|
Yeah, Dubai and a lot of the "new" arab cities are absolute planning clusterfucks. Like I literally don't think I could have designed worse cities from any standpoint. They're like some rich dictator sitting down and playing some sort of simcity game for the first time. "gently caress everything I just want skyscrapers and super highways that's what signals to the world you're a big-time real city right??" Wait that's actually what happened...
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
Jeoh posted:Turbo roundabouts are pretty cool, though. They're awesome though I have never seen one in Belgium. I did drive through several on the road between Bergen-Op-Zoom to Jantje Neels if I remembee correctly and there was very clear concise signage explaining them, starting from about 750 meters before the roundabout so that was awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah, Dubai and a lot of the "new" arab cities are absolute planning clusterfucks. Like I literally don't think I could have designed worse cities from any standpoint. They're like some rich dictator sitting down and playing some sort of simcity game for the first time. "gently caress everything I just want skyscrapers and super highways that's what signals to the world you're a big-time real city right??" Wait that's actually what happened... I went to a presentation on transportation planning in the UAE, and that's basically how it works. The bigwigs just kind of decide spontaneously what they want, and then build it without any sort of coordination. Doesn't help that there's an endless supply of cheap labor and some stunning social divides - only a small percentage of the population is Emirati, and there is literally no way to become a citizen if you weren't born one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
Roundabouts are great. Until they actually start building them in your area. Then you find that every mouth breathing luxury SUV driver, woman texting while driving her minivan full of screaming children, and illegal immigrant in a ragged-out Izuzu Trooper will treat it like a four way stop anyway, and then will cut through the left turn lane with no regard for traffic that might happen to be there when going straight, will stop in the roundabout to let traffic enter it, and will otherwise COMPLETELY gently caress THE GODAMNED THING UP. They're like a microcosm of everything that is wrong with driver training in this country. (Lol who am I kidding, there is no driver training in the US.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
I think it's 20 years of residence and Arabic fluency, which is supposedly in the vast majority of cases taken up by people from the region. Maybe Fizzil will namesearch himself and give us a definitive answer 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:They're awesome though I have never seen one in Belgium. I did drive through several on the road between Bergen-Op-Zoom to Jantje Neels if I remembee correctly and there was very clear concise signage explaining them, starting from about 750 meters before the roundabout so that was awesome. I have - a 6-month old construction in Bree, Middle Earth. New enough not to show up on Google Maps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
IndianaZoidberg posted:Why does the US have so few traffic circles, aka Roundabouts? Is it just that most of the country never had them so they didn't spread, the people were confused by them, or is there a better reason?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Jethro posted:When they were first created in the US, they didn't work very well because traffic in the circle was supposed to yield to traffic entering the circle, which is stupid and backwards. Since they didn't work, no one made new ones, and got rid of all the old ones (outside of New England where "Rotaries" at least had the yield mechanics correct). Now that they've been figured out, they're starting to be put in more places so people get more comfortable with them. Why the hell did they do it backwards then wonder why it didn't work? We seem to love to do this, take some good idea, purposefully implement it wrong, then declare it doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Why the hell did they do it backwards then wonder why it didn't work? We seem to love to do this, take some good idea, purposefully implement it wrong, then declare it doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Why the hell did they do it backwards then wonder why it didn't work? We seem to love to do this, take some good idea, purposefully implement it wrong, then declare it doesn't work. The Brits and continental Europe hadn't really figured out roundabouts back then either, and they also were dealing with much lower traffic volumes to begin with (since Britain and especially the rest of Europe were considerably poorer than America). Jethro posted:They didn't do it backwards, they picked a way to do it (because this was around the turn of the century and everyone was still figuring roads out) and it happens that the way most of the US picked was the wrong way. This isn't entirely true though. Many US-style traffic circles remain pretty decent, but they only really work in out of the way places where two relatively high traffic major roads meet and no one wants to shell out for a proper grade separated interchange. They definitely don't function for deep into populated areas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Devor posted:When this is done, the purpose is usually to discourage use of that road by non-local traffic. Particularly if it's a residential area. Unfortunately if a driver is not expecting it, it will turn into a dangerous situation. It is a crappy way to solve the problem of non-local traffic. It is always important to maintain consistency in traffic direction. We have a bunch of downtown streets that had been one-way since the 50's. The city has been in the process of conversion but there are some sections that remain one-way because (politics) or because buildings were constructed to adapt to the one-way design. People from out of town notoriously get confused and people who haven't been here since the change end up driving the wrong way on the wrong side. Granted, streets that have been one-way forever and remain that way will have drivers making left turns from the right-hand lane thinking it is two-way and end up cutting off the car in the left-hand lane. Commuters generally use the same routes as before the conversion so those roads in turn become more congested. It is always preferable to have consistent thoroughfares that handle the majority of the traffic during rush hours and one-ways do that more effectively in a normal sized ROW.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
