|
Install Windows posted:Most modern transit systems use shorter services on the same line supplementing long line services, this was solved in like 1915. The Blue Line would need a total rebuild, including new tunnels downtown. For all that would entail, high speed commuter rail would probably be cheaper.
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
Kakairo posted:The Blue Line would need a total rebuild, including new tunnels downtown. For all that would entail, high speed commuter rail would probably be cheaper. Why would it need a total rebuild? This doesn't make any sense. Shorter services exist on double track lines already. Edit: Not to mention, there's no particular reason to reduce service levels in outlying areas, as frequent service encourages usage. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Why would it need a total rebuild? This doesn't make any sense. Shorter services exist on double track lines already. How would that work without reducing potential capacity on the whole route? Sure, you could make the new segments three track, or with built in turnaround facilities, but that doesn't do anything for the core. I think my real disappointment with this is that it's too expensive to ever happen, but not visionary enough. A BRT with an O'Hare transit center is much more realistic, while high speed commuter rail would have real potential to change traffic patterns and grow the local economy. I've also just come back from London. Walking around Crossrail sites makes me think much, much bigger.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Kakairo posted:How would that work without reducing potential capacity on the whole route? Sure, you could make the new segments three track, or with built in turnaround facilities, but that doesn't do anything for the core. Again, what? You're making some sort of unfounded assumption that making the line longer somehow magically increases needed headways. For one, you can simply buy more rolling stock, hire a few more drivers/give existing drivers who dont do full time more hours, and keep the same headways along the entire length. Alternatively, build suitable reversing loops or simple track switches at the boundaries of your "normal service area", probably with some storage tracks, and only run say half of your trains past those points, if you must have increased headways outside a central area. (this would be really simple for new build extensions, simply place your reversing infrastructure at the end of the existing track!) Kakairo posted:I think my real disappointment with this is that it's too expensive to ever happen, but not visionary enough. A BRT with an O'Hare transit center is much more realistic, while high speed commuter rail would have real potential to change traffic patterns and grow the local economy. High speed commuter rail is a contradiction in terms. Commuter rail already operates up to 80-100 mph, and the frequency of stops you need to make means speeds past that have no benefit due to braking/acceleration distance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Most all commuter trains don't need reversing loops, they have cab cars or dummy locos at the ends so they can run both ways and what you describe is exactly what they do on longer lines that don't need as much service to the farthest reaches. So you'd have like an A and B some difference in the trains and the A train would ply the core busiest route every 20 min and the B train would go all the way out to the farthest reaches. The core still gets 10 min service but the people going all the way out where service isn't needed as frequently just have to make sure they're on the right train. Switching is as easy as a basic cross-over and maybe a little siding. But often all you need is a slightly longer than normal stop for the crew to get out of one end of the train and walk to the other end then switch the train to the other side of the track. Easy easy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Most all commuter trains don't need reversing loops, they have cab cars or dummy locos at the ends so they can run both ways and what you describe is exactly what they do on longer lines that don't need as much service to the farthest reaches. So you'd have like an A and B some difference in the trains and the A train would ply the core busiest route every 20 min and the B train would go all the way out to the farthest reaches. The core still gets 10 min service but the people going all the way out where service isn't needed as frequently just have to make sure they're on the right train. Switching is as easy as a basic cross-over and maybe a little siding. But often all you need is a slightly longer than normal stop for the crew to get out of one end of the train and walk to the other end then switch the train to the other side of the track. Easy easy. Most modern rapid transit trainsets don't need physical reversing either. Loops are just an option.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Unless you're playing loving Cities in Motion 2 in which everything needs a giant reversing loop...
