|
Honestly, it feels like some of the roads in Chicago are currently devoid of any government support.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
I'm sorry that Kaal and peepeepants made effortposts in relation to my joke. I'll throw in an ironicat next time. Was just pointing out that the NIMBY people don't become bashful just because the road they're bitching about has been in the Master Plan for 40 years. quote:You're going to ruin my children's quiet enjoyment of that 100'-wide strip of forest! The forest with the sign in front of it that reads "XXX Road Right of Way, For More Information Call ###-####"!
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted: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. It is so stupid too. I am a car guy. I own 2 cars for one person (very wasteful). If I could take transit to my work, I would, but I live in the IE. I like driving, not commuting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
nm posted:It is so stupid too. I am a car guy. I own 2 cars for one person (very wasteful). If I could take transit to my work, I would, but I live in the IE. I like driving, not commuting. And the damned thing is, more transit means less middle managers in kia's so the roads are freed up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
I think they think it will be "forced" on them. The government will take their car away and give them a transit pass and their local walmart will be replaced with an open-air heirloom breed vegetable market. I've argued with people like this before. Even if you don't have any wish to ever take transit, having more of it in your area will free up the roads more for people who do like to drive, while taking people who hate driving but do it because they have to off the road. You expand the highway and developers are just able to sell houses farther and farther out of town and traffic stays just as bad. Mostly it's just been added to the package of "culture war". That and class issues. Transit is for poors and scary minorities. I'm against spending money on those people and I most certainly don't want them to have an easier time getting to my house. Car-dependent development has worked well to segregate race and class and a lot of people want to keep it that way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Honestly, it feels like some of the roads in Chicago are currently devoid of any government support. What, you don't like the annual pothole slalom?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I think they think it will be "forced" on them. One of my coworkers at the DOT had very rich parents and bragged about how he'd never in his life had to ride a bus, even to school. As someone who has probably spent a full month combined on buses or trains, I was absolutely dumbfounded. Some people just don't understand how critical mass transit is to low-income groups. Either that, or they just want to save a few cents. It really is criminal we don't have free mass transit around here. Most of our bus lines are 50-90% subsidized; why not make it 100% and vastly improve quality of life?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Koesj posted:It depends on what country you're talking about. You wouldn't happen to have a copy of Historische atlas van de stad Groningen, would you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:One of my coworkers at the DOT had very rich parents and bragged about how he'd never in his life had to ride a bus, even to school. As someone who has probably spent a full month combined on buses or trains, I was absolutely dumbfounded. Some people just don't understand how critical mass transit is to low-income groups. Either that, or they just want to save a few cents. It really is criminal we don't have free mass transit around here. Most of our bus lines are 50-90% subsidized; why not make it 100% and vastly improve quality of life? The city of Tallinn, Estonia did just that and found that it made people walk and bike less, but didn't really influence car use much. Their public transit agency could also use the lost revenue. Most of Tallinn's mass transit fleet is old as balls and the tram lines are in terrible shape. I was there on a recreation trip with the rail department of our company and we watched with amazement as a tram rolled down a line section where half of the ballast had eroded and the tram swung from side to side as the unsupported rail bent under the weight of the tram. I can understand why many people don't use the trams despite them being free.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Jasper Tin Neck posted:The city of Tallinn, Estonia did just that and found that it made people walk and bike less, but didn't really influence car use much. Their public transit agency could also use the lost revenue. Most of Tallinn's mass transit fleet is old as balls and the tram lines are in terrible shape. The studies that I've read have pointed to the quality of the service as being the most significant impact on transit demand elasticity, which probably had a significant impact on the Tallinn statistics. When my town of Corvallis implemented full fareless transit in 2011, it yielded an estimated 10% increase in ridership (technically there was a 40% increase in the first year, but much of that may be attributed to other factors) and paid for it via a ~$3 transit fee levied per household. But a big part of that is the fact that the buses work well, are clean, and run on time. And that was in a city where more than half of the riders were students and weren't paying fares in the first place. Other cities have yielded ridership increases of 20% - 30% due to going fareless. Now of course some of those riders would be otherwise bicycling or walking, but I haven't seen any statistics indicating that Corvallis has seen a significant drop in usage. Corvallis has some of the highest per capita bicycle usage in the United States. Anecdotally, I know that many cyclists have been using the bus bike racks for hybrid transportation - biking down into the university/downtown area, and then riding the bus back up to