|
Nintendo Kid posted:I knew plenty of people who biked in Boston before there were special bike routes or facilities. Can't say the same for LA now or ever.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That is very cool Aside from LA just being not bike friendly, it's also spread-out so you reach less destinations in a bike than you would in NYC or Boston. Chicago has been expanding its Divvy bike sharing service in recent years and if you want an example of how bike sharing can sputter even in big cities, it's right here. Chicago has bike lanes but they aren't proper lanes and they aren't everywhere people want to go yet. So that's holding it back from say the adoption rates in NYC. That said, it's still expanding so maybe the infrastructure/bike laws will eventually catch up to a growing bike-friendly culture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
There's actually quite a few people in LA who bike, even if the percentage of people biking to work is really low, that's really a function of the sheer mass of people commuting in the area. The problem with bike sharing is that it's just very difficult to cover such a spread out area. However, I saw something a few weeks ago where Metro, the transportation system here, was taking suggestions from people on where to put bike sharing stations within just the downtown area for a new pilot program. I read through some of the comments people were making and there was no clear consensus, with some people wanting them exclusively at rail stations while others wanted them exclusively in areas in between transportation hubs with not as much transit access. There's also the CicLAvia events which basically shut down a bunch of streets to let people ride bikes without cars in the way. There's always a lot of people riding on those days but I'm not sure if that does much to promote biking on a regular basis. It's a fun time though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWmvr1u2DT0
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
lavaca posted:The thing that impressed me most about the bicycle infrastructure in The Netherlands is that there are so many streets that actually have room for four lanes for cars (or some combination of cars, trams and on-street parking), two lanes for bicycles and relatively wide sidewalks. Were the streets always this wide or does the creation of bicycle infrastructure involve a lot of eminent domain/buying out landowners? Newly built-up areas areas usually get the wide roads to start with. In other places, cities and towns tend to have some kinds of main roads that have been wide since forever, because there was a tramway once or because it used to have 'parallel roads', a main road in the middle, and then separated by some grass or whatever, two smaller roads at each side used to access houses. It's trivial to turn the parallel roads into bike lanes. Lots of streets in old city centers are way smaller, of course. This problem is solved by giving cyclists priority when rebuilding roads like that. So in cities there's two types of road: main ones with separated car and bike infrastructure, and small, often one-way roads where bikes have (or take) priority and are allowed to go both ways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Consist posted:There's actually quite a few people in LA who bike, even if the percentage of people biking to work is really low, that's really a function of the sheer mass of people commuting in the area. Yeah, Vancouver's bike share, if it ever gets past the problems of compulsory helmet laws and the provider they were going to use going bankrupt, will only be available downtown and along the Broadway corridor - the densest parts of town. I'm pretty sure this is how most cities do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Seattle's bike share is going to have helmet rentals to comply with the mandatory helmet law. The operator claims it is going to collect and clean them every night. We will see how long that lasts. I've never seen a rental helmet I've wanted to put anywhere near my head.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Yeah, Vancouver's bike share, if it ever gets past the problems of compulsory helmet laws and the provider they were going to use going bankrupt, will only be available downtown and along the Broadway corridor - the densest parts of town. I'm pretty sure this is how most cities do it. Seems the best way to do bikeshare is to start big - 30 stations or more. If they're only downtown, you're limiting yourself to tourists, and you really want commuters to start using them. As to helmet laws, the consensus up here in New England is that it's ok not to wear them, since bikeshare bikes are very heavy and only go about 10mph on average. The municipalities would rather have more people on bikes, even if they're not technically following the law. And there's only been 1 bikeshare fatality in North America (I think one of the Bixi cities in Canada, recently). None in the US, and only a few hundred injuries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Seems the best way to do bikeshare is to start big - 30 stations or more. If they're only downtown, you're limiting yourself to tourists, and you really want commuters to start using them. Well the consensus is that it's even OK to not wear one on a motorcycle. http://www.dmv.org/ct-connecticut/safety-laws.php#Motorcycle-Helmets-and-Eyewear
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
I've been thinking. Thinking about TERR'ISM. We've got thousands of structurally deficient bridges nationwide. A good portion of them carry major freeways. Their inspection reports are public record. Let's talk about the Aetna Viaduct, since I'm very familiar with it and its structural condition. Say I mix up some thermite or get my hands on some plastique. I hop a fence at 3 am and walk up to a bridge seat, pack some material with a remote detonator, and leave. 7:30 am the next morning, while the freeway above is packed and the road below is similarly packed, there's a loud CRACK, and a pier cap crumbles, dumping five lanes of traffic down onto Aetna's main access drive. Imagine the panic that would cause. Almost everyone in the US drives, and most of them drive over vulnerable bridges. It's impossible to safeguard them all. You can't really do ANYTHING to prevent it. That's not even mentioning the billions (!) of dollars it'd take to re-build the structure. All thanks to one guy with a couple kilos of semtex. Tell me, why is my idea flawed? Please, please tell me this couldn't really happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Seems like you finally have the basis for a good push for additional funding.  Just present it in, uh, a better light. Less "I could.." and more "the terrorists could...".
