviate some traffic congestion, particularly when the Port of Tucson is expanding and there has been talks the past couple of years for a fright hub a few miles North.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
Alternately, just build bridges over the tracks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
Or go to a local/express lane arrangement. Backups caused by train activity would be limited to local lanes.
Varance fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Mar 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
Around here they built a siding along the existing track that was elevated to pass traffic under it, and then when it was completely finished, switched the rails from the existing line to the siding in the three hour span between trains. It's actually more efficient now because it smoothed a bunch of the vertical changes that the track had originally, now the train is at the same elevation for like ten miles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
Reno did a project called ReTRAC a few years ago that buried their train lines in a trench through downtown to reduce grade crossings. So it is possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
grillster posted:Would it be more economical to instead drop the tracks into a trench beneath the road? Seems logical, as the train will be heavier and more predictable to engineer for. Dropping cars below the tracks seems like it'd introduce an air quality issue if not a point of congestion where momentum carries vehicles of different types and weights down, then up. You'd be better off with a road bridge. Trains need a lower grade than cars require, so you're usually much better off keeping the tracks where they are, or putting in a small grade, and elevating/sinking the road. We have a project in Branford where the Northeast Corridor goes over US 1. Route 1 can't be lowered much more, but it needs the extra clearance and width, so the only solution is to chase the grade back along the railroad tracks for a really long distance. The engineer's estimate was around $70M, but the bids came in around $35M.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
John Dough posted:Any news at all about who's actually going to build it? I've been searching but can't even find a timetable for the bidding process. They've done a preliminary and adjusted design in 2011/2012 and now they're preparing an initial and ultimately final Record of Decision in 2013. That's when the legal appeals from local opponents can start too, which luckily haven't been much of a problem for projects like this for the last couple of years. Next year we'll see the tenders go out, probably some kind of single D&B JV with all kinds of incentivized poo poo built in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 09:42
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:You'd be better off with a road bridge. Trains need a lower grade than cars require, so you're usually much better off keeping the tracks where they are, or putting in a small grade, and elevating/sinking the road. We have a project in Branford where the Northeast Corridor goes over US 1. Route 1 can't be lowered much more, but it needs the extra clearance and width, so the only solution is to chase the grade back along the railroad tracks for a really long distance. The engineer's estimate was around $70M, but the bids came in around $35M.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 12:48
|
|
|
grover posted:Would the entire frontage road/Cortaro Farms Road intersection need to be raised as well? Even so, doesn't look like there's a whole lot of room there to raise it without making it unacceptably steep. That's what retaining walls are for. In the end, I'd need to see some profiles to make a good decision, but I'm sure the folks who'll eventually design the grade separation will have enough information to make the right decision. Whether it actually gets implemented is mainly a matter of money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Yeah, the epoxy we use has a maximum lead content, and we're phasing out the lead chromium arsenate bridge paint. Too bad it's so tremendously toxic; it apparently does one hell of a job of keeping bridges free of corrosion. This has always been the issue with lead; it has a tremendous number of practical and industrial applications, and is, in particular, wonderfully resistant to corrosion, but many of these same properties make it fantastically toxic to human physiology. There's a reason it was used so liberally before this century; when you don't know about the health dangers, not only is it incredibly plentiful but it often seems like the best material for the job! Great thread, by the way; I've been following it off and on for ages.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
SpaceDrake posted:This has always been the issue with lead; it has a tremendous number of practical and industrial applications, and is, in particular, wonderfully resistant to corrosion, but many of these same properties make it fantastically toxic to human physiology. There's a reason it was used so liberally before this century; when you don't know about the health dangers, not only is it incredibly plentiful but it often seems like the best material for the job! Lead's got to be the element most closely associated with engineering, after all. Waterproofing, roofing, solder, plumbing, electric cells, glass additive, sugar substitute... well, maybe that last one isn't engineering-related. From what I understand, though, the only reason it's really harmful to us is that it has the same valence and a similar ionic radius to Calcium. Love your avatar, too; my wife's a huge Fire Emblem fan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
I have a question about a local traffic oddity. As seen from above on Google Maps, the Wade Avenue extension meets up with I-40 at the top left part of the image. Almost every morning, traffic backs up on Wade Avenue westbound, clearing up at the point where Wade Avenue and I-40 become adjacent lanes. Given that there is no traffic slowdown after the merger, what could be causing the jam prior to it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
There is a section where Edwards Mill Rd merges with Wade Ave extension. There is also a lane drop shortly after the merge. I'll guess that lane drop slows down the right most lane. Then that slowness bleeds into the left lane, from people jumping out of the right lane to avoid the merging traffic, until all the lanes are going as slow as the right most lane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 07:47
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:I have a question about a local traffic oddity. Yeah, that lane drop (the tight little loop ramp) is likely to blame. Even if the volumes are low, you've essentially got three lanes of traffic merging down into two.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 13:14
|
|
|
mamosodiumku posted:There is a section where Edwards Mill Rd merges with Wade Ave extension. There is also a lane drop shortly after the merge. I'll guess that lane drop slows down the right most lane. Then that slowness bleeds into the left lane, from people jumping out of the right lane to avoid the merging traffic, until all the lanes are going as slow as the right most lane. I never drive through there through rush, but even then there are plenty of people that camp in the right lane before merging at the last moment because they're not paying attention to all the signs that say "THIS LANE ENDS". That said, that ramp is one of my favorites ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 14:34
|
|
|
I have a question about road maintenance. What's the state of the art in pot-hole identification and remediation? Do they just have a guy drive around marking down where he sees them, or just rely on people to complain? Is there a systematic method for prioritizing and allocating resources to this type of maintenance? I live in Boston, btw, and it seems like pot-holes are winning the war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
http://www.placemakers.com/2013/03/07/walkable-streets-considering-common-issues/ Interesting little article on street design. Seems 35-40 is the safest and more efficient speed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
Is there any realistic way that this intersection could be improved? The lanes aren't lined up, the intersection is massive because the low-traffic side roads are offset and still need their turn despite the other 3 ways having the majority of traffic. There are businesses at that end of Moritz Pl so I don't think that could be blocked off or made right-turn only. http://goo.gl/maps/W4lX6
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 23:20
|
|
