|
How come cities need to use the pneumatic tubes to count cars? Most intersections already have loop detectors installed, so wouldn't they be able to use the loops to count cars?
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
mamosodiumku posted:How come cities need to use the pneumatic tubes to count cars? Most intersections already have loop detectors installed, so wouldn't they be able to use the loops to count cars? Loop detectors break more often and are less reliable at counting lightweight and small vehicles like a motorcycle or certain subcompact cars. The pneumatic tubes will count everything, even people on regular old bikes, and can also detect speeds fairly reliably based on time between axles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Can't they actually be set up record the approx type of vehicle too based on the weight. So it can well a bike from a scooter from a car to a truck within a decent margin?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Florida is phasing out tubes in favor of optical counters (those little telescopic camera and recording units that you might see affixed to a pole or crosswalk signal). Not only do you get traffic counts, but detailed data on what people are doing along the road (turn counts, speed, size of vehicle, tracking individual car paths by plate, etc.). We still have tubes, but they're only really used when we want a raw ADT count on a straightaway and the traffic is heavy enough to potentially destroy or knock loose a magnetic sensor. Either way, the data coming from VCUs is far more valuable. Install a bunch around a high traffic study area and you can see exactly who's going where, down to the individual car. Varance fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
Thanks to this thread, I now know enough to know why the exit I used to take to get home sucks! It always bothered me but I couldn't express it in words.  Cichlidae will probably see the turd without any help, but: People getting off the freeway get dumped in the right lane, when the majority of them are gonna want to go left into town People going north on the arterial road are dumped in the left lane, but mostly wanting to turn right to keep going north on the arterial to the west, which is its own clusterfuck at that spot The result is a ton of weaving (the word I needed!) on the section after the exit ramp links up with the last lane of the northbound arterial. The simplest (but not necessarily cheapest) solution seems like it'd be to bridge one over the other and let the few odd ducks who aren't following the usual route merge as needed.  It also seems like you could send the northbound traffic onto that frontage road instead.  I don't know if adding a lane to an existing overpass is cheaper than building a new one, but if so maybe piggyback on the freeway for a hundred yards and keep the lanes separate:  The volumes are low enough that it's not a big trouble spot, but the better to fix it now before somebody gets killed there in 20 years when the population is four times as big. Given that the land in the vicinity is already freeway right-of-way, how would you unfuck that exit?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
Javid posted:Thanks to this thread, I now know enough to know why the exit I used to take to get home sucks! It always bothered me but I couldn't express it in words. IMO you were on the right track with that second one but switch the lanes up. Tee off the exit into the frontage road and add a dedicated left turn lane and set of lights to both new intersections and keep the other road just as it is. Synchronize the left turning phase on both lights to prevent backing up traffic on the offramp and you're done. I'm not a traffic engineer of course but that seems like the most realistic option. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QIZPwhD5Cw It's got a ways to go before the vehicle behavior works as well as in Vissim, but it's already ahead of Synchro, at least as far as merging goes. Vissim has a looooot of overhead, though, even for relatively small networks, so I'm more than happy to see some accuracy sacrificed in the name of smooth framerates. Javid posted:Thanks to this thread, I now know enough to know why the exit I used to take to get home sucks! It always bothered me but I couldn't express it in words. First off, adding a bridge to bring ramp traffic in on the right side of the road isn't going to help you a lot, because the geometry would mean a much shorter weaving distance. Your second and third ideas are better. But if I were going to touch it, I'd want to fix everything, and there's another issue: you have another intersection very close to the ramp. Trust me, it's best to have your ramps well separate from any adjacent intersections. So what's the ideal solution? From 5 minutes of looking at it, I'd say adding that loop ramp like in your third design, but have it connect to that frontage road intersection instead. Then tee up the one-way road like in your second design, and now that frontage road signal is your only intersection. You may want to move the on-ramp, too, depending on volumes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
So they recently added this ramp to exit from a nearby military base which placed a light on the southbound side (highest traffic in the morning). What was the rational to increase congestion like this when an easy to use u-turn was available in basically the same spot that almost never had traffic on it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
himurak posted:So they recently added this ramp to exit from a nearby military base which placed a light on the southbound side (highest traffic in the morning). What was the rational to increase congestion like this when an easy to use u-turn was available in basically the same spot that almost never had traffic on it? Generally because someone does a traffic analysis and determines that the old way won't cut it. The new intersection (linked below to make it more obvious to others) has a double left movement, so clearly they are anticipating high volumes. The U-turn solution also means that that high volume is first weaving across the northbound lanes. Also, a closer look at that newly built U-turn/left turn just north of there leads to nowhere - so it's pretty clear that that area is going to turn into a large development. So, bottom line is surrounding land use and traffic forecasting probably indicated that things needed to change, so they did. https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.914486,-74.580664&spn=0.001715,0.002411&t=h&z=19
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
 Working on an intersection! I'll need to install a light for the cars and a signal for the bikes/peds crossing. Thinking about maybe actually building working lights, or at least a single working light that turns red when a tram comes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:
Do you have track circuits that can tell when the tram is coming?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Nope but I'll have a light sensor at a station just before the intersection that could be used to time/trigger it all. PS how would you mark this situation?  Add some white dotted lines over the cycle track? Don't do anything special? I worry about vehicles turning right into the driveway coming at the bikes at such a low-visibility angle, potential conflict. But the driveway leads to a tiny shared street. More of a lane really. Basically just for local deliveries and emergency vehicle access. Anyways, just wondering if there's any special signs/markings I should do here to warn cars they're crossing a bike path, or warn bikes there's a driveway there. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Sep 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Anyways, just wondering if there's any special signs/markings I should do here to warn cars they're crossing a bike path, or warn bikes there's a driveway there. Light-green paint is the latest thing for that situation. Read more here: http://nacto.org/wp-content/gallery/2012_guidance_images/2012guidance_raisedcycletrack.jpg
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
The diagram is just the bottom left corner of the previous picture I posted, already green'd up. But your diagram shows me a short dashed white line on the border between the green and pavement would do, so that's perfect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Nope but I'll have a light sensor at a station just before the intersection that could be used to time/trigger it all. If the tram gets power from the tracks, track circuits are probably not realistic to do. Baronjutter posted:PS how would you mark this situation? If the bike lane is separated from the road with more than just a curb for a longer stretch, perhaps a crossing bikes sign along with an advisory arrow. I.e. reminding the motor vehicles that if they turn right there might be bikes. It'd seem like the driveway is rather small so the owner/users would presumably already be aware of the bike lane and not need to be warned of it. Motor vehicles turning left into the driveway also seem they should see approaching bikes without additional signage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
I really miss Nutmeg 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:I really miss Nutmeg I was thinking the exact same thing just yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 11:02
|
|
|
Koesj posted:I was thinking the exact same thing just yesterday. I really want to do that again, in its own thread. I just don't have the time. If I'm ever unemployed, you'd better believe Nutmeg will be back with a vengeance!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
Koesj posted:I was thinking the exact same thing just yesterday. I was also thinking about this, strangely enough. Cichlidae posted:I really want to do that again, in its own thread. I just don't have the time. If I'm ever unemployed, you'd better believe Nutmeg will be back with a vengeance! Got it, I will work on getting you fired. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
nielsm posted:If the bike lane is separated from the road with more than just a curb for a longer stretch, perhaps a crossing bikes sign along with an advisory arrow. I.e. reminding the motor vehicles that if they turn right there might be bikes. It'd seem like the driveway is rather small so the owner/users would presumably already be aware of the bike lane and not need to be warned of it. Motor vehicles turning left into the driveway also seem they should see approaching bikes without additional signage. In the Netherlands in some places you can see this sign:  'Let op' just means 'watch out'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Usually they just have "sharkteeth" (yield signs painted on the pavement) and the cycle path is red. In the example you would have sharkteeth over the width of the driveway where the cyclepath meets the road.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
A map of all traffic accidents in the Netherlands in 2013. Red = deadly Pink = Wounded, victim(s) brought to hospital Blue = Wounded, emergency services required Yellow = Other
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:In the Netherlands in some places you can see this sign: Is there a north american version of this sign?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:In the Netherlands in some places you can see this sign: Yeah, here's a local example: https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2622141,-123.065868,3a,75.5y,66.4h,63.58t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s9tuLPmLYqnLqGBpeJtIP8g!2e0 Of course, Vancouver has largely switched to green paint now (and I suspect that one may have been repainted, but haven't gone by there in a while). It also may not help that much: Rime posted:If anyone was inconvenience by the traffic jam at Broadway & Victoria this afternoon around 5:30, sorry, really wish that car hadn't hit me while doing 50kmh.  Oh god it could have been this part of the intersection, which is even worse. Lead out in cuffs fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Sep 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Is there a north american version of this sign? We've got these in Tucson 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Perfect, I'll hunt that sign down in svg or something somewhere, or just try to re-draw it my self. Here's yet another dutch intersection improvement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bG6ZrbCO2g
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
They're gradually introducing the green bike lanes around my town as they rebuild the streets. People seem to be a bit slow on the uptake though (even though this particular segment has been there a year) so the council has put up some ad hoc signs. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Is that sign pointing in the wrong direction or are bikes really going against traffic?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
I haven't been able to take a picture of the finished product just yet, but we're currently installing Canadian-esque mast arm RRFBs on one of our arterial roads as a test: a standard RRFB install on each side of the road with appropriate signage, plus an extra RRFB mounted on a mast arm with a big fuckoff "Florida State Law YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS" sign next to it. There are 4 of these going in along a 3 mile stretch of road (in addition to two standard signalized intersections and a full ped signal at Walmart). The road is a mixed-traffic BRT corridor, which is why they're going all-out with this one. 