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
I am not an expert, but I think I'd be more concerned about a state actor doing that than terrorists. For all the bluster we give them, I think the TURRISTS are more about the body count than actual panic. Russia could get great pleasure by the geopolitical consequences of screwing with our economy like that (or through public utility disabling), but terrorists seem to mostly be about the grand and bloody symbolic gesture of putting that semtex in the middle of a crowd at the Super Bowl.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:I am not an expert, but I think I'd be more concerned about a state actor doing that than terrorists. For all the bluster we give them, I think the TURRISTS are more about the body count than actual panic. Russia could get great pleasure by the geopolitical consequences of screwing with our economy like that (or through public utility disabling), but terrorists seem to mostly be about the grand and bloody symbolic gesture of putting that semtex in the middle of a crowd at the Super Bowl. Yeah, pretty much this. Forget bridges, just put some Semtex under a rail tie on some wooded stretch of commuter rail and cause a derailment. If your hypothetical terrorists get to play with blasting equipment, let alone military grade munitions in the US, you can think up a great many ways to scare yourself. Heck, forget land transportation: - why not blast open a tank farm of some really nasty chemicals? Let some chlorine gas roll around your port. - make a coordinated strike on the power grid, and send parts or the entire nation into a prolonged blackout. Remember, there's only barbed wire and camera between you and a major substation. - have access to high explosives, AND know enough to make a contact detonator and a simple rocket, OR you just have an RPG laying around, AND have a calculator to do trig? Park on the side of the turnpike next to Newark International and splash a heavy taking off. And so on and so on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:I am not an expert, but I think I'd be more concerned about a state actor doing that than terrorists. For all the bluster we give them, I think the TURRISTS are more about the body count than actual panic. Russia could get great pleasure by the geopolitical consequences of screwing with our economy like that (or through public utility disabling), but terrorists seem to mostly be about the grand and bloody symbolic gesture of putting that semtex in the middle of a crowd at the Super Bowl. I'm actually surprised that China hasn't gone after some of our closed-loop signal systems yet. Maybe they're saving that opening for a more critical time, or maybe they already did, and we just haven't noticed because we're used to signal coordination being terrible. That'd be a great, subtle way to bleed billions of dollars out of a rival. Hmm... maybe I should write a novel about this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
This thread has certainly taken a dark turn. Is there really no other news to talk about, transportation-wise?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Please no one blow up any infrastructure, but if you absolutely have to, go after the highways and not innocent choo-choos.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Please no one blow up any infrastructure, but if you absolutely have to, go after the highways and not innocent choo-choos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAOhBBEQwE8 This was a very lucky day for the train.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Say I mix up some thermite or get my hands on some plastique. Generally speaking, this is the hard step. If you have explosives and don't care about hurting people, it's pretty easy to use them to hurt people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:This thread has certainly taken a dark turn. Is there really no other news to talk about, transportation-wise? The news is really depressing. The planning guys say we'll eventually have to start shutting down roads because we can't afford to maintain them. The business guys are saying that Connecticut's economy is hosed because the infrastructure is utter poo poo. The transit guys are going to see their subsidies disappear. About the best thing that can happen right now is a massive injection of foreign capital, but that's a double-edged sword. But hey, we just painted some bike lanes on Broad Street in Hartford.