We have a lot of one-ways streets where I live, but they're all for the most part very consistent and very clearly marked, but I still see nearly weekly someone driving down one the wrong way. If that's just what I'm seeing my self I can't imagine how often it actually happens. What I enjoy most are the reactions, I think it says a lot about the person by how they react. Some people flip the gently caress out and just shut down. I saw this middle-aged woman just get out of her lexus SUV and run to the sidewalk to panic while her car just sat in the road and start calling someone on her cellphone to beg for help or instructions as to what to do. She at least put her hazards on, but didn't even shut the door. She ran out of her vehicle like she had stalled on a railway crossing and a train was bearing down on her. I see a lot of people do something like this, not so dramatic, but just panic and lock up and not do anything. Then there's the people who never figure it out. They drive down the entire block and turn left or right at the next street like nothing is wrong. If there's no opposing traffic I guess it's entirely possible to never realize it. Or maybe some realize it but just don't give a gently caress. Then there's the reversers. They don't do a u-turn or pull over, they just go into reverse and try to drive with traffic in reverse until they get to an intersection then dangerously turn. I've only seen this a couple times though but holy poo poo. The most common though are people who quickly realize they've hosed up seconds after they make their turn and just do a quick u-turn before there's any opposing traffic to worry about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
I've heard that in countries where people are used to roundabouts, when an intersection reaches the point where it can no longer be uncontrolled, they just stick a reflective pole in the middle and people immediately start going around like a roundabout. Total cost is like a hundred dollars. Is this true?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Everytime this thread comes around to why Americans can't handle roundabouts, I think of this intersection nearby: Stop signs, no guidance on which lane goes where and divided local lanes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Everytime this thread comes around to why Americans can't handle roundabouts, I think of this intersection nearby: What the hell is up with street view here? Was the street view car replaced with a potato ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
It was taken in 2008, before they upgraded their cameras. Take a look at any major are that has good photography and click on the little clock for past street views. Pretty much everything before 2009 or so looks like poo poo. Wikipedia gives some rough specs on some of the cameras they've used. xergm fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Jan 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I've heard that in countries where people are used to roundabouts, when an intersection reaches the point where it can no longer be uncontrolled, they just stick a reflective pole in the middle and people immediately start going around like a roundabout. Total cost is like a hundred dollars. Is this true? Who the gently caress needs a pole? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Yeah, that is pretty much the standard in the UK. Paint a circle in the middle, done. Also, this is the solution to offset junctions: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Wolfsbane posted:Yeah, that is pretty much the standard in the UK. Paint a circle in the middle, done. This would lead to death and destruction in South Florida. Just a massive traffic jam, all day, every day. You would need to station at least a pair of policemen there to deal with the never ending stream of accidents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:This would lead to death and destruction in South Florida. Just a massive traffic jam, all day, every day. You would need to station at least a pair of policemen there to deal with the never ending stream of accidents. A plan with no drawbacks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Wolfsbane posted:Yeah, that is pretty much the standard in the UK. Paint a circle in the middle, done. I've not seen this situation in the Netherlands. In this case, they would just turn the traffic circle into a traffic oval or curve one of the side roads so it directly enters the single roundabout. Nobody said all roads meeting at a roundabout need to be at 90 degree angles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Who the gently caress needs a pole? This isn't a roundabout, it's just pretty pavement 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:I've not seen this situation in the Netherlands. In this case, they would just turn the traffic circle into a traffic oval or curve one of the side roads so it directly enters the single roundabout. Nobody said all roads meeting at a roundabout need to be at 90 degree angles. This is typically in tight spaces that would not allow for such reconstruction, such as this junction in Brentwood, England: https://goo.gl/maps/1ddE4 Also, check around the area in Street View for one of my favorite signs ever: directions to a Secret Nuclear Bunker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Who the gently caress needs a pole? In the Netherlands this wouldn't work, it'd just be a speed bump. There has to be a roundabout sign and something with a significant diameter that you can't drive across.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Entropist posted:In the Netherlands this wouldn't work, it'd just be a speed bump. There has to be a roundabout sign and something with a significant diameter that you can't drive across. But even if it legally isn't one, would it cause drivers to behave as if it was a real roundabout?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
http://weburbanist.com/2015/01/15/non-stop-rail-2-future-trains-pick-up-passengers-in-motion/ Are any of the above proposed train features operable?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:http://weburbanist.com/2015/01/15/non-stop-rail-2-future-trains-pick-up-passengers-in-motion/ In theory, yes. This is just like an amusement park ride that has a moving walkway for loading and unloading the ride's cars: match the velocity and it's like both are stationary. I have no idea if it would work in practice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
