|
quote:Anyway, in unrelated (but indubitably good) news, I'm now officially a PE. I was in the midst of a pretty nasty fever today at work, so I almost didn't believe it at first, but it's starting to sink in now. Congrats sir. I really need to get around to applying for mine; the Canadian equivalent anyway.
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 01:51
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Anyway, in unrelated (but indubitably good) news, I'm now officially a PE. For those of us who aren't traffic engineers, what is this and what does it mean for you?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 12:30
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Anyway, in unrelated (but indubitably good) news, I'm now officially a PE. I was in the midst of a pretty nasty fever today at work, so I almost didn't believe it at first, but it's starting to sink in now. Congratulations!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 12:34
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:For those of us who aren't traffic engineers, what is this and what does it mean for you? PE = Professional Engineer. It's basically a license to actually call yourself an engineer, in many states you're not legally allowed to use that title without having a PE license relevant to your work. I'm an electrical and computer engineer (went to school for it and everything), as far as I know no one has a problem with me using that title in mass. Civil engineer or various other types of engineering? That's different. Congratulations on your PE 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 13:19
|
|
|
kastein posted:PE = Professional Engineer. It's basically a license to actually call yourself an engineer, in many states you're not legally allowed to use that title without having a PE license relevant to your work. As such, quote:Congratulations on your PE
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
kastein posted:PE = Professional Engineer. It's basically a license to actually call yourself an engineer, in many states you're not legally allowed to use that title without having a PE license relevant to your work. In that case, congratulations Cichlidae!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:For those of us who aren't traffic engineers, what is this and what does it mean for you? You'd have a hard time getting anything above an entry-level civil engineering job in the US without your PE. Think of it as passing the bar, but for engineers. Also, you have to wait 5+ years after you graduate to take it, so cramming isn't going to help you much. Civil isn't the hardest PE; something like 2/3 of test-takers pass on their first try. Nuclear Engineering's the hardest: 45% pass rate, and 0% repeat pass rate. So you get a specialized degree, work in the field for five years, then you've got less than a coin flip's chance of passing. If you fail, see ya! Better go back to school! Since the State doesn't give raises or promotions for the PE, or even cover its cost (or give you a day off to take the exam), what this really means for me is that I can finally get rid of all my college textbooks! Yes! Oh, and lane continuity diagram. Can't forget that. Click here to download the PDF. That's the lane continuity on I-84 eastbound from New York to Massachusetts. Horizontal scale is in miles. See how discontinuous it is? See how, if you want to stay in the left lane, you need to change lanes 7 times? That's bad. It's a bad road. Bad.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
 The hate I have for 7, 8 and 9 on that know no bounds. If you want to get on at the highway entrance in Brookfield and get off on 8 in Bethel, you better have rosary beads as you immediately cross every highway lane.http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=U...&sz=16&t=m&z=15
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Nuclear Engineering's the hardest: 45% pass rate, and 0% repeat pass rate. So you get a specialized degree, work in the field for five years, then you've got less than a coin flip's chance of passing. If you fail, see ya! Better go back to school! Wait, what? How is there a 0% repeat pass rate? Are they somehow only allowing people to write it once?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Wait, what? How is there a 0% repeat pass rate? Are they somehow only allowing people to write it once? I'd say they don't want people who've failed the exam running nuclear power plants, but then again, they let 'em design buildings, electrical systems, machines, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
It's not exactly road traffic related, but I think the people reading this would get a kick. Vancouver is currently building a new metro line to join with another, and for the interchange station they ended up with some pretty  This is what happens when you cancel half the project and decide to build it 10 years later, not wanting to disrupt the current operations as you build.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
less than three posted:It's not exactly road traffic related, but I think the people reading this would get a kick. What's the over/under as to when the first head-on collision will occur?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:What's the over/under as to when the first head-on collision will occur? It uses Alcatel's automatic train control and has been running collision free since it opened in 1985. However if a switch fails or a train gets lost/confused I see everything breaking pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
less than three posted:It's not exactly road traffic related, but I think the people reading this would get a kick. Why would you not go for a double center platform config, with Millennium trains terminating in the center? It even works with the existing track layout, although at greater expense (just build the platform on top of the old trackbed and construct a new trackbed where the roughed in platform is).  You get to Lougheed Town Centre on a Millenium train, exit to the right to go toward Douglas College, exit to the left to head toward to VCC-Clark. Stand on either platform for a train heading to Waterfront. The design they're going forward with tells me that the design team cut corners. Either they were not willing to get the $$ to do it right, or aren't planning around a city with a hell of a lot of population centers.  Varance fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
