|
Sorry, that was a rather knee-jerk post. I'm just really tired from travelling non-stop for a week and I got frustrated from being stuck in traffic. There's a lot of badly planned developments here without any decent foresight. Multiple housing complexes with several dozen residences only accessible by a very narrow road that barely has enough space for an SUV, let alone allowing another to pass by. That road itself feeds into a slightly larger road that's absolutely jam-packed with cars. Further up there is a highway exit that feeds even more vehicles. The side of the road is completely built up with little stores without parking so people just stop on the side of the road to grab stuff... I guess it's like Flemish "lintbebouwing" pushed to the extreme so that feels like home. :P The seemingly only way to fix it is to eminent domain the gently caress out of everything and expand the roads and improve public transportation. In downtown Jakarta, they built a special bus way, which kinda functions like fixed track trams but probably much cheaper and flexible. Are there any successful stories of cities fixing their traffic infrastructure?
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
Fragrag posted:Are there any successful stories of cities fixing their traffic infrastructure? Well New York City's gotten some good results out of redesigning things, but that's with the ongoing acknowledgement that it's impossible to have really good traffic flow and with an excess of streets that can be used for rerouting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:Are there any successful stories of cities fixing their traffic infrastructure? Paris did an amazing job back in the 1850s. ----- ADTs across the US have gone up 2% in the last year as the economy is recovering. If it keeps going at this pace, or accelerates, we're in deep poo poo, because we're projecting 0.2% growth. Everyone loves growth - economic growth, population growth, productivity growth - but they don't realize that 'sustainable growth' is an oxymoron. My job would be a hell of a lot easier if everything were completely flat, and I'm not the only one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
I came to an intersection today that had a protected left turn and a sign saying "U-turns must yield to right turns". When I have encountered those intersections in the past, the right turn lane that would interfere with the U-turn has always had a dedicated turn lane, and a signal whose arrow went green at the same time as the protected left. This one, however, is mixed straight-right, and there is no green right turn arrow. Has somebody messed up, or is this a sign that there is an intersection redesign coming?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
So my local municipality repaved a 2 mile stretch of surface streets along my primary route to work when it really wasn't that bad. No potholes, maybe 5 year old asphalt with a few patches, no potholes or obvious signs of degradation (from a laymans perspective of course) While the new asphalt is nice to drive on, they completely fouled up the sensors and timers for the lights, and I'm stuck waiting half the time at red lights with mandatory 15-30 second left turn arrows when there's no traffic in any of the turn lanes. What used to be a 5 minute commute is now 15 since I manage to hit every red light and the light simply won't change over despite there being no cross traffic or anyone in the opposite turn lane! After 5-6 lights that 30 second to a whole minute delay per light adds up. Should I call the city and bitch about it or would I just be wasting my breath? Minarchist fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:I came to an intersection today that had a protected left turn and a sign saying "U-turns must yield to right turns". When I have encountered those intersections in the past, the right turn lane that would interfere with the U-turn has always had a dedicated turn lane, and a signal whose arrow went green at the same time as the protected left. It's much more likely that either there were too many right-on-U-turn accidents, or enough people bitched to get it installed. The sign's still relevant, even if the phasing doesn't make it necessary. Minarchist posted:So my local municipality repaved a 2 mile stretch of surface streets along my primary route to work when it really wasn't that bad. No potholes, maybe 5 year old asphalt with a few patches, no potholes or obvious signs of degradation (from a laymans perspective of course) Can't hurt to give them a call, though the answer is probably going to be, "we're aware and will get around to it." The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and when there are limited resources, speaking up can get you pushed much higher on the list of things to fix.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:I'm staying in suburban Jakarta at the moment and my god the traffic infrastructure is so awful. I don't mind the driving style that much, but there are so many cars and the roads simply can't handle the volume. We left my cousin's house and not even a mile away we end up in traffic and there's till roughly 30km to our destination. I'll think twice before cursing the traffic back home in Antwerp. (but I still will because we're still the second most congested city according to INRIX) At least if you get on the toll roads, it's not too bad. But yes, definitely the worst congestion I've ever had to travel in. Nearest I've ever been to missing a flight, too. I planned for only 3 hours to make the 30 km drive. Should have planned for 4 at that hour of day. Only made it because my crazy taxi driver used the BRT lane (yes, they have BRT, but no-one seems to use it) (no, I didn't ask him to) and took it upon himself to overtake people on the outside grass verge once we got out of town.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/09/so-what-exactly-is-a-road-diet/379975/ Article on why road diets are awesome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:At least if you get on the toll roads, it's not too bad. But yes, definitely the worst congestion I've ever had to travel in. I hope you tipped him well because my cousin told me that the fine for getting caught driving on the BRT is 1 million rupiah. I'm not sure how much a Jakarta taxi driver makes, but that's a decent chunk of pocket change. I bought boots here for 130 dollars and I cringed when my uncle told me that that's roughly what a convenience store worker makes in a month.