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Didn't the Green Line connect with the University of Chicago at one point? Why'd they get rid of it? That seems like an obvious place for a connection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Didn't the Green Line connect with the University of Chicago at one point? Why'd they get rid of it? That seems like an obvious place for a connection. The entire section of the Green Line there had to be shuttered in stages for major repairs in the early 90s. CTA originally intended to reopen the whole branch, but ended up deciding refurbishing it would not be worth it. However it's only half a mile between the current terminus and the old university station - and the university station was a whole 0.6 miles from the actual campus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:The entire section of the Green Line there had to be shuttered in stages for major repairs in the early 90s. CTA originally intended to reopen the whole branch, but ended up deciding refurbishing it would not be worth it. Not true!  A pastor or reverend from the local community made a huge stir about the rail line and its affects on the neighborhood. Mainly property values as he also owned alot of the land nearby. It almost went to court, but the CTA decided it would easier to just tear it down again a few months after being rebuilt. Hell there even used to be a transfer station between the L and the Metra at the end of that branch. Communist Zombie fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:I suppose it should also be mentioned that the north-south planned blue line is underway, though as BRT and a bit to the right than shown on the map. The Circle Line quietly died because it was deemed too expensive and was replaced with the Ashland BRT. CTA is still waiting for funding so they can start Phase II engineering then hunker down for when some of the neighborhoods start fighting against it. What makes me sad is this map focuses too much on flashy rail projects. Wish they included the Western, Garfield, Lakeshore, Fullerton, 95th and the other BRT lines proposed a few years back, but that is all hinging on the success of Ashland. Chicago really needs to focus on maintaining what it has and better integrate between Metra, CTA and Pace. People are amazed when I tell them that there is a Metra Station at O'Hare and can get you downtown in about 35-40 mins. Too bad the North Central Service sucks with 11 round-trips a weekday and you have to take a lovely shuttle bus to get to it. peepeepants fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
I present to you Saddler's Farm roundabout. Why have just one roundabout when you can have 5, inside another roundabout! Thankfully this got replaced by a regular old three lane roundabout : https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.566465,0.5420883,318m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en but I'll never forget the first time I drove on the old one, I somehow ended up going south instead of east, which is a two mile long road with no turnings that takes you on to an island  .
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
I guess there is a lot of traffic from the A13 that needs to go down Canvey Way so they built a two-way roundabout. Now there is just a small double back from A13 to Canvey Way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
These have come up before, its called a Magic Roundabout after the original in Swindon There are a few more around in the UK: one at the London end of the M40, another in Hemel Hempstead, one in High Wycombe, one in Tamworth, a very small one at Heathrow and finally one in Colchester. I don't think they exist outside of the UK. Once they get large enough (such as the one in Tamworth) it becomes difficult to consider it as a single entity rather simply a series of roundabouts (eg, is this a Magic Roundabout?). As long as a driver approaches a Magic Roundabout as simply a series of smaller ones connected by short roads they are not that hard to navigate, and are surprisingly effective at handling large amounts of traffic that might want to go in any direction. It just gets confusing when you see something like this sign as a first time user. I guess Saddler's farm has just turned into a modified Hamburger Roundabout really. If A13 to Canvey Way was so dominating compared to other flows then it is probably a more appropriate solution, though now you will have to rely on traffic lights a lot. History nozz fucked around with this message at 12:54 on Apr 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
cheese-cube posted:We've had these kind of crossing indicators here in Australia for as long as I can remember. Those chirp/cuckoo sounds are really ambiguous and it's amazing to me that SDOT has only just reached this conclusion. The other advantage of the Australian indicators is that they have embossed arrows to indicate direction of travel for the blind, and haptic feedback for the deaf on when to cross. Next time you're at one put your fingers on the front of the top circle - there's a mechanically actuated striker behind the plate that taps in-time with the tone. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
exo posted:The other advantage of the Australian indicators is that they have embossed arrows to indicate direction of travel for the blind, and haptic feedback for the deaf on when to cross. Next time you're at one put your fingers on the front of the top circle - there's a mechanically actuated striker behind the plate that taps in-time with the tone. I don't mean to sound dumb, but wouldn't the signal and lights be used by deaf people to know when to cross? Or is the haptic feedback for people who are both blind and deaf.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Vision and hearing impairment are a spectrum, not an on/off thing, and some people can be on both spectrums. This solution is the most accessible to the most amount of people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