Varance posted:It's a terminal station, but still... that design basically tells me that the person who designed it is only thinking in singular sets of A and B, with Point of Origin A always being downtown. God forbid someone gets on at King George, transfers at Columbia (another poor station design, not intended as a transfer point) and wants to go to Douglas College. One consideration in favour of the proposed design is that AM peak traffic towards downtown from Braid/Columbia can cross platform and switch to a train headed towards Vancouver. With your design, a passenger travelling from New West (or anywhere in Surrey) to SFU will have to get off at Lougheed, go down a flight of stairs and back up to get to the 3rd platform. Your design would be more efficient in the PM peak, when people from the east need to transfer to a train to Braid/Columbia. The 3rd platform was built along with the original centre platform, and it's a side orientated platform. This creates constraints of how you route things, short of tearing it all down and starting over. I think your design (optimised for PM peak) would be cleaner overall. I don't know the difference in traffic during AM and PM peak to make the decision though. less than three fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
less than three posted:One consideration in favour of the proposed design is that AM peak traffic towards downtown from Braid/Columbia can cross platform and switch to a train headed towards Vancouver. With your design, a passenger travelling from New West (or anywhere in Surrey) to SFU will have to get off at Lougheed, go down a flight of stairs and back up to get to the 3rd platform. Remember, once Evergreen is complete, Millennium line will only go as far as Lougheed Town Centre (no more direct service to VCC-Clark via Millennium, you'll have to transfer). Varance fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
Varance posted:I think you're getting confused on AM. If you're coming from Columbia or anywhere else on the Millenium line, the train opens its doors on BOTH SIDES. If you get off on one side, you've got access to the train going to Douglas. If you get off on the other side, you can catch a train for VCC-Clark. Doors can't open on both sides (Spanish Solution) on the centre track, because the other platform is side oriented. You have two tracks in the middle. The tracks and platform were built back with the rest of Lougheed.  If it was built like this you could do that:  e: vvv yeah they did it stupid back in 2000 and are screwed now because of it. less than three fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
less than three posted:Doors can't open on both sides (Spanish Solution) on the centre track, because the other platform is side oriented. You have two tracks in the middle. Varance posted:Why would you not go for a double center platform config, with Millennium trains terminating in the center? It even works with the existing track layout, although at greater expense (just build the platform on top of the old trackbed and construct a new trackbed where the roughed in platform is). That third track is just a roughed-in trackbed and platform at this point. Varance fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
Varance posted:I'm saying that their design is terrible and needs to be modified. To do it properly, there should be two center platforms with only one track in the middle, with trains turning back on the center track that has access to both platforms. I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to fill in the trackbed, but how do you lower the concrete platform by 3' or whatever to become the new track bed. Honestly they would have been better prepared for the expansion if they never built the 3rd track/platform in the first place, then it wouldn't have been difficult to add a new platform/track in the proper location.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
less than three posted:I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to fill in the trackbed, but how do you lower the concrete platform by 3' or whatever to become the new track bed. less than three posted:Honestly they would have been better prepared for the expansion if they never built the 3rd track/platform in the first place, then it wouldn't have been difficult to add a new platform/track in the proper location. Varance fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
Varance posted:Yep, not the best planning. Same thing with Columbia, why does it not have a center platform? They shoehorned the transfer instead of building something proper. Side platforms are cheaper. Though back in the 80s if they weren't imagining a line like Millennium ever happening, I guess I could see it. Either way it's poor foresight to put side platforms anywhere that might become a transfer point in the future. But wait! They're doing exactly that at Inlet Centre/Falcon too.  Passengers from (future) PoCo will have to get off, go down the stairs and back up to get to Coq Central. less than three fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
