|
Kaal posted:Ok so which one of you goons did this? This is the full URL, your link is broken: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2015/02/11/guerrilla_public_service_on_99_invisible_richard_ankrom_replaced_a_los_angeles.html
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:This is the full URL, your link is broken: Oops, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Located the sign in Street View. If you move the timeline forward, you can see when they finally removed it and put some proper signage up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
xergm posted:Located the sign in Street View. And on the other end of the vigilante sign scale, you have this. They've tacked a children crossing sign onto the speed limit sign, and modified the 70 to a 40 by use of some electrical tape not very well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
The Governor released his transportation plan for the next 30 years today, and it's pretty comprehensive. A few of my big projects are included. http://transformct.info/
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
So an area I head to pretty frequently has been working on changing the overpass that crosses the interstate (and features the on/off ramps) to something called a "diverging diamond interchange". What exactly is it, and is it even better than a regular interchange?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
taiyoko posted:So an area I head to pretty frequently has been working on changing the overpass that crosses the interstate (and features the on/off ramps) to something called a "diverging diamond interchange". What exactly is it, and is it even better than a regular interchange? Here's Cichlidae's first post on DDIs: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3177805&userid=82775#post363818398 This article for one going in close to me has a really good diagram of how the one they're putting in will work: http://impactnews.com/austin-metro/round-rock-pflugerville-hutto/one-development-leads-to-another-on-university/
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
The city of Utrecht in the Netherlands experienced some trouble last year with a traffic light for cyclists that was literally impossible to obey. Now, they made a website with an interactive map of traffic lights, where you can comment on each light: http://www.dub.uu.nl/artikel/nieuws/nomineer-meest-overbodige-stoplichten-utrecht.html It also works on mobile, so people can use it when they're out biking. The cyclists union recommends people to use it for pointing out the most redundant traffic lights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Entropist posted:The city of Utrecht in the Netherlands experienced some trouble last year with a traffic light for cyclists that was literally impossible to obey. Now, they made a website with an interactive map of traffic lights, where you can comment on each light: http://www.dub.uu.nl/artikel/nieuws/nomineer-meest-overbodige-stoplichten-utrecht.html The city just released a press statement, saying that after being online for just one day, the website already got 'hundreds' of reports on badly functioning or badly placed traffic lights. The website will be online till April 30th. What I don't understand is why cities don't have an online traffic complaints form all the time. I mean, when a sign is gone or there's a pothole or whatever I wouldn't mind reporting it so it gets fixed quickly. But not if I have to phonecall through bureaucracy to get to someone responsible. It shouldn't be too hard filtering out the idiots abusing the system, and what you end up with is a crowd-sourced traffic safety report system. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
We've got an app for that here in 050, but it's p clunky.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 12:05
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:The city just released a press statement, saying that after being online for just one day, the website already got 'hundreds' of reports on badly functioning or badly placed traffic lights. The website will be online till April 30th. As a general rule, government agencies are very resistant to change, especially when engineers are involved. I know it's an unsatisfying answer. Things will continue to slowly improve as the last generation of engineers retires and the new, somewhat more technologically inclined young'uns take their place. The current situation is pretty messed up. If you want a timely response, your only real choice is to write a letter to a state Congressperson or the Governor, and obviously that's overkill for getting a pothole filled.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
SeeClickFix provides that service to cities. It seems to work fairly well in New Haven, although someone still needs to actually fix the issues. So that can be a bit frustrating if there is a backlog in the roads department. Also sometimes issues are state vs local and so the city can't do much. http://en.seeclickfix.com
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:As a general rule, government agencies are very resistant to change, especially when engineers are involved. I know it's an unsatisfying answer. Things will continue to slowly improve as the last generation of engineers retires and the new, somewhat more technologically inclined young'uns take their place. I don't think that first line of thought really holds in the Dutch context, which is what Entropist and Carbon dioxide were talking about. Government service is a sought-after job here, and in my admittedly limited dealings with municipal engineers (or rather, people manning traffic departments), I've only ever encountered competency and a at least some degree of open-mindedness. Also, if I were to call my municipality right now, I'd be talking with the right person within the minute. So either Carbon dioxide doesn't like talking to people irl or the phonebanks in Utrecht are manned by shitlords 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
It's true that you can often just call the city and have them fix it within two weeks or so (if it's not a big job or an arguable one) but people are less likely to do that I think, especially these days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
The thing with potholes is that the longer they exist, the more expensive they are to fix. You're pretty likely to get a quick response on a pothole or abnormal dip in the road, whereas something like a cracked sidewalk or traffic light not having appropriate timings will take ages and constant harassment. Number one problem with potholes is that people don't bother telling anyone when they see a problem. Problems usually go unrepaired until someone in a related civil servant profession (Traffic/Police/Fire Rescue/Transit) chances upon it. Varance fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Feb 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Speaking of Dutch stuff, here's another great video. This time focusing on winter cycling, bike path design and use of contrasting materials, and general all around "this is how a developed country deals with bikes" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsMu_lxXXDg
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Koesj posted:We've got an app for that here in 050, but it's p clunky. Here in Vancouver we have both a general phone line for the city and a web form for reporting issues. I've used it to report things like clogged storm drains. Vancouver's also pretty cool in that they put a ton of data online for people to play with (traffic, maps, utilities, etc).