So I saw something I'm curious about this evening. On the way home tonight they were doing some work on the interstate removing the lines between the HOV lanes and the regular lanes and repainting new bigger lines to better delineate the HOV lane. However, at the front of the small pack of vehicles was this little thing with a giant gently caress-off green laser on it aiming at the road. What was that thing doing? The best I could guess was it was using the heat from the laser to heat up and eventually strip the old paint? It was just sort of crazy looking, and now I really want to know what it was doing. Another anecdote on how hosed up public transit an be in the south east US. My city, Nashville, is trying to build a Bus Rapid Transit line through a corridor of the city, first sort of rapid transit in the city at all. However, in an attempt to block it the state is attempting to pass a law that would make it illegal for any mass transit to pick-up/drop-off in the center of the road, where the planned dedicated lanes are. Traffic in the city is a mess as it is, and it's only going to get worse, I hate to see how much worse it'll get if the city and state don't get around to trying something other then expanding the interstates, but from the looks of it they're not willing to do anything else. Opals25 fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Apr 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Why is the state trying to block it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 07:47
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Opals25 posted:So I saw something I'm curious about this evening. On the way home tonight they were doing some work on the interstate removing the lines between the HOV lanes and the regular lanes and repainting new bigger lines to better delineate the HOV lane. However, at the front of the small pack of vehicles was this little thing with a giant gently caress-off green laser on it aiming at the road. What was that thing doing? The best I could guess was it was using the heat from the laser to heat up and eventually strip the old paint? It was just sort of crazy looking, and now I really want to know what it was doing. It seems like shining a powerful laser at retroreflective markings would be a Bad Idea, especially green lasers, which have a reputation for blinding folks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
I think I've mentioned in here before that I have an unhealthy fascination with road safety adverts. New one from the TAC in Victoria, Australia is pretty great, about driving while tired. The TAC stopped using shock tactics for ages and now seem to be going back to them. This is a great commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp9h-0N5MK8
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
I'd guess the laser was something like this: http://msfoster.com/products/laserline/guidance-lasers-gl3000pm/ It puts a spot on the road so the line painting truck driver knows they are lined up right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
Oh man, somehow one of the contractors working on (parts of) the €4.2b freeway expansion here has got some bomb-rear end artwork lying around:
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Why is the state trying to block it? Probably because of Koch Brothers money. The general anti-BRT groups seem to be your usual groups of NIMBY and Small Government types. Otherwise, I don't know why the state is so concerned with local politics beyond "conservatives" smackfu posted:I'd guess the laser was something like this: Oh that looks like it could be it. It seemed super bright, so I wasn't sure if it was just for guidance or something more, but it was also dark and dusty so it might have just looked bigger and brighter then it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
exo posted:The other advantage of the Australian indicators is that they have embossed arrows to indicate direction of travel for the blind, and haptic feedback for the deaf on when to cross. Next time you're at one put your fingers on the front of the top circle - there's a mechanically actuated striker behind the plate that taps in-time with the tone.  It not only indicates the direction of the crossing, it also has tactile information about the layout of the road you're crossing. Plus the stuff you mentioned. Swedish accessibility laws. They kind of rule. Edit: I think that reads as you'll cross (read this from the bottom up): car lane from right car lane from right tram tracks from right (I could be wrong here) island car lane from left car lane from left bike lane (bidirectional) Hippie Hedgehog fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Apr 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Why is the state trying to block it? Because "we don't want the government telling us how to live our lives. That's why we're going to the state government to pass laws to restrict things! Because we're small government"
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
thehustler posted:I think I've mentioned in here before that I have an unhealthy fascination with road safety adverts. "10km less" TAC Speed TV ad 1997: http://youtu.be/q9fms5He5bM The crew ate the pizza during the many takes with the dummy, no pizza left to go in the boxes of the final 'full speed' take used. Of course most new campaigns have 30 second versions, the TAC channel has a bunch of the longer 'supercut' ads. Although many are listed as private for some reason, just search 'TAC ad' on youtube and a bunch if the missing ones will show up. "SWAP" TAC Drug Drive Ad: http://youtu.be/n4X2lbxc5O4
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
That's cool drunkill. And yeah the long ones (they used to be 2 minutes!) are always ace. I remember emailing the academic in that "5 k's less" ad where he explains what going 5 kms less would do, and the cars crashing into the truck. Told me it was all real and the driver was a pro stuntman. Kick rear end. And everyone said "but he didn't crash front on, he'd be fine!" forgetting that if he didn't he'd probably die while filming it. And 10k less is legendary! You see just the impact on YouTube as "lol funny pizza accident" I had an internal TAC video up once on my YouTube channel. Found it on a website. They messaged me from that TAC account to take it down. Very nicely, mind. http://www.youtube.com/user/wuzzlevideos I have a bunch of other videos from around the world on there. Ignore my other shite (unless you like material so bad I'd never be able to post in the cinematography/post prod threads in CC again) thehustler fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Apr 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Opals25 posted:Probably because of Koch Brothers money. The general anti-BRT groups seem to be your usual groups of NIMBY and Small Government types. Otherwise, I don't know why the state is so concerned with local politics beyond "conservatives" That sucks. Seems like a neat project. Cities just need to start that first well done BRT line to show that it works and it doesn't cause carmageddon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
God drat, the objection of those opposed to the project literally is "don't spend tax dollars in counties that aren't the one where I live."