less than three posted:Side platforms are cheaper. Though back in the 80s if they weren't imagining a line like Millennium ever happening, I guess I could see it. Either way it's poor foresight to put side platforms anywhere that might become a transfer point in the future. At least PoCo trains should just be a branch of the Evergreen line, so that shouldn't be that much of an issue... though I question the choice of platforms and track layout, seems like a waste of money to entertain two sets of platforms if they're even a tiny bit serious about a PoCo spur. Varance fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I'd say they don't want people who've failed the exam running nuclear power plants, but then again, they let 'em design buildings, electrical systems, machines, etc. So there is just a blanket rule on that one that you only get one shot at it? That seems nuts to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Hasn't there been a huge furore over the gas tax being used to fund the Evergreen Line? I get the impression it's been like that every stage of building rapid transit in Greater Vancouver, forcing designers to cut corners for short term gains over long term headaches, so I guess it's not surprising that this would go the same way. Anyway, what do you guys think of the proposed Burrard/Cornwall intersection overhaul? To me as a lay person it looks like a good balance between maintaining motor vehicle throughput and turning what is currently a batshit insane intersection for anyone not in a car into something more rational. The plans are here. Warning: slightly large PDF.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
I'm not sure to the reaction about the gas tax, but the current government is all about cutting corners even if it'll bite them in the long term. A good example is the Canada Line. They built the platforms half the length of the other lines, because that would be "good enough." Low and behold the line is packed right from when it opened, but you can't run a pair of trains coupled together like the other lines. It'll only be worse 10 or 20 years from now. They also opted for 20 cheaper Hyundai trains to save a bit of money, even though they're incompatible with our existing 250 Bombardier trains. You could also argue buying Bombardier keeps jobs in Canada, not to mention the performance of the Bombardier trains is better. They switched from a bored tunnel to cut-and-cover to save money, after getting residents on board by promising a bored tunnel to minimise disruption to Cambie Street. The cut-and-cover screwed up Cambie badly for years and a bunch of businesses shut down. As for the Burrard/Cornwall intersection, I like the proposed changes. That intersection is hell as a pedestrian and I'd imagine cyclists don't like it either, first having a cycle lane painted with the other car lanes, then pushed onto the sidewalk with the pedestrians. This new design gives pedestrians a dedicated sidewalk, and the cyclists get bike lanes that have a concrete/tree median between them and the cars. I'm not sure what it will do to traffic, but I don't own a car. Perhaps someone else may have a different view on it. less than three fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Jun 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
See, that's what I like about Toronto. Nobody's willing to cut corners, so nothing new gets built for a decade. Then they build a Stubway (all center platform with a Spanish Solution already roughed in for the transfer when it's needed), then nothing new gets built for another decade. Then they decide to build an LRT that is built to the same level of Premetro configuration as Vancouver's Skytrain, which itself will replace the proof-of-concept system that led to Vancouver's Skytrain, which was supposed to be LRT in a Premetro configuration to begin with. There's a $40 BILLION backlog of transit projects, but anyone suggesting that they cut corners gets proverbially dragged through the streets. Ron Pauls Friend posted:I have a subway related question. Why would it cost 100 million to fully buildout a shell station when the only thing it would require is fixtures elevators and street portals to build it out? I'm talking about the Knox-Henderson station here in Dallas You're talking somewhere around $3 million for each escalator - an easy $25 million combined for a set of three plus associated labor and materials for excavation and buildout for the shaft. Then you've got above ground station facilities and an underground mezzanine that has to be excavated if the design calls for one. Utilities/ventilation. And most fire codes also require that you have at least one emergency exit that isn't part of the ventilation system (must have fire doors that can be closed to contain the fire and prevent the shaft from filling with smoke). And of course, you have to make it all big and grand because it's Texas and that's what Texas does. $$$$$$$$$$$$$. The above neighborhood doesn't want it out of fear of change, so it's a moot idea at this time. Varance fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Jun 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
I have a subway related question. Why would it cost 100 million to fully buildout a shell station when the only thing it would require is fixtures elevators and street portals to build it out? I'm talking about the Knox-Henderson station here in Dallas
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.714485,-90.447462&spn=0.002206,0.004801&t=m&z=18 What the hell is this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.714485,-90.447462&spn=0.002206,0.004801&t=m&z=18  It looks like they're trying way too hard to make every exit a right turn & most of the entrances a left turn, but I'd be astonished if there weren't a ton of accidents in that thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 06:57
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.714485,-90.447462&spn=0.002206,0.004801&t=m&z=18 It is a diverging diamond interchange. And yes they are trying hard to make it like that, as that is the point: you allow more throughput by removing the left turn phase from the light cycle and also make left turns safer in the process. Haifisch posted:
You might have less actually: since you removed left turns, you eliminate t-bone accidents, as well as remove the danger from people trying to gun a left turn if the arrow isn't coming up. I know I have been stuck trying to make a left before and saw at least 2 accidents almost happen as people got tired waiting for a left turn arrow that never came up. Ever have to make a left turn from under the overpass while the left turn lane at the light in front of you is obscuring your view of on coming traffic? Diverging interchange removes that gamble. Terminal Entropy fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Jun 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Stop signs are mostly unambiguous, but they're rarely the most efficient way to handle traffic. I can think of some cases where that sign could be useful, if it weren't confusing: Bit of resurrection here, but the sign in question is used here in New South Wales. At major intersections, they're used to indicate which street must stop when the lights are out (ie, power outage, accident etc). A good example of this (along with the "turn left at any time" slip-lanes) is the intersection of Pacific Hwy and Miller St in North Sydney:  On the Pacific Hwy, you have right of way through the intersection - there's none of the signs underneath the traffic lights. But, move onto one of the other roads to Miller St, and the sign is there. So, if the lights are out you need to stop before proceeding through the intersection. They're used at most major intersections where there are two main roads where it may not be clear which road should get priority. Here it makes sense, but then we've grown up with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 09:57
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:So there is just a blanket rule on that one that you only get one shot at it? That seems nuts to me. It looks like it was 0% for the most recent exam, but is usually higher for repeat takers on the Nuclear PE. It sounds like they are thinking of discontinuing that test due to a low number of takers, so maybe there just wasn't anyone that passed this year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Who decides how drainage should work on the roads? Are there special things you do to to prevent the road from flooding when it rains?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
mamosodiumku posted:Who decides how drainage should work on the roads? Are there special things you do to to prevent the road from flooding when it rains? We have drainage engineers, who specialize in hydraulics, to handle that. There are two broad types of drainage: open and closed. Open drainage means roads without curbs; when the water leaves the road, it's either collected in swales or ditches, or just left to infiltrate into the roadside soil. Closed drainage involves curbs, and requires catch basins and a pipe network to enclose the water and guide it to storm sewers or watercourses. There have also been some good results with porous pavement in areas with low rainfall, which lets the water simply soak down through and infiltrate without any drainage devices. You calculate the gutter swell based on the design storm, grade, cross-slope, driveways, all that fun stuff, and then place drains where they need to go based on the gradation. Basically, roads are not meant to flood, and if they do, for whatever reason, it's good practice to put up signs warning of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Cyclists are ruining NYC http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-death-by-bicycle/C6D8BBCE-B405-4D3C-A381-4CA50BDD8D4D.html#!C6D8BBCE-B405-4D3C-A381-4CA50BDD8D4D
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
NYC is so butt hurt over this bike share thing and I honestly don't know why. I can't believe the amount of suburban privlage there is even in Manhattan where people demand the right to drive everywhere. Also other than being given the land to put the bike racks on, this is a private enterprise. E: Oh my God this woman. "The bike lobby is an all powerful enterprise." Right, because in a place like Manhattan hundreds of miles of streets are being ripped up to put in bike lanes and remove traffic lanes. Oh wait that's not happening. FISHMANPET fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Jun 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
It doesn't even make it any harder to drive anywhere, that's the best part about this whole stupid rant. In addition the installation of bike lanes has tended to result in parking being easier then it used to be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
Bike lanes and cycling and any non-car transport has become an identity politics things. Anything other than a single dude in a big car is anti-freedom socialism and part of "their" agenda. So you've got people who would directly benefit from transit, or bike lanes, or better pedestrian infrastructure fighting tooth and nail against it because of identity politics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
And cycling infrastructure actually increases local business. Unfortunately it makes for a good right-wing wedge issue. The amounts of money spent make good targets, being closer to what the average person can relate to (tens of thousands to millions rather than tens to hundreds of millions). In Vancouver, getting people riled up over a $1.2 million separated bike lane on a downtown back street was a key part of the right-wing party's electoral strategy in the mayoral/city council elections two years ago. And it worked -- even my very left-leaning baby boomer landlady upstairs got drawn into the "wasting are tax money on bicycles" nonsense. The saddest thing is that London, which you can probably think of as New York's European sister-city, also has a bike share and is investing heavily in cycling infrastructure ... under a right-wing (Conservative Party) mayor. People even call the things "Boris bikes" after him. But hey, in New York, it's all part of the totalitarian left-wing mayor's plot to ruin New York, and we need an "enterprising new mayor" to "preserve are traffic patterns". Ahem, but back to the traffic engineer: NIMBYism by rich people and right-wing car-first identity politics seem to be pretty powerful forces in local planning. Cichlidae, do you see a lot of this? How do you handle it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Ahem, but back to the traffic engineer: NIMBYism by rich people and right-wing car-first identity politics seem to be pretty powerful forces in local planning. Cichlidae, do you see a lot of this? How do you handle it? So far nearly every project I've seen him post about personally working on is some highway overpass or pedestrian-loving intersection so I'd say he handles it by pretty much exclusively working on lovely car-focused right-wing car-first identity politics projects 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 17:53
|
|