|
Think you guys might be interested in this article about the scale of road sprawl, where The article has links to other more thorough ones, but if you just want to see the photo here it is.  Edit: As explained in posts below, its not at all acurate. Communist Zombie fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Jun 15, 2014 |
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Think you guys might be interested in this article about the scale of road sprawl, where the entire city fo Florence could fit inside an Atlanta interchange. Though I feel they were a bit generous with land on the interchange, its still quite shocking. Calling it the entire city is a bit deceptive, because Florence proper is only about 320,000 people, and the urban area sprawls out to the sides with an additional million or so people over much more land. You could fit Manhattan into the same land area, incidentally, and that'd get you a full 1.6 million people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
That's not the entire city of Florence, it is one of the boroughs though and contains about 67,000 people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Digital War posted:That's not the entire city of Florence, it is one of the boroughs though and contains about 67,000 people. Well in that case it's an even sillier comparison, because that's even less land and Atlanta's certainly big enough to have room for interchanges like that while still having a downtown.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Looks like I'll be designing a diverging diamond interchange or two for Hartford. And to anyone who thinks DDIs are a bold new thing in the US, keep in mind that Rhode Island has been rocking one for decades. I drive those ramps weekly!
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Sorry for quoting such and old post! I'm trying to read this thread from the OP to the end and I'm sure I'll catch up in a few Cichlidae posted:
With the proliferation of smart phones with apps like Waze, Google Maps, and even local DOT apps, and traffic analyzing companies like Inrix, would you say that this future is finally here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
I would say, anecdotally, in socal at least, yes. See the SNL sketch the Californians. Seriously though, we here are all adept at whipping out our smartphone and finding some insane route to try to avoid the stupid traffic jam that is socal freeways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Question for you Cichlidae. How would you improve this exit? Looking at the terrain view I guess they are going to try and build some C/D road to reduce the weaving on the eastbound side(heading N for this bit) but I'm curious as to what could be done to improve the geometry of the different ramps given the rather limited area to work with. They are also constrained by the inability to simply close the ramps and rebuild from scratch since there simply isn't enough capacity in the area to make a plan like that work either. https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1018781,-89.8683706,16z This section of I-240 is in the process of being widened to 4 lanes in each direction and sees over 200k vehicles per day according to a press release from TDOT when they first started the project. Similarly to the north they are rebuilding the I-40/I-240 (projected traffic over 350k vehicles per day by 2035) interchange to handle the increased volume.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
nm posted:I would say, anecdotally, in socal at least, yes. See the SNL sketch the Californians. Some navigation software does this automatically. On TomTom if you have HD traffic enabled and you initially selected some route that has become congested it will pop up a message "Faster route available, switch?" and route you around all congestion. Works really well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
The current version of Google Maps for Android integrates Waze features more directly, such that if traffic is detected it will start putting up alternative routes as you drive with "5 minutes slower" or "10 minutes faster" over places you can potentially hit an alternate route.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The current version of Google Maps for Android integrates Waze features more directly, such that if traffic is detected it will start putting up alternative routes as you drive with "5 minutes slower" or "10 minutes faster" over places you can potentially hit an alternate route. Does maps for android plot routes different from the Desktop/non-app version of google maps? The route planning on the desktop version doesn't seem very intelligent and often has terrible suggestions (at least for me, it suggests me to take routes where i know there will be congestion when a good alternative is available).