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/09/so-what-exactly-is-a-road-diet/379975/ Okay, so a road diet is turning a four-lane road into a three lane one. In principle, three lanes are a good idea. As they say, there's less conflicts where collisions can happen and more room for cyclists. Fantastic. However, the article doesn't say how the middle lane is managed. If there's clear markings or even better, barriers that show where what side can use the middle lane, it's a fantastic idea. Any left-turn lanes fit in there, and when there aren't left turns for a while it can be used for short stretches where people can pass slow-moving vehicles at each side. That's how it's usually set up in West-European countries now. Some examples: In the Netherlands: A fast road with no intersections, so they placed this huge barrier. Of course you won't see this within cities.  In Germany: The most common system: the middle lane switching sides using clear road markings:  But if it's like the old Belgian/French three-lane system, I don't think it's such a good idea, and I'd prefer keeping the four lanes. In those roads, the middle lane wouldn't have markings or barriers at all except a left turn arrow every now and then. That means that at places without intersections, cars from BOTH SIDES could use the middle road at the same time to pass slow vehicles. This, of course, creates a whole new problem: a rather large chance for full-speed head-on collisions, which can cause much worse injuries than some of the accidents listed in the statistics in that article. Example: An old road in France. This type of road is not allowed at all in the Netherlands. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
While it's not as bad as the three-lane system in the undeveloping world, the usual barrier for Swedish 2+1 highways is the wire barrier, which looks incredibly dangerous for motorcyclists. Is this actually the case in practice?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
Groda posted:While it's not as bad as the three-lane system in the undeveloping world, the usual barrier for Swedish 2+1 highways is the wire barrier, which looks incredibly dangerous for motorcyclists. Is this actually the case in practice? Wire barriers will tend to act as a cheese cutter on anything that hits it at speed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Okay, so a road diet is turning a four-lane road into a three lane one. Er, I'm confused about what you're saying here. The middle lane is a universal turn lane, not a travel lane. It gets left turning vehicles out of the lane of travel so they can take their sweet time turning left without clogging up traffic behind them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Silver Falcon posted:Er, I'm confused about what you're saying here. The middle lane is a universal turn lane, not a travel lane. It gets left turning vehicles out of the lane of travel so they can take their sweet time turning left without clogging up traffic behind them. Agreed, I think that there's some confusion here. There are two kinds of three lane roads - one where the middle lane is a shared turning lane, and the other where it is an alternating passing lane. We've got both kinds in Oregon, and they're painted distinctly differently. You can't travel in the turning type, so while there is a potential for head-on collisions it's pretty limited. And in the passing type the lane switches back and forth and is clearly marked as being limited to one direction or another.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
I looked it up on Wikipedia and apparently the USA used to have the French type. It was officially known as a 'suicide lane'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:I looked it up on Wikipedia and apparently the USA used to have the French type. It was officially known as a 'suicide lane'. I bet it was, that sounds like a pretty risky idea. For the "road diet" concept, they're talking about the turning lane-type of three lane road. You can see in their lede photo that the lane is demarcated by solid yellow striping on both sides of the lane, with a repeating pair of dashed yellow lines inside of those. That means that both directions of traffic can get into the lane to stop and turn left, but they cannot travel more than 150 feet within that lane (doing so will get you a fine and potentially a reckless driving citation). This lane is apparently broadly known in the US as a "two-way left turn lane", or a "center turn lane". 
Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Sep 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Agreed, I think that there's some confusion here. There are two kinds of three lane roads - one where the middle lane is a shared turning lane, and the other where it is an alternating passing lane. We've got both kinds in Oregon, and they're painted distinctly differently. You can't travel in the turning type, so while there is a potential for head-on collisions it's pretty limited. And in the passing type the lane switches back and forth and is clearly marked as being limited to one direction or another.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Varance posted:In Florida, we refer to them as two/four lane enhanced roads (alternating left turns) and three/five lane roads (center left turn lane). Six/eight lane roads are either standard (unrestricted median openings) or limited-access (median openings are restricted to certain turn motions). Seven/nine lane roads with a center left turn lane are extremely frowned upon, but do exist (and are converted to six/eight whenever roads are rebuilt to FDOT standards). Hah, whoa those nine lane roads sound super intense. gently caress trying to make an unprotected turn on one of those. I don't think that we've got a single undivided six-lane road in the entire state of Oregon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Hah, whoa those nine lane roads sound super intense. gently caress trying to make an unprotected turn on one of those. I don't think that we've got a single undivided six-lane road in the entire state of Oregon. I'll have to dig up a few examples when I get off work tonight. You've definitely got the intense part right. We've got an 8-lane local road (12 including turn lanes) in my neck of the woods where FL SR60 meets I-75. Latest ADT count is 91,500, plus FDOT is lengthening the exit to said road... making it a 1.5 mile long two lane exit ramp. Before the previous redesign, guess what was in the middle? 