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Speaking of Dutch stuff, here's another great video. This time focusing on winter cycling, bike path design and use of contrasting materials, and general all around "this is how a developed country deals with bikes" Nice video. One thing it doesn't specifically mention is that most cities give those bicycle path salting vehicles priority over vehicles that clear car roads. This makes a lot of sense: if there's ice on the road, and you drive carefully in a car, the worst that can happen in our flatland is you get in a slip, hit a tree or another car, and there's some material damage. That's it. But if there's ice on the cycleway, you get in a slip, you lose your balance, and you break a leg - or your neck. And as the vid explains, people need to cycle to work anyway, it's our main mode of transport. Then again, they usually start clearing both the bike paths and the roads before rush hour starts. Those guys start at like 5 am and have things cleared by 8.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Speaking of Dutch stuff, here's another great video. This time focusing on winter cycling, bike path design and use of contrasting materials, and general all around "this is how a developed country deals with bikes"
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Entropist posted:It's interesting to compare this to SA's cycling thread, where it seems to be the norm to buy a sports bike and then install all those other other important things like fenders later... American cycling culture is sort of hosed up. It's understandable, but hosed up. Basically to cycle in most of the US is dangerous and unpleasant plus you face a lot of hate on the road, this leads to mostly the more "hard core" cyclists doing it. They wear ridiculous skin-tight outfits, get racing bikes, and generally develop a huge chip on their shoulder due to the (quite real) war they fight on the roads every day. At the same time a lot of them hold really bad opinions on cycling and infrastructure in general and normal people don't become interested in cycling because it's just a thing weird angry dudes in lycra bodysuits do, plus who wants to be one of those assholes "taking the lane" and causing a huge traffic jam behind them? Then you've also got the hard core cyclists who have been so hosed up by their constant war for space/rights on the road against cars that they absolutely refuse the idea of separated dutch style cycle infrastructure. It's not about making cycling safe and pleasant, it's about winning the war against cars. Then on the other side you have idiots who don't understand a few bike lanes are useless and cycle infrastructure only works once your entire route is protected. You can make the world's best protected bike lane down a main street in some neighbourhood, but unless the routes connecting to that new lane are also safe to ride on, it's not going to do much. Just like a transit system, you get more ridership per km of route the more routes you have. I live in Victoria, the city in Canada with the highest percentage of people who bike to work. It's still poo poo, I still won't ride a bike here. At best some roads have well-meaning but often badly designed bike lanes. No where are the bike lanes protected, and intersections are all still of the standard north American design which just treats bikes as cars. Neighbourhood streets don't really need bike lanes, but tons of our major streets have nothing. In many cases you'll have a major 4 lane route with bike lanes suddenly have the bike lanes run out, so you're forced to hug the curb and have cars angrily pass you within inches, or "take the lane" and cause a huge jam of people behind you who aggressively pass you the first chance they get (if they don't just tail gate you or try to run you off the road). Yet at the same time even here in Victoria tons of people say bike lanes are a fad, that it's a waste of money because the bike lanes aren't crowded all the time. For the majority of people, cycling for daily trips isn't an option unless the entire route, intersections included, is safe and pleasant. Once you get this critical mass of infrastructure I'm absolutely sure you'd eventually see dutch levels of cycling, but it's so hard to get this critical mass of protected routes because until it reaches that point, a huge number of people see it all as a waste of money pampering a tiny vocal minority. I don't cycle my self because I'm a scared baby, but a lot of my friends don't have cars, they just walk/cycle. I don't know a single person who hasn't been hit by a car, most of them multiple times. One thing I strongly disagree with that video are dynamos, gently caress those things. We have batteries and LED's now, peddle powered lights should not be a thing in 2015. Maybe they've advanced since the 80's but man do those things add a lot of resistance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Lots of Dutch bikes actually have built-in battery powered lights now. Mine still has a dynamo... but it slips and stops working as soon as the tire gets wet. So I still got a set of battery lights. They're like an euro if you get the cheap kind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Entropist posted:It's interesting to compare this to SA's cycling thread, where it seems to be the norm to buy a sports bike and then install all those other other important things like fenders later... You're looking at the wrong cycling thread.  http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3627612 Vancouver's making progress, although much, much more slowly than other parts of the world when they've decided to actually go for cycling infrastructure. Also, for what it's worth, I've been bike commuting here for five years, and never been hit by a car. I've had a few minor spills from slipping on stuff, but nothing serious. As for the "war on cars", well, it's one of those Orwellian phrases where simply uttering it is to lose the battle: http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/how-smart-language-helped-end-seattles-paralyzing-bikelash