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Does maps for android plot routes different from the Desktop/non-app version of google maps? The route planning on the desktop version doesn't seem very intelligent and often has terrible suggestions (at least for me, it suggests me to take routes where i know there will be congestion when a good alternative is available). It does for me, at least in the US. If the Waze app on its own gets you better routes right now, then Google Maps should get you better routes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The current version of Google Maps for Android integrates Waze features more directly, such that if traffic is detected it will start putting up alternative routes as you drive with "5 minutes slower" or "10 minutes faster" over places you can potentially hit an alternate route. Yes, it's neat, but I don't quite get how they expect you to use it. It seems like you have to actually look at the screen for the tiny labels as you come up to an intersection or highway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Yes, it's neat, but I don't quite get how they expect you to use it. It seems like you have to actually look at the screen for the tiny labels as you come up to an intersection or highway. The one time Waze has done that for me, the voice says that it's calculated a new route due to traffic, and gives you a button on the screen to push to switch to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Yes, it's neat, but I don't quite get how they expect you to use it. It seems like you have to actually look at the screen for the tiny labels as you come up to an intersection or highway. On my phone they're fairly large labels, and you can also manually tap the alternate route button for it to zoom out and give clear labels of all the alternate routes. These aren't the best examples because I'm not actually in the car, but:   (my phone's screen is 5 inches though, and one of the reasons I chose it is that it's a good size for navigation in the car)
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:The one time Waze has done that for me, the voice says that it's calculated a new route due to traffic, and gives you a button on the screen to push to switch to it. Yeah, I like that better. Google Maps (on iOS too) does it like Nintendo Kid's post shows, and if you don't happen to see the label as you are driving, it's easy to miss. I also don't know why you would want to choose a route that's slower, but it shows that the same as one that is faster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Yeah, I like that better. Google Maps (on iOS too) does it like Nintendo Kid's post shows, and if you don't happen to see the label as you are driving, it's easy to miss. I also don't know why you would want to choose a route that's slower, but it shows that the same as one that is faster. It adjusts the distance and time you'll see the notification depending on how fast you're driving and other such things. It's generally set up so you'll be able to see the alternate route and its associated slowdown or speedup for at least a minute before you'd have to take the exit or reach the intersection to switch routes. Also it'll show slower routes because you might have separate knowledge from a radio traffic report or whatever that tells you of delays before the information shows up on their data, so if say you hear on the radio that the route you were planning just had a whole mile of it shut down and there's going be a heavy delay before its open again, you might decide to take the route that's 8 minutes slower than what it's currently reporting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Pyro_Fox posted:With the proliferation of smart phones with apps like Waze, Google Maps, and even local DOT apps, and traffic analyzing companies like Inrix, would you say that this future is finally here? People tend to disregard advice, even if they know it's best, but I think that's changing. People seem to trust electronic map services a hell of a lot more than they did five years ago! Remember the Mapquest jokes? Even then, though, we're still moving toward user-optimal, not system-optimal. It'd take a big concerted effort (something Google, for example, is poised to do) in order to go that one step further. I'm not sure if anyone at Google is up to that challenge (hire me please!), but it'd make for TREMENDOUSLY good press. "We saved the average user $60 in gas last year and avoided 500 million grams of CO2 emissions!" Enzenx posted:Question for you Cichlidae. How would you improve this exit? Looking at the terrain view I guess they are going to try and build some C/D road to reduce the weaving on the eastbound side(heading N for this bit) but I'm curious as to what could be done to improve the geometry of the different ramps given the rather limited area to work with. They are also constrained by the inability to simply close the ramps and rebuild from scratch since there simply isn't enough capacity in the area to make a plan like that work either. I'd probably go with the C/D road. That's a high-volume interchange for sure, and the site constraints severely limit what they could do. You'd be hard-pressed to maintain full access (especially during construction!) with anything more than spot improvements. ----- There is a big public workshop tomorrow for the I-84 project, so it's going to be a long night for me. I'm really hoping my favorite local personality shows up. I mentioned him earlier in this thread (though not by name). You know, the mast arm guy. Well, I was wondering what he thought of the project, and thankfully he's already offered his opinion: http://urbancompass.net/?p=1419
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