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:God drat, the objection of those opposed to the project literally is "don't spend tax dollars in counties that aren't the one where I live." But not TOO close to where I live. I don't want a road in my back yard! And in unrelated matters, what's a "Master Plan for Transportation" and why should I care?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Devor posted:But not TOO close to where I live. I don't want a road in my back yard! They are over-arching strategic plans for how the city should develop. They involve everything from infrastructure development to zoning. A city with a good master plan will have an obvious transit grid in mind, even if not all of the parts are built or at the same level of development. This means stuff like preventing houses from being built right at the end of a main street, because in 40 years the town might expand and want to continue that road. Another example is when roads go around fields, parks and forest land they often will still be gridded correctly for if and when the area is developed. They're great for creating a cohesive and manageable system, but every city has a few activists who hate it because it differs from what they want to do. I remember going to an environmental advocacy conference and there was this Texas speaker who hated the one in her city, and kept referring to it as the "Yes Master" Plan. On the other hand, she kept decrying the lack of commercial/residential zoning and complaining about all the industrial plants that were allowed to stay in her neighborhood. I just wanted to stand up and be like, "Lady, what the heck do you think the plan was for? Don't build houses in an industrial zone and then complain about the Master Plan not supporting that." Kaal fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Apr 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Devor posted:
It is a wishlist of projects and goals that your area wants built over the next 20 or so years. Some of them are big awesome plans in the same way I have big awesome plans for after I win the lottery. Many projects will never get built because the money won't be there. It is the result of a process that involves getting local governments, transit agencies, special interest groups and others in the metro area to come together and rank what projects are the most important given the amount of money they have. Take a close look at the “financially constrained” Transportation Improvement Program scenario because that is most likely what will happen. Some aspects of the plan require governments to change policy like zoning code, which might not happen or get watered down by the political pressure. Going to public meetings about these plans are neat. It is a chance to sniff out "bridge to nowhere" type things and check out how they collect data for their traffic computer models. The planning part is the light blue and green bits of this "easy to understand" flow-chart. It is for New York but your state or city process is probably something similar.  If there is a project you like and want to see built, try to find a group that wants to lobby for the money to get it built.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Sovy Kurosei posted:I guess there is a lot of traffic from the A13 that needs to go down Canvey Way so they built a two-way roundabout. Now there is just a small double back from A13 to Canvey Way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
peepeepants posted:That sucks. Seems like a neat project. Cities just need to start that first well done BRT line to show that it works and it doesn't cause carmageddon. Multiple cities already have though, New York, LA, and Portland all have BRT that worked tremendously well. The opposition is against any form of transit, irrespective of mode, for it challenges both the status quo and the supremacy of cars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Multiple cities already have though, New York, LA, and Portland all have BRT that worked tremendously well. The opposition is against any form of transit, irrespective of mode, for it challenges both the status quo and the supremacy of cars. Portland doesn't have BRT...
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Multiple cities already have though, New York, LA, and Portland all have BRT that worked tremendously well. The opposition is against any form of transit, irrespective of mode, for it challenges both the status quo and the supremacy of cars. One of the largest contributors against the project is an owner of a chain of car dealerships in the area. Tennessee also has a pretty big automobile manufacturing industry, though I don't really know if those companies played a role at all directly, it could at least influence the mindset of public officials.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Portland doesn't have BRT... Argh, your right. Ok, Eugene, Oregon does have BRT, though I somehow thought that Cleveland's Healthline BRT was in Portland for some reason. Opals25 posted:One of the largest contributors against the project is an owner of a chain of car dealerships in the area. Tennessee also has a pretty big automobile manufacturing industry, though I don't really know if those companies played a role at all directly, it could at least influence the mindset of public officials.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
The yellow line extension was an integral part of the project, not something that could have been added later. Clark County Republicans had no real issue with the highway bridge itself*, only with the transit expansion, which is why they're trying to revive the bridge sans light rail. *: Some of them attacked the proposed bridge's height and its need for taking property on Hayden Island in Oregon, but it was all pretty transparent. You can tell because they're the exact same people who are calling for a transit-free bridge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
The level of emotional politics behind republicans growing hate for transit is nearing abortion or gun control levels of invested emotion. I recently read some letter to the editor comparing transit to communism and tyranny. You see in a PERSONAL VEHICLE you own it, you control it, you have freedom of movement. Transit is the government telling you where you can go and forcing you to rely on government to get around rather than your own private property. Also I guess roads are totally free and divorced of any government dependence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 19:59
|
|