Varance fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Sep 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
I think the concept of a "road diet" isn't as narrow as "turn 4 lane roads into 3 lane roads" but more the general idea that very often by reducing the width of roads and putting that extra space towards pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure can greatly improve the street for everyone, even cars. Basically just a weight loss program for the amount of space relegated to cars to make the area healthier and more efficient and attractive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
In the Netherlands, a common example is turning rural roads with one lane in each direction (default 80km/h speed and no median, just a centerline) into a 60 km/h road with suggested bike lanes on each side (separated by lane markings) and no centerline. So from this to this
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Here ya go, 7 lane highway with a center left turn lane. Ironically, it's SR60, the same road with the insane traffic I was just talking about. AADT of 49,000. Have fun! Varance fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Varance posted:Here ya go, 7 lane highway with a center left turn lane. Ironically, it's SR60, the same road with the insane traffic I was just talking about. AADT of 49,000. I think that the unprotected school crossing is my favorite part of that debacle. "Hey kids just go walk across seven lanes of traffic, don't worry I'm sure all the cars will be able to see the school signs and stop for you!" edit: No wait I'm wrong, my favorite part is the Hooters that is right down the street from the elementary and high school. Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I think that the unprotected school crossing is my favorite part of that debacle. "Hey kids just go walk across seven lanes of traffic, don't worry I'm sure all the cars will be able to see the school signs and stop for you!" Varance fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Varance posted:That's the first Hooters ever opened, too. Just to the left is the first SPUI ever built. Vintage Hooters, you say? Now that must be something worth seeing. And a SPUI, like this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-point_urban_interchange edit: Oh they even talk about it in the wiki, cool!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I think that the unprotected school crossing is my favorite part of that debacle. "Hey kids just go walk across seven lanes of traffic, don't worry I'm sure all the cars will be able to see the school signs and stop for you!" Hey, pretty soon the ones that're left will know to look before crossing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
A few arterial streets in the Denver suburbs have this: 3 lanes with a single left turn lane each direction in the center. Although when a construction project has come up, most are being removed with medians and a left turn lane or lanes are installed at busier intersections. this is a few blocks further south along the same street: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
will_colorado posted:this is a few blocks further south along the same street: Most of our guys would prefer something that looks something like this. Given that there isn't enough room for something like that, most of our engineers would just give priority to whatever direction gets more traffic and make the other side U-turn if traffic/accident counts warrant reconstruction. Or if they're bad, one of these. Don't do it, accident rates went up quite a bit after installation. Varance fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
will_colorado posted:is a few blocks further south along the same street: Are you trying to point out the meridian, or the blue car attempting to drive over it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:I looked it up on Wikipedia and apparently the USA used to have the French type. It was officially known as a 'suicide lane'. Phoenix still has 'em  https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5259548,-112.082411,3a,75y,150.29h,80.2t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sGYBO_Kykn4-AOf_yYVFHPw!2e0 Better hope your clock is set right! In my experience, most people avoid the lane altogether +/- 10 minutes from the lane switchover.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
There's a 4 lane road I sometimes drive that has time-based parking restrictions so that during rush hours it's a 4 lane street but on sunday and after 6 you can park there, but only on certain blocks. It's confusing enough that most people just avoid the right-most lane because half the time some idiot is parked there at 5:30 anyways. But, it's a street that a lot of people turn left off, so if you take the left lane you get hosed by left-turners but if you take the right you get hosed by the chance of parked cars. I really really wish they'd just turn it into 2 lanes + turning lane and some bike lanes and totally get rid of the street parking. It's all houses with their own driveways and almost none of them even front onto the street, but the side streets instead. Even after 6 barely anyone parks there, it will be like 1-2 cars per block tops. But I know street parking is a sacred cow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:There's a 4 lane road I sometimes drive that has time-based parking restrictions so that during rush hours it's a 4 lane street but on sunday and after 6 you can park there, but only on certain blocks. It's confusing enough that most people just avoid the right-most lane because half the time some idiot is parked there at 5:30 anyways. But, it's a street that a lot of people turn left off, so if you take the left lane you get hosed by left-turners but if you take the right you get hosed by the chance of parked cars. I really really wish they'd just turn it into 2 lanes + turning lane and some bike lanes and totally get rid of the street parking. It's all houses with their own driveways and almost none of them even front onto the street, but the side streets instead. Even after 6 barely anyone parks there, it will be like 1-2 cars per block tops. My commute includes a 4-lane undivided roadway, with parking. Left turns waiting to turn block the left lane at almost every signalized intersection, frequent buses block the right lane. You have to loving slalom your way down the road. Sometimes a bus takes a long time and you only get 1-2 cars through on an entire cycle 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