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Having narrow paved shoulders counts as bicycle infrastructure now? America has assloads of bike lanes then. We don't even have shoulders in a lot of places around here, they just stencil the bike lane marking in the middle of the road and expect people to not try to kill cyclists. EoRaptor posted:Like a cheap playground ride... Cichlidae posted:I've been thinking. Thinking about TERR'ISM. We've got thousands of structurally deficient bridges nationwide. A good portion of them carry major freeways. Their inspection reports are public record. You wouldn't even need explosives on I95, just sideswipe a gas tanker on the overpass (think 2004 bridge melting incident) and throw a road flare to light it off. If you wanted to avoid the logistics of figuring out where a tanker would drive, ANFO is cheap and easy to make. Someone could hit any of the places where I95 crosses over the track if they wanted to simplify an attack. Just about every house has the ingredients to make rudimentary chemical weapons sitting in the kitchen and laundry room. The technical means to commit an act of terrorism are not a barrier to entry, it's the will to do it. If anything, it's reassuring that it happens so infrequently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Just about every house has the ingredients to make rudimentary chemical weapons sitting in the kitchen and laundry room. The technical means to commit an act of terrorism are not a barrier to entry, it's the will to do it. If anything, it's reassuring that it happens so infrequently. It has often been said that the reason terrorist attacks are so rare is that willingness to commit is usually inversely proportional to mental ability to commit. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:[...] terrorists seem to mostly be about the grand and bloody symbolic gesture of putting that semtex in the middle of a crowd at the Super Bowl. That's not necessarily true, though. But most of our current security efforts are aimed at just such high-profile threats, because they are easier to predict. It's feasible (albeit uncomfortable and expensive) to search everyone's backpack at the Superbowl, but it's entirely infeasible to guard against the kind of attack Cichlidae described. So we guard against what we can, and ignore what we can't guard against. Slowly, our mentalities adjust, so it seems reasonable to do so. In the end, we get Security Theater, as Bruce Schneier describes it. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/beyond_security.html Also, what GWBBQ said. Most people are mentally incapable of killing others without first being trained / brainwashed, which is a great blessing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:The news is really depressing. The planning guys say we'll eventually have to start shutting down roads because we can't afford to maintain them. The business guys are saying that Connecticut's economy is hosed because the infrastructure is utter poo poo. The transit guys are going to see their subsidies disappear. About the best thing that can happen right now is a massive injection of foreign capital, but that's a double-edged sword. I see no problem here. Just start by shutting down the roads that are used by those deciding on subsidies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Raise taxes until the state can afford the nice things it wants? Like is that crazy person talk?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Raise taxes until the state can afford the nice things it wants? Like is that crazy person talk? Yes. Raising taxes is practically political suicide in the US in the last decade, given the hard right wing swing we've collectively taken. We have a national legislature that claims that they can increase spending, cut taxes, and reduce the deficit, all at the same time. Spend some time in D&D if you feel like getting depressed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:I see no problem here. Just start by shutting down the roads that are used by those deciding on subsidies. That'll happen automatically as bridges start to fail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Varance posted:That'll happen automatically as bridges start to fail. Don't be silly! The DOT will always find money to fix bridges in the wealthy towns. Don't have a personal lobbyist? Hope you can swim.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Yes. Raising taxes is practically political suicide in the US in the last decade, given the hard right wing swing we've collectively taken. We have a national legislature that claims that they can increase spending, cut taxes, and reduce the deficit, all at the same time.  If infrastructure starts to fail, that's a clear sign that big government is inefficient and we need to privatize everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Sounds like Cichlidae is about to crack and go work in a different field.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Sounds like Cichlidae is about to crack and go work in a different field. Oh my god, I'm tempted, but then I'd have to rely on other engineers for everything.  No, I'd rather do it myself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Excellent design!