|
Communist Zombie posted:Personally I think theres still good money on it. Especially in light of a federal court finding the Wisconsin DoT guilty of using faulty and inaccurate traffic data to justify widening a highway. That chart is a bit like the ones that show "there's been no global warming over the past 15 years." It doesn't cover the last three years, and it only covers a relatively short time. Look at the 1980-2015 numbers. I don't think we're ever going to recover to pre-recession levels (it looks like we took an 8% hit), but we're definitely going right back up. The WSDOT decision coming out at the same times as the latest FHWA numbers is pretty ironic. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 12:05 on May 29, 2015 |
#
?
May 29, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm hearing poo poo like this from self-identified Vancouver progressives. "I'm all for transit but the plan has *minor weird single-issue* so I'm not voting for it because of that single issue" or "Yeah I take transit every day, it's so badly run I'm not voting to give them more money to waste!!!" or "sales taxes are regressive so I'm voting against this!". Perfect really is the enemy of the good. Hey, that's what's happening to the Belgian public transportation departments. They booked several less than successful years, had some pretty big financial blunders and are going through significant budget cuts. Of course, the unions don't like it and there have been regular strikes. It's mainly been the general public that has been affected the most by the strikes and the very first Belgium class action lawsuit is being started against the rail company by a consumer protection organisation. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That chart is a bit like the ones that show "there's been no global warming over the past 15 years." It doesn't cover the last three years, and it only covers a relatively short time. Look at the 1980-2015 numbers. I don't think we're ever going to recover to pre-recession levels (it looks like we took an 8% hit), but we're definitely going right back up. I guess but if that's the scope of data presented, if I saw those "projections" in either my academic or professional capacity I would chuckle and not take whoever made them seriously any more. After a good ten years of a non-linear, in either first derivative or second derivative, trend, and knowing what was happening in 2008, the 2008 projections are still just straight line unvarying growth. At least assume that there'll be a downturn every 6-10 years like there has been since 1960-whatever. Now I'm sure those projections are gonna help determine what your budget looks like so there's another layer of political complexity there, but dang. edit: bedtime for bonzo 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
whitey delenda est posted:I guess but if that's the scope of data presented, if I saw those "projections" in either my academic or professional capacity I would chuckle and not take whoever made them seriously any more. After a good ten years of a non-linear, in either first derivative or second derivative, trend, and knowing what was happening in 2008, the 2008 projections are still just straight line unvarying growth. At least assume that there'll be a downturn every 6-10 years like there has been since 1960-whatever. We projected less than .5% growth per year for our project. Probably gonna end up biting us in the rear end, but we've got the FHWA to (reluctantly) buy into it, so at least we'll have our asses covered.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
When driving 91 between 15 and 84 yesterday, I really appreciated the excess of button copy signs.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:When driving 91 between 15 and 84 yesterday, I really appreciated the excess of button copy signs. Enjoy them while they are there, cause that style of signage is going away in CT.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Legislators and the governor have reached a tentative agreement on the budget for Connecticut. The highlight here, in a very difficult budget, is a half point of the sales tax being dedicated to Malloy's infrastructure plan. Cichlidae: Quick unrelated question. DOT seems to be doing repaving of I84 through Danbury. They're mostly done, but they've still left the pavement above the bridges grooved. Why do they not pave the entire stretch all at once?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Minenfeld! posted:Legislators and the governor have reached a tentative agreement on the budget for Connecticut. The highlight here, in a very difficult budget, is a half point of the sales tax being dedicated to Malloy's infrastructure plan. When you're paving next to a structure like a bridge, it's a little more complicated because it's difficult to get full compaction when you're meeting up with the concrete of the bridge. So you have a crew who can just crank through and do dozens of lane-miles of pavement really quick and easy using the high-production machines, and they do most of the highway. Then at the end you bring in the crew with the specialized stuff to work next to the bridge.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
So... what do you know about line painting machines? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIvtuLOJTtY Poor guy 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
drunkill posted:So... what do you know about line painting machines? It's a good thing it wasn't one of the trucks that uses thermoplastic markings. Pretty sure they use propane tanks or similar to preheat the pavement/markings, and it might have been a decent explosion. In my jurisdictions, work trucks like that would have a Protection Vehicle following behind it, so that if someone plows into the back of the workers, it hits a truck designed to absorb the blow. Being Russia, I imagine that is not a requirement. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