Varance fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:Is that sign pointing in the wrong direction or are bikes really going against traffic?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
Well that's easy to solve. If you pass a car like that with your bike just give the car door a hard push so it falls into the lock and hopefully the force either breaks the lock or breaks the leg of someone who's halfway out of the car.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
The Deadly Hume posted:They're gradually introducing the green bike lanes around my town as they rebuild the streets. People seem to be a bit slow on the uptake though (even though this particular segment has been there a year) so the council has put up some ad hoc signs. Which council? Sadly Glen Eira is only putting green for (some) intersections, not the whole lane the whole way, which sucks, but they've added a few non-separated bikelanes on existing roads and bike/water fill up stations in some shopping strips which is something at least. Anyway, I think a bridge is going to get a bit of construction delay somewhere: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
In order to inspire drivers to be cautious everywhere, all roadway impediments are now unmarked (shamelessly reposting a vid from the schadenfreude thread):PaganGoatPants posted:Not sure this really counts since this thing isn't marked AT ALL, but it's still hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Anyway, I think a bridge is going to get a bit of construction delay somewhere: Good grief is that real? I can't believe that anyone would try transporting a bridge beam on a jerry-rigged truck where the beam functioned as a primary vehicular element. Shouldn't it have been on a trailer?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Good grief is that real? I can't believe that anyone would try transporting a bridge beam on a jerry-rigged truck where the beam functioned as a primary vehicular element. Shouldn't it have been on a trailer? That rear trailer that just straps onto the beam is pretty clearly purpose-built for that application. And putting it on an extra-long trailer means all your vertical clearances get worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dQYbCaxZPA It's a fairly standard way to transport big beams. The tiedowns in the back seem a little undersized, but the problem was the trailer swinging out and running into the guard rail and stopping, so any setup would have been pretty hosed. Edit: the real problem is that the escort vehicle that the video is from isn't telling the truck that the rear wheels aren't centered on the lane after the turn. They have plenty of time to tell him to stop, they are just in the wrong position to see it. smackfu fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dQYbCaxZPA If you say so. Whenever I've seen a bridge beam being carried, it's been on the back of a trailer, preferably with a trailer pilot that steers the trailer wheels. Slapping a set of wheels onto the back of the beam and dragging it behind the truck seems a lot riskier. edit: That being said, it seems like it's a pretty common way to do it. Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
"Blatantly unsafe" and "the common way to do it" are not contradictory, as this thread often proves 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Kaal posted:If you say so. Whenever I've seen a bridge beam being carried, it's been on the back of a trailer, preferably with a trailer pilot that steers the trailer wheels. Slapping a set of wheels onto the back of the beam and dragging it behind the truck seems a lot riskier. In this case it looks like the constraint is the bulge on the bottom. If you stuck it on a normal flatbed trailer (assuming they make normal flatbed trailers that long), it might end up being too tall for clearance restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3d1sY9Wzmo&t=16s Video of a tiny road painting go-cart thing, adorable. They're doing some road painting in my city. The line work looks a little off but it could just be the perspective and those curves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 17:06
|
|