 Got my signage and road stripes in! The sizes are exact to scale based on a BC road markings and sign guide. The road stripes were done by hand but I think they turned out ok. Let me know if I've created some sort of horrible death-trap. Dime for scale. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
That railway bridge looks terribly unsafe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 02:12
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Cichlidae posted:People tend to disregard advice, even if they know it's best, but I think that's changing. People seem to trust electronic map services a hell of a lot more than they did five years ago! Remember the Mapquest jokes? Even then, though, we're still moving toward user-optimal, not system-optimal. It'd take a big concerted effort (something Google, for example, is poised to do) in order to go that one step further. I'm not sure if anyone at Google is up to that challenge (hire me please!), but it'd make for TREMENDOUSLY good press. "We saved the average user $60 in gas last year and avoided 500 million grams of CO2 emissions!" You know that Google is actively working on self-driving vehicles, right? Also, while you're not the type of network engineer Google typically looks for, I'm sure you could take a look at some of the Google X jobs and see if you fit anywhere. Volmarias fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:
Your yellow paint is a bit greenish. Here are some colors to go by:  Contrary to what you might think, those aren't yellow and orange; they're fluorescent yellow-green and yellow. Our yellow is actually pretty orangey, and our orange is basically red. And our red is more red. Reddest. Volmarias posted:You know that Google is actively working on self-driving vehicles, right? Self-driving cars won't make things system-optimal unless they make up the vast majority of traffic on the road. As for their jobs website, there's nothing about traffic engineering; I check periodically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:
Your markings don't look quite to scale from the BC manual: 7.4.2 Crosshatch Pavement Markings in Median Areas (Figure 7.7) Crosshatch markings are to be yellow, spaced at 10.0 m centre to centre and at slope of 2:1 to the direction of travel. All crosshatch markings are 600 mm wide. And the center line should be a double yellow line 7.2.4 Double Lines A double line, consisting of two solid yellow lines, delineates the separation of traffic in opposite directions and prohibits passing for both directions You used the right W-54 Object Marker sign! But your positioning is off: W-54 L & R signs should be positioned with the inside edge of the marker in line with the inside edge of the object. Similarly, your placement for the R-14R sign is off: If required on an underpass pier, the KEEP RIGHT sign should be mounted on, or immediately in advance of, the approach face of the median pier with the inside edge of the R-14 flush with the inside edge of the obstruction. But these are all just to be nitpicky. If you want that "late-60's railroad chic" then you should probably add a random Yield sign for no reason, and throw some beat up precast concrete traffic barrier in there too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Oh man guys that's some good nit-picking. I made the road lines double and I moved the stripe signs to the inside faces. Other than that though there's not much I can do. My colours are limited by the yellow of my pen (good gel pens in yellow and white are hard to come by) and all my signs are downloaded directly from the traffic manual and printed out. I guess they don't use the exact right shades but to my (crappy colour blind) eyes they look pretty close. I'd love to get actual reflective scale signs but no one makes them and the little reflective 'cells' or what ever would be grossly over-sized at 1:160 even if I some how was able to print on the same material  Can't do anything about my stripes on the road surface now though. I don't have that batch of gray paint anymore so I'd end up having to re-paint half the road. Not everything in real life always matches the manual though. Maybe the city got over-zelous with the striping to draw extra attention to the pier. All for an area that's going to be mostly hidden by a bridge and buildings. You'd be surprised though at the amount of people in this hobby that will put months of research into the exact type of headlamp on their restored steam engine for their winter 1978 layout, or pay a fortune to buy a custom brass signal electronics shed that exactly matches the one they want, then put absolutely no attention into their road geometry let alone striping and signs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:then put absolutely no attention into their road geometry let alone striping and signs. Just like real engineers!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:
It looks pretty awesome! I'd look into adding a bridge height warning once you finish the track trestle. Anything under five meters will need one, and it looks to me like that bridge would be a tight fit for a semi-truck; and maybe add a "Slow" sign (both were in the King St. Google Map - as well as a yellow warning light above the "Keep Right" sign). Depending on the era/region that you're representing, I'd also think it'd be fun to add a little bit of graffiti on the support beams. Kaal fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