It would be insanely expensive to do right/safely. Would probably just be cheaper to have smaller express trains than trying to make one big super express train that also some how stops at every stupid station. The way things work now seems fine. Take transit to a station hop on an express train that goes to your destination city or the closest city, then take transit or a local train the rest of the way. Who knows, maybe one day this will be an important time-saving technology.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Let's do some quick maths on that. Say an express train runs at 240 km/h, that's a quite reasonable speed. A typical train might be 500 m long, and the platforms the same length. The train speed could also be expressed as 4000 m/min, and since train+platform length is 1000 m, it follows that the train has entirely passed the station in 15 seconds. Good luck boarding. (It will be more reasonable if you slow down the train to 60 km/h first, but still very risky. And you lose most of the intended advantage.) nielsm fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Let's do some quick maths on that. Say an express train runs at 240 km/h, that's a quite reasonable speed. A typical train might be 500 m long, and the platforms the same length. Uh, that's why the top deck thing exists in the first place. It stays in place at the station for an extended time, then when the undertrain approaches they shut the doors and it gets carried away. Between stations people go down to the main train, or stay on the top deck if the next station will be their destination.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Uh, that's why the top deck thing exists in the first place. It stays in place at the station for an extended time, then when the undertrain approaches they shut the doors and it gets carried away. Between stations people go down to the main train, or stay on the top deck if the next station will be their destination. And I hope that the door never jams, and there's never an incident involving police or medics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:And I hope that the door never jams, and there's never an incident involving police or medics. There doesn't seem to be any reason why they couldn't set it up so the top deck is able to stay at the station as a train passes, in order to handle just such contingencies. And on the flip side, why the top decks wouldn't be able to not detach at the station if there's trouble getting someone between main train and top deckl.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:There doesn't seem to be any reason why they couldn't set it up so the top deck is able to stay at the station as a train passes, in order to handle just such contingencies. And on the flip side, why the top decks wouldn't be able to not detach at the station if there's trouble getting someone between main train and top deckl. Where does the top deck on the train behind go if the one at the station can't move? Do they just keep queuing up? What happens if you want to get off at the station after, but since there's no longer a topcar to use to get off you're stuck?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Where does the top deck on the train behind go if the one at the station can't move? Do they just keep queuing up? What happens if you want to get off at the station after, but since there's no longer a topcar to use to get off you're stuck? It doesn't go anywhere, because you hold the trains. You know, just like you do now when there's a major emergency on the line and a track must be temporarily held. Obviously you need to give all the trains already running time to stop and slowdown, at which point if necessary they can be rolled back to a station missed or forward to their next station as usual. The idea of enabling the top car to stay connected or stay disconnected is to cover contingencies where the trains are already departing/leaving stations where and when the problem occurs
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
If we're doing attachable/detachable trains elements, I'd say that we'd probably be better off just having individual cars be able to disconnect and slow down while the rest of the train continued. You'd board the car and it would have ABCDE cars, which would get off at the stop associated with their letter. So the train would take off and then E car would disconnect and slow down to stop while ABCD continued onward. It'd be great for commuter express lines. Getting cars able to attach to the oncoming trains at speed would be a trick and a half, but certainly no more difficult than building something that could do it from above while also simultaneously attached to a station.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
You're talking about Slip Coaches. Which you would know about if you watched more Thomas the Tank Engine
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
This reminds me of the idea of having automatic cars (like the stuff Google is working on) communicate with each other. If several cars on the highway have the same destination, they will line up as a 'train', either physically connecting or simply driving at exactly the same speed with only an inch of space between them. This makes them more energy efficient (the train as a whole has less air resistance), and more space efficient too because they don't take up space while doing maneuvers or for keeping a safe distance. The one tiny problem is that if the AI fails, you'll have the worst chain collision in the history of mankind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:If several cars on the highway have the same destination, they will line up as a 'train', either physically connecting or simply driving at exactly the same speed with only an inch of space between them. I believe the correct term is convoy
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I've heard that in countries where people are used to roundabouts, when an intersection reaches the point where it can no longer be uncontrolled, they just stick a reflective pole in the middle and people immediately start going around like a roundabout. Total cost is like a hundred dollars. Is this true? Isn't that essentially just an intersection with four yield signs, more than a roundabout?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
xergm posted:I believe the correct term is convoy Realtalk, it's a platoon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platoon_%28automobile%29 and before automatic cars were a thing, platooning referred to the natural tendency of cars to bunch up into groups.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:22
|
|