We have a recently built transit/pedestrian mall with a new Light rail that runs through it. It's closed to vehicle traffic. Buses drive over the light rail tracks, and there's a roadway for bikes and emergency vehicles. Campus cops have been absolute dicks about people only crossing the street with a walk signal, despite that any person with half a brain and easily look both ways to see if there's either a giant gently caress off train, a bus, or an emergency vehicle with it's lights going. I've seen pictures of European trams that run right through plazas without a million safety barriers. Are Europeans smarter that they don't walk into trains or is there a drastically different view of liability and responsibility between Europe and the US?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:We have a recently built transit/pedestrian mall with a new Light rail that runs through it. It's closed to vehicle traffic. Buses drive over the light rail tracks, and there's a roadway for bikes and emergency vehicles. Campus cops have been absolute dicks about people only crossing the street with a walk signal, despite that any person with half a brain and easily look both ways to see if there's either a giant gently caress off train, a bus, or an emergency vehicle with it's lights going. College students are absolutely retarded about interacting with cars, ignoring crosswalks and expecting cars to stop on a dime. Light rail trains can't really be expected to do that, both from a physical standpoint and a schedule standpoint. I would absolutely recommend enforcing the poo poo out of jaywalking for a new light rail system for the first few months.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Also campus cops in general, no matter the college, tend to love having an excuse to do something. So there's that too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:I've seen pictures of European trams that run right through plazas without a million safety barriers. Are Europeans smarter that they don't walk into trains or is there a drastically different view of liability and responsibility between Europe and the US? Yeah I don't get this either exactly. I think it's mostly that in europe everyone is used to trams and trains but here they aren't. If a person wandered into a busy road and got hit everyone would say its his fault, what the hell was he doing going into a space for cars?? But trams are not a thing people have a "cultural common sense" about here, so every time a tram hits a car or a person it's the tram that's a menace and impinging on space it doesn't belong in. For sure trams hit cars and people in europe, but no where near the rate as in the US, specially on new lines. I remember watching a video of some US tram's dash cam and it was like that 11' bridge video, just hit after hit after hit of people cutting off the tram trying to turn left in front of it and getting t-boned (the t stands for tram!). Or in seattle a big problem is people parking over the lines that show the dynamic envelope of the tram but think they're far enough away. Tram's end swings out, hits the car, car owner flips out that these trams are a menace. Trams do get a lot more cost effective and flexible once people get used to them, I don't know if this will ever happen in north america though. Like the amount of signs and warnings along any new american LRT/tram is just insane and americans still can't figure out how to build tram lines at comparable costs per km vs europe, let alone how to build actual effective tram systems that are more than a tourist ride. I just hope people give them a chance before totally dismissing them. They're extremely effective once built-out. But so far in most US cities their experiments with trams are these dinky little demo lines for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:let alone how to build actual effective tram systems that are more than a tourist ride. http://www.njtransit.com/sf/sf_servlet.srv?hdnPageAction=LightRailTo http://www.septa.org/maps/trolley/city.html http://www.portauthority.org/paac/default.aspx
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
If you don't mind a brief derail, I got around to re-making one of our fondest I-84 diagrams with current information. Let's see how 44 years of suburbanization affects a freeway segment. Here are the 1970 destinations for eastbound traffic on the Aetna Viaduct. Note that, in the morning, 63% of traffic is going to the CBD, drooping to 38% in the evening. Very little traffic goes to I-91, with more going to 91S than 91N.  Here were the planned destinations with I-484 built. Like nearly every other freeway in the Hartford area, it was never built, but the planners didn't know that. Note that CBD traffic remains very high, while I-91 traffic drops precipitously - less than 1% in either direction during the pm peak! Well, obviously, traffic patterns change over time. Let's see what they look like now.  First off, the CBD is dead. Single-digit percentages in both the morning and evening. That's not because overall traffic has gone up; I-84 was congested from day one. Most of those PM trips were due to department stores, which disappeared once suburban malls took hold. Hardly anyone lives downtown anymore. And businesses have left for the suburbs, too, because Hartford is a congested mess. Also, look at the volume bound for I-91! That <1% planned for 91N in the PM peak became 20%, and it'd be even greater if they weren't saturating a single-lane ramp. In short, trips are longer, less focused on the CBD, and nothing we planned for ended up happening. Ugh...
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
That's really depressing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QIZPwhD5Cw Latest citybound update might be of interest to this thread!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:38
|
|