It's juuuust over the minimum clearance that you need a height warning on (31mm vs my 35). I wanted to have one I have a lower bridge further down that will have one though. Also, need an actual bridge and not just piers and loose track.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It's juuuust over the minimum clearance that you need a height warning on (31mm vs my 35). I wanted to have one I made a couple bridges for a model train set a couple years back, and I can't help but imagine how much easier it'd be with a 3D printer. Balsa is just too much of a pain in the rear end to work with. What do you use for yours?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Self-driving cars won't make things system-optimal unless they make up the vast majority of traffic on the road. What makes you think that they won't? I'd make the prediction that within 15 years of a viable self driving car being commercially available, the majority of cars sold will be self driving, and not long after that we'll see regulation restricting car sales to vehicles that are primarily autonomous. The benefits of taking drivers out of the equation are just too massive to ignore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I made a couple bridges for a model train set a couple years back, and I can't help but imagine how much easier it'd be with a 3D printer. Balsa is just too much of a pain in the rear end to work with. What do you use for yours? Mostly a laser cutter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
FYI, Steam has Cities in Motion 2 on sale for $5 right now. I know several people here have it and I've heard good things, excited to try it out later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Is there any kind of regulation on the length of solid lane lines prior to a stoplight, IE: is it variable per the prevailing speed limit and/or length of the yellow signal, or does the road crew just eyeball it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Is there any kind of regulation on the length of solid lane lines prior to a stoplight, IE: is it variable per the prevailing speed limit and/or length of the yellow signal, or does the road crew just eyeball it? In Connecticut, it's fifty feet, but your mileage may vary in other states.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Our public meeting last night went well. http://www.wfsb.com/story/25803789/state-dot-hears-comments-on-changes-to-i-84 That article comes with a video that features the simulation I made. Everyone seemed to like it!
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
One last bump now that the forums are back up: how incompetent is Congress right now? Typically, the FHWA is funded a few years at a time, which isn't perfect (since we plan for 20+ years out), but it gives the government a chance to revise things once in a while. Engineers like nice long-term plans, and knowing ahead of time what to expect, so funding certainty is a must. Well, as you probably all know, the latest act only authorized about a year's worth of work, and now the FHWA has to draw from its own coffers (the highway trust fund) to keep projects going. In a couple months, that'll run dry, which means an end to all federal funding on projects. Of course, this is a BIG DEAL, and the states are already suspending or canceling projects because of it. In an infrastructure-starved economy, this has some huge knock-on effects as contractors are laid off, critical repairs and improvements are put on hold, and would-be engineers choosing another line of work because jobs are hard to find. Congress wants to fix it, right? Ehhhh, not so much. The latest proposal calls for an extension of just a few months, and everyone's afraid to touch the gas tax (which hasn't been changed since 1993). Now more than ever, I wish engineers ran things, not politicians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:One last bump now that the forums are back up: how incompetent is Congress right now? Typically, the FHWA is funded a few years at a time, which isn't perfect (since we plan for 20+ years out), but it gives the government a chance to revise things once in a while. Engineers like nice long-term plans, and knowing ahead of time what to expect, so funding certainty is a must. Well, as you probably all know, the latest act only authorized about a year's worth of work, and now the FHWA has to draw from its own coffers (the highway trust fund) to keep projects going. In a couple months, that'll run dry, which means an end to all federal funding on projects. There is actually a bipartisan proposal to increase the gas tax by 12 cents a gallon: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=323300534 Incidentally, I didn't realize that diesel was taxed higher than gasoline (18.4 cents vs 24.4 cents per gallon). Anyone know the reasoning behind that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Well if it's tied to road funding, I would guess it's because the largest consumers of diesel are semi-trucks. I'm pretty sure the trucking industry puts the greatest burden on our roads in terms of wear, so I imagine that's probably why.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Yep, there's some history. http://www.businessinsider.com/why-diesel-costs-more-than-gasoline-2013-10 The higher diesel tax was a compromise, instead of raising the taxes on heavy trucks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Maybe if they could actually accurately project demand rather than just always say the sky is falling and we need 50 trillion in new highways people would trust engineers better for long term projects that aren't just funding grabs or self-fulling car-obsessed prophesies. http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/12/17/study-transpo-agencies-are-terrible-at-predicting-traffic-levels/ http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/7/23/the-projections-fallacy.html#.U6xBaC8oPEU
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
smackfu posted:Yep, there's some history. Ah, great article, thanks. It would be great if this new proposal brought gasoline and diesel taxes closer to parity, but I'll take any positive action to fund the highway trust fund.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:48
|
|