I drive through this intersection four times a day every week day (school run)  Edit:  Green arrows have ROW, red T-bars are hosed It's not obvious but the northbound traffic (North is up in this image) turning left and the eastbound traffic turning right (southwards) have right of way. Admittedly the greater volume of traffic is going in those directions, but god help you if you want to turn north or go straight south (Like I always do). It doesn't help that it's so counter intuitive, I'd say roughly 10% of the people crossing it don't notice who has right of way, and that Romanians believe that turn signals are for cowards and women. I have seen at least 2 accidents ayear since I've been driving on this road, and those are just the ones I've seen. I think it should be a small roundabout, but what the gently caress do I know? What would you put there? yaffle fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Jun 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
yaffle posted:I think it should be a small roundabout, but what the gently caress do I know? What would you put there? If you can acquire the ROW to the south and east, a roundabout. There's a structure on the northwest quadrant, probably don't want to impact that. If you can't acquire the ROW, a traffic signal like every other first-world country would have already installed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
drunkill posted:So... what do you know about line painting machines? That yellow paint most likely has a ton of lead in it. Maybe some cadmium, too, for good measure. And heck, they used to use uranium to make yellow pigment. If it's Russia... dude, get to a hose, quick.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
What's the general consensus about using turn signals for turns where there's only one option? I have a couple of turns on my route that tee into some one-way roads. There's no going straight and no turning right. I don't signal my left turn. A bit further down, it's a 4-way intersection with two one-ways facing each other, turning onto a one-way. Obviously no going straight and no turning right, so I don't signal. My passenger and I had a discussion about this, and we didn't reach any conclusion. His basic point was "always use signals all the time for everything." This apparently included at another "intersection" on a nearby road where the straight and left roads aren't built; they're just 10-yard stubs. There's no sign at the junction, but there is a pole for one. He says to use the signal there, too, since it's a "real intersection" even though there aren't any traffic control devices or other ways to travel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
I always signal, it's just a reflex, it would take more thought not to signal. And I've seen people drive straight through from a left turn lane, so even if it's the only option having your signal on just lets everyone know that you're not a total idiot and do in fact understand you're in a turn lane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:My passenger and I had a discussion about this, and we didn't reach any conclusion. His basic point was "always use signals all the time for everything." This apparently included at another "intersection" on a nearby road where the straight and left roads aren't built; they're just 10-yard stubs. There's no sign at the junction, but there is a pole for one. He says to use the signal there, too, since it's a "real intersection" even though there aren't any traffic control devices or other ways to travel. Your passenger was correct. It's a good habit to be in, for one thing, since eventually there will be a day where you don't pay full attention and routine signalling could prevent a collision. Beyond that, it's legally mandated and if a cop sees you turning without a signal then they're perfectly capable of pulling you over and citing you. That being said, American law doesn't put much emphasis on signaling, so you're just one among the legions of Americans who choose not to signal since the penalties are slight and generally unenforced. edit: On the other hand, if there is a collision and you didn't signal then be prepared for insurance companies to squarely pin the blame on you. Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
On that note, always signal even if there are no other cars around. People walking and on bikes would also like to know what you're about to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Just reading through the public comments on a local, very minor, trail project, and it's a fun/terrifying glimpse into what you must deal with. More than one person has written in asking if this will affect them or border their property; in all cases it turns out their land is tens of miles away and they are incapable of reading a map. It's an offroad bike/hike trail; at some point the equestrians got wind of it and sent in a barrage of letters wanting them to open it up to horses as well. As of today there's still a no horses sign, so I guess they never got their wish. The angriest letters have been handwritten, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Javid posted:Just reading through the public comments on a local, very minor, trail project, and it's a fun/terrifying glimpse into what you must deal with. More than one person has written in asking if this will affect them or border their property; in all cases it turns out their land is tens of miles away and they are incapable of reading a map. It's funny, some of the most angry comments and strong nimby sentiment I've read have revolved around trails. I think there's just something about the sort of person who pays that premium (in money or commute time) to live out in the "country" to go absolutely crazy about anything that might bring more filthy strangers into their area. They also tend to view all the city/public land near them as part of their property, and improving access to them so other people can enjoy them is an attack on them. "But I use that huge strip of provincial land as a personal quad course!! You have no right to build a hiking trail through there! It will hamper the enjoyment of my own property!!!" then all the special interests come out. "You're allowing BIKES on this trail?? I'm OLD and I don't want to be knocked down by some extreme mountain biker while walking my dog. Then the horse people get angry that horses won't be allowed. Then a concerned parent that lives 500m away from the trail writes in saying they moved to their 10 acre lot because their daughter is deathly afraid of dogs so if they allow dogs on the trail they are going to sue the