their houses in the hills. It's a good way of extending the distance that people are willing to commute via bicycle. http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/44908 http://www.corvallisoregon.gov/index.aspx?page=175 Kaal fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Groda posted:You wouldn't happen to have a copy of Historische atlas van de stad Groningen, would you? Sure I do, I used it to prepare a tour of the city for some folks just yesterday 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I think they think it will be "forced" on them. The government will take their car away and give them a transit pass and their local walmart will be replaced with an open-air heirloom breed vegetable market. I've argued with people like this before. Even if you don't have any wish to ever take transit, having more of it in your area will free up the roads more for people who do like to drive, while taking people who hate driving but do it because they have to off the road. You expand the highway and developers are just able to sell houses farther and farther out of town and traffic stays just as bad. I've heard the phrase "loot rail" used to oppose developments. The idea that a  city dweller could now take the train to their house in the suburbs and break in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
That concept is at least as old as MARTA.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
chmods please posted:I've heard the phrase "loot rail" used to oppose developments. The idea that a There was opposition to bringing the Purple Line light rail in Maryland through College Park (Univ of MD) for this reason. Thank god sanity won out, and there'll be a stop on campus. Make sure to avoid major trip generators with transit! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
chmods please posted:I've heard the phrase "loot rail" used to oppose developments. The idea that a This exact argument was used in my town when the NJ River Line was being proposed. That said, seeing as how both ends of the line (Trenton and  Camden ) are decayed husks of industrial towns, I can see the appeal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
chmods please posted:I've heard the phrase "loot rail" used to oppose developments. The idea that a The best part is when they turn around and say that the line wouldn't be good for burglars to use in a getaway, because it's too slow. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Sure I do, I used it to prepare a tour of the city for some folks just yesterday I want this tour. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:The best part is when they turn around and say that the line wouldn't be good for burglars to use in a getaway, because it's too slow. Are you saying that being on a Light Rail train with video cameras is where you would want to be after committing a burglary?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Devor posted:Make sure to avoid major trip generators with transit! That's the mission statement for Miami-Dade Public Transit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Devor posted:Make sure to avoid major trip generators with transit! Here in Minneapolis we're spending 1.6 billion dollars to build the green line on the left, because the blue line on the right is... something. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:This exact argument was used in my town when the NJ River Line was being proposed. That said, seeing as how both ends of the line (Trenton and There was a lady along the River Line who opposed it before it opened because her children played on the tracks and it would make doing so more dangerous. Because apparently the freights that used to travel the line several times a day throughout the day (instead of just between 10pm and 6 am now) were "safe" to play on the tracks with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Here in Minneapolis we're spending 1.6 billion dollars to build the green line on the left, because the blue line on the right is... something. So, the blue line already exists, and green is proposed? Doesn't seem so bad. That $1.6B probably includes a lot of federal matching funds. And if the green line gets built, it enables more and denser development near the stations. More trains for the train throne, more transit for the transit god  Fake edit: And since it's light rail (means it has crossings with other traffic), I imagine that blue route gets hosed when there's traffic. Green route follows an existing rail route, so you'll have a much faster route for through travelers, making the route north and south of these limits much more attractive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
I think he means that the blue route is not built, and is not getting built, because of Volmarias fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I think he means that the blue route is not built, and is not getting built, because of Oh, I see! Here's a good map http://www.startribune.com/newsgraphics/186373231.html I'm going to have to side with the planners because they always know what's best.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Yeah, neither of those colored lines exist. It's a choice between those two routes to get the line out to the suburbs. Bonus points, the green line goes through an area that has freight rail and a bike path, and because reasons, we're going to build a tunnel for the light rail to go in. E: Blue line would have been tunneled from Hennepin to 28th, and from 28th to West Lake we have an old freight ROW, so it would actually be exclusive ROW. But the tunnels were too expensive, so we're building through a park where... we have to tunnel. FISHMANPET fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Here in Minneapolis we're spending 1.6 billion dollars to build the green line on the left, because the blue line on the right is... something. If it's on surface streets, the blue line would probably work better as a streetcar route or as a hybrid. It could serve as a feeder line for the line they're putting in now, and would serve already-established districts instead of waiting for transit-oriented development to spring up. fake edit: Oh, it follows a freeway, and the Star Tribune is listing it as BRT instead of light rail. They've also rerouted it away from Uptown. Wonderful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