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Ha, I was just reading that article a couple weeks ago. Sometimes when I hear the "cycle lobby" speaking or quoted I just cringe, they need to read this guide and understand that language matters, rather than so often picking the worst thing to say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
This is someone's proposed redesign of a congested 6 way intersection. It looks like he just plopped a not round roundabout down on Google Maps and called it a day. What would be a better way to redesign this intersection?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
I would think that if you are going to put a roundabout in, you're going to have to put lane markings in the roundabout. I also think zebra crossings are a terrible idea there. Pedestrians would have to be extra alert because they can't predict when traffic might try to move. Stripy lines on the road doesn't stop people driving their cars into other people. Just in terms of pedestrian safety traffic lights and controlled crossings are a better idea, and I'm guessing the intersection already has them. You could alter the pattern/duration of the lights, or maybe try making changes to the network as a whole, maybe to make the intersection into a 5 or 4 way intersection. EDIT: My mistake, I just read the article and had assumed zebra crossings meant no crossing signals- it seems that isn't always the case. And they've got a big problem balancing safety and traffic flow. I do think that road markings on the intersection to indicate which lane to stay in would be great, whether its a roundabout or not. Lobsterpillar fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:And they've got a big problem balancing safety and traffic flow. I do think that road markings on the intersection to indicate which lane to stay in would be great, whether its a roundabout or not. Those already exist. The intersection isn't that hard to follow if you look at signs and follow the cat tracks, but again, socal. With the volume there, that intersection would be a disaster, even if it was a traditional 4 way. The only fix is less volume or finding some way to separate the roadways so there's no stopping or slowing. A roundabout doesn't solve that because no socal driver has ever followed right of way in history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 09:53
|
|
|
First thing to do there would be close off Sunset Dr from that direction. That would simplify traffic to/from the diagonal road a lot. Then move that parking lot in the southwest further north, such as W Sunset Blvd gets two new sharp turns (first south, then east again) and meets only N Virgil Ave south from the main intersection. After that you'd still have an awkward diagonal intersection, but it would at least only have 4 legs. E: Like this. 
nielsm fucked around with this message at 10:37 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
Just got back from LA and went through this intersection a few times. Tons of ped traffic, signals are needed. Most traffic stays on Sunset, so realigning Sunset Blvd in the above fashion is a bad idea (you're breaking a through arterial). Removing Sunset Dr to simplify the intersection would be a good idea, as that would be one less phase and would probably increase throughput. But, to be honest, adding a good ATMS setup will do more than modifying the intersection. Traffic light synchronization in West LA is atrocious. Intersection and surrounding area, with zoning types and traffic counts: 
Varance fucked around with this message at 13:10 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
What would the effect be of cutting off N Virgil and instead running that traffic up Virgil Pl? (Even though it looks narrower so it probably wouldn't be an option anyway). They'd still have all options but it'd cut one leg out, however now you've got a T just down from the big intersection so that'd probably also introduce its own complications with phasing and all the rest. Sounds like you'd want to try other methods of improving flow before you start closing off streets and other public works and poo poo. And as for medium scale roundabouts, on a high traffic intersection, in the US? Nope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
nielsm posted:First thing to do there would be close off Sunset Dr from that direction. That would simplify traffic to/from the diagonal road a lot. That's exactly what I was going to recommend. Your first option when dealing with any 5+ leg intersection is to see if you can close (or redirect) a leg. Sunset Drive is the clear first choice. I'd actually recommend teeing W Sunset Blvd directly into N Virgil Ave through that parking lot, turning them into a common approach. You're going to have a very hard time maintaining road continuity regardless. Who designed this poo poo? Google Earth Pro is fantastic, isn't it? The Deadly Hume posted:What would the effect be of cutting off N Virgil and instead running that traffic up Virgil Pl? (Even though it looks narrower so it probably wouldn't be an option anyway). They'd still have all options but it'd cut one leg out, however now you've got a T just down from the big intersection so that'd probably also introduce its own complications with phasing and all the rest. That'd piss off the Virgil Place residents tremendously, as well as some businesses, but you've gotta break some eggs to make an omelet. I don't think closing Sunset Place would be at all controversial, though. It's 100% residential and they've got plenty of other access nearby.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