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Oh my god, I'm tempted, but then I'd have to rely on other engineers for everything. I scrolled down and thought "That's not how I would have chosen to stack those signs". Then I kept going and saw the w-beam 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Varance posted:Excellent design! It's even worse than it looks at first, too, because it's BRAND NEW and there's a steep drop-off just to the right. Oh, and it's right in front of a hospital. There will never be someone with impaired mobility who might want to take a bus to/from a hospital, right? Don't worry, there's a sidewalk a mile or so down the road. Hope you don't mind poison ivy.  Oh, and speaking of, there's a major hiking trail running right through the project area!   Yes, it sends you through a broken fence and two feet of poison ivy. That is the OFFICIAL Metacomet Trail. It then crosses a freeway connector at-grade. The blaze is on a signpost since there are no trees nearby...  What. The. gently caress. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:What. The. gently caress. No sidewalks out in the middle of nowhere? Yeah, you better fix that. Of course, the big difference is that pretty much everything we're building is new, sooooo... yeah. Slight advantage. ------- I can't wait to show you guys the finished version of our new 1 mile long grade separated exit ramp on I-75 at FL SR60 because people kept waiting to merge over at the last second to bypass all the other people waiting in line, causing massive traffic delays in the process. Isn't it awesome to have to spend $100 million because a handful of assholes kept causing accidents? Seriously, it's a Parclo A4 with a triple left turn that stays green for 3 minutes at a time, cutting in at the last second saves you zero time (especially when you're guaranteed to hit the red at either the other exit or at Grand Regency at that point in the queue). 
Varance fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
It's always odd when one random intersection has full crosswalks and ped signals and wheelchair ramps and they lead to grass because there's no sidewalks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Is there a name for this? Around here it's known as the clusterfuck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Javid posted:Is there a name for this? That's a freeway-under SPUI, which is pretty rare due to the cost involved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
An elongated one with tramtracks down the middle: https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.8527858,145.0530261,423m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en  The south side of that is going to be grade separated in the next few years to put the rail line and station underneath the road there. Considering the overpass was built only 20 years ago, kinda short sighted. Rail under render: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1xKIg_z36M Road over render: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jo7ggm0uIQ
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
drunkill posted:An elongated one with tramtracks down the middle: The Deadly Hume fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Varance posted:That's a freeway-under SPUI, which is pretty rare due to the cost involved. I think I can honestly say that I've seen far more freeway-under SPUIs than freeway-over. At least around here, it seems like they just widen existing overpass/exit systems to turn them into SPUIs. I'm on a tablet and can't get direct Google maps links, but search for: 40°6.537' -83°5.457' 39°26.396' -84°20.159' I did have an SPUI question, though. I travel to Texas relatively often and I'm a fan of the highway with one-way frontage roads, ramps to the frontage roads only and frontage turnaround lanes they have in a lot of places. I'm wondering, though, if theres a good way to implement an SPUI with that. The turnaround lanes would be pretty trivial to add to an SPUI, but adding straight through traffic on the frontage roads seems like it would require another light cycle. I saw something like that in Wichita, Kansas (37°40.416' -97°23.361') where there was a frontage road on one side of the highway where they did have another light phase for the frontage thru traffic. At that point, though, would an SPUI actually be any more efficient than the standard two lights?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
P.D.B. Fishsticks posted:I think I can honestly say that I've seen far more freeway-under SPUIs than freeway-over. At least around here, it seems like they just widen existing overpass/exit systems to turn them into SPUIs. I'm on a tablet and can't get direct Google maps links, but search for: I think you're talking about something like this, right? It's still more efficient than a diamond interchange since you have concurrent left turns. It functions pretty much like one intersection with four signal phases (two through movements, two left-turn movements).
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 16:05
|
|