The orange line is a separate Freeway BRT project from the Southwest Corridor. There were two routes through the city that came out on top of the Alternatives Analaysis, 3A (the green line to the west) and 3C (the blue line to the east). The 3A line was going to be about 1.1 billion, the 3C line was going to be about 1.6 billion. Because the route was chosen under Bush era requirements that prioritized shortening commutes of new transit riders over improving commutes of existing transit users. Anyway, we chose 3A, which happens to go through the Democratic majority's wealthiest neighborhoods, and they objected to change. There was a 10 or 15 year old plan to move freight rail out of the 3A corridor, but apparently it was never workable, so now we have to fit the freight, light rail, and bike trail in a constrained space. "Bikers" didn't want the bike trail moved or elevated in the choke points, so we're building a shallow tunnel that puts the light rail underground, bringing the total cost to around 1.6-1.8 billion dollars. As a policy aid to the mayor said, “There are folks who are extraordinarily invested in validating the process that has brought us to this point.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
So, instead of building small bridges for the bicycles, they're building tunnels, for the godamned trains?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:So, instead of building small bridges for the bicycles, they're building tunnels, for the godamned trains? I think the bigger issue is the freight rail. Railroads are not reasonable to work with, ever, in any way. Most of the articles mention that the alignment was predicated on re-routing the freight rail through St Louis, but that got spiked by St Louis and the railroad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Varance posted:"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire Man, seriously. Story of my career.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Man, seriously. Story of my career. Varance fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
One day bridge replacement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OffbHNspHQ Those are some fancy looking bridge moving trucks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
mamosodiumku posted:One day bridge replacement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OffbHNspHQ Why don't we do this sort of thing more often in the US? There's a bridge replacement on I-40 here in Oklahoma that's been under construction for months.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Why don't we do this sort of thing more often in the US? That question is kind of like asking "why don't we have NASCAR pit crews to change everyone's tires at Sears to speed things up". It's really neat and amazing how fast they can do it, but it costs a lot of money, and its primary benefit is that you don't have as much impact to traffic on the road in question. In most cases that's not necessary, because you can phase bridge work so that the road can stay open and not pay $Texas. As for a bridge that's been under construction for months, they are probably rehabbing an existing bridge which costs MUCH less than completely replacing it. It's very labor intensive, however, so would not be surprising that it could be under construction for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
Varance posted:Ever since I got into transit, I've had to teach myself how to nudge instead of push. Baby steps, because anything else is too scary for Joe Average or too uncomfortable for Joe Politician. Transit, man. In Vancouver we have the busiest bus corridor in North America, but the amount of opposition that's come up to building an LRT or underground alternative is so depressing. http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and-Projects/Rapid-Transit-Projects/UBC-Line-Rapid-Transit-Study.aspx And by busiest I mean that during rush hour there are articulated buses packed to capacity running as fast as they can load, and that's still not enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Why don't we do this sort of thing more often in the US? Because it costs more and nobody has an incentive to pay for the time you lose taking a detour. Railway construction around here is all about minimizing downtime, because the infrastructure manager has to pay the operators a massive refund every time a train has to be cancelled due to maintenance. With road, nobody really cares, because the road user can at most write an angry letter to their representative.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
 Can any of you folks think of a good way to show LOS or speed along a 3-mile corridor with 4 freeways and ~100 ramps without it getting too confusing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 12:10
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Why don't we do this sort of thing more often in the US? When it makes sense, they do it, like the I-93 Fast 14 project in Massachusetts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RaikfAA5g8&t=255s That was weekends, not overnight, but still pretty fast. The general preference for larger bridges is to build one half of the new bridge alongside the existing bridge, then move half the lanes to it, then demolish those old lanes and build the other half of the new bridge. That way you never lose capacity, and can use most of the existing right-of-way... but it takes twice as long.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
Would a width mapping like Tufte's beloved Napoleonic Russian Campaign map work? If your problem is occlusion, you could try mapping it to a graph with edges for each road section, and then fiddling with different graph layouts. Cytoscape is free and would let you do that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 00:40
|
|