The funny thing about at that stretch of Sunset is that it alternates between horrible 5/6-way intersections and grade separation. If someone was up for spending some serious money, I'd almost say it would be better for the area if Virgil/Hillhurst went under Sunset/Hollywood... but then that wouldn't fix any of the other related intersections that turn into a clusterfuck during rush hour (Sunset/Vermont, Sunset/Fountain, Sunset/Santa Monica, etc.). LA needs better ATMS along arterials in the worst way, especially near metered offramps that regularly back up. It would fix many area traffic problems while avoiding major modifications to area roadways. Whatever they have running now is ineffective for the purposes of keeping surface roads clear. I will say that I'm impressed with how well ATMS works for the various LA Metro rail lines. I would kill to be able to use ATMS in that fashion for our BRT route, but the local county only allows us to request turning ATMS on when there's a delay on the route. That's right, we have to call the county to have our ATMS turned on for bus priority, after which it automatically turns off after a while. 90% on-time is good, but it should be 95%+ with how much we've spent on ATMS and how little traffic runs along the corridor.  Cichlidae posted:Google Earth Pro is fantastic, isn't it? Varance fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
I think this John Oliver segment is relevant to this thread, given some discussions in the past about bridges: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpzvaqypav8 Or just skip to 17:30
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
So, a new city-building game, Cities: Skylines (no relation to Cities XL) is coming out in a week's time, and a media embargo was just lifted the other day. Youtubers with advanced review copies of the game promptly began streaming. Now you have to understand that Skylines is being made by Colossal Order, which is the company behind Cities in Motion and Cities in Motion 2 electric boogaloo, which are games all about public transportation. It should thus come as no surprise that the traffic simulation in Skylines is pretty good, and there's some nice tools available for transit planning. The thing is, the Youtubers who were streaming the other day were not urban planners or traffic engineers, so with all those tools and mechanics available, we got to see things like this: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
To be fair without a proper merging lane system it's really impossible to properly make any sort of interchange, merging and the faster lane having priority are the entire point. Like what good is a round-about if people inside the roudabout stop for people trying to come in, or people on the highway stop to let people in?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
I was going to post about Cities: Skylines to. Looks like no real options for ped only roads/paths, yet. So given a blank slate, so to speak, what are some good layouts for roads that are somewhat future proof as traffic increases? I imagine judicious use of one ways will be a solid strategy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:I was going to post about Cities: Skylines to. Looks like no real options for ped only roads/paths, yet. So given a blank slate, so to speak, what are some good layouts for roads that are somewhat future proof as traffic increases? What works in real life won't work in the game unless the game simulates real life perfectly. You can't even make proper on/off ramps or merging nor have any control over intersection design, so not a lot of real life traffic engineering is sadly applicable to a game. The game will have its own separate reality with its own solutions. Sometimes real life and game solutions might over-lap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:What works in real life won't work in the game unless the game simulates real life perfectly. You can't even make proper on/off ramps or merging nor have any control over intersection design, so not a lot of real life traffic engineering is sadly applicable to a game. The game will have its own separate reality with its own solutions. Sometimes real life and game solutions might over-lap. True I don't think merging exists in game. I want to create some monstrous 8 way intersection with four levels
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
I have a question. https://www.google.com/maps/@27.448672,-82.636791,3a,75y,14.66h,71.93t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1ssAQVzTvVBAte0fDf5TKcdg!2e0 What in the world is the point of this Yield sign? Who are you supposed to yield to? All I've ever seen it do is get people to panic break and almost get rear ended. Neither lane even ends.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
That makes no sense. What it needs is one of those 2-lane warning signs for exactly that situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:I have a question. The bike lane begins there. It's not clear if the bikes or the cars should yield to the other, but that's what I see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 23:24
|
|