province and demand money to relocate. But mostly everyone is just making up some reason why they don't want to share their neighbourhood with anyone else. But yeah, rural trails for some reason really bring out an incredibly disproportionate amount of controversy in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It's funny, some of the most angry comments and strong nimby sentiment I've read have revolved around trails. I think there's just something about the sort of person who pays that premium (in money or commute time) to live out in the "country" to go absolutely crazy about anything that might bring more filthy strangers into their area. They also tend to view all the city/public land near them as part of their property, and improving access to them so other people can enjoy them is an attack on them. "But I use that huge strip of provincial land as a personal quad course!! You have no right to build a hiking trail through there! It will hamper the enjoyment of my own property!!!" then all the special interests come out. "You're allowing BIKES on this trail?? I'm OLD and I don't want to be knocked down by some extreme mountain biker while walking my dog. Then the horse people get angry that horses won't be allowed. Then a concerned parent that lives 500m away from the trail writes in saying they moved to their 10 acre lot because their daughter is deathly afraid of dogs so if they allow dogs on the trail they are going to sue the province and demand money to relocate. But mostly everyone is just making up some reason why they don't want to share their neighbourhood with anyone else. I really want to sit in on some of the Merritt Parkway mixed-use trail meetings down in Greenwich, because I hear they're HILARIOUS. Those hundred-millionaires aren't even subtle about their reasons for not wanting out-of-towners nearby. These are the same people who forced us to relocate a sign on the Merritt because they realized after many years that it was visible from their house! Oh no!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I really want to sit in on some of the Merritt Parkway mixed-use trail meetings down in Greenwich, because I hear they're HILARIOUS. Those hundred-millionaires aren't even subtle about their reasons for not wanting out-of-towners nearby. Have you heard people rant about not wanting something that begin their rant by saying how much property tax they pay? That's the "i'm not racist but" of nimby's that just lets you ignore everything after. I've also heard rich land-owning nimby's seriously say it's horribly unjust that civic votes aren't done by property tax. Sometimes it's just "if you don't pay property tax you shouldn't get a say in city issues!" ie no poors, no renters (because renters totally aren't indirectly paying property tax via their landlord). But some actually go so far as to say there should be a system where you vote via your property taxes. So if you pay 10k a year in property tax you get 10k votes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
They also have to publish every comment on it, down to a DOT guy going "cool thx" when they sent them a copy of the environmental impact findings. I'm really surprised more people aren't up in arms about this trail. Though the church next door to the trailhead just put in a big electronic gate, presumably due to the real or imagined fear of people using their parking lot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Have you heard people rant about not wanting something that begin their rant by saying how much property tax they pay? That's the "i'm not racist but" of nimby's that just lets you ignore everything after. I've also heard rich land-owning nimby's seriously say it's horribly unjust that civic votes aren't done by property tax. Sometimes it's just "if you don't pay property tax you shouldn't get a say in city issues!" ie no poors, no renters (because renters totally aren't indirectly paying property tax via their landlord). But some actually go so far as to say there should be a system where you vote via your property taxes. So if you pay 10k a year in property tax you get 10k votes. I would love to read a dystopian novel where all voting is done by wealth, and corporations are allowed to vote as if they were individual, very wealthy people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I would love to read a dystopian novel where all voting is done by wealth, and corporations are allowed to vote as if they were individual, very wealthy people. Joke's on the rich. The government decides it gets to vote too, and so with 3.3 trillion votes it always wins. I for one welcome our permanent democratic tyrannobama.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
I'm staying in Escazu, a suburb of San Jose in Costa Rica and holy cow is it different from Dallas or other US cities. All roads in the town are nice and narrow with people walking everywhere, but there is a major lack any sidewalks or pedestrian protection; and cars never stop for people crossing the street. No one has a concept of space, people will literally get into any tiny space they can to pass. Also DART would cry if they ever saw how many people are waiting for multiple buses at 10:00 PM in San Jose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Devor posted:If you can acquire the ROW to the south and east, a roundabout. There's a structure on the northwest quadrant, probably don't want to impact that. e: e.g. 
Paul.Power fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
James The 1st posted:I'm staying in Escazu, a suburb of San Jose in Costa Rica and holy cow is it different from Dallas or other US cities. All roads in the town are nice and narrow with people walking everywhere, but there is a major lack any sidewalks or pedestrian protection; and cars never stop for people crossing the street. No one has a concept of space, people will literally get into any tiny space they can to pass. Also DART would cry if they ever saw how many people are waiting for multiple buses at 10:00 PM in San Jose. Now drive north on the pan american and enjoy the excitement of a four lane freeway with two lane bridges. (unfortunately you have missed the single lane "made out of old railway Ties" bridges on the pacific coast, they were terrifying.) http://youtu.be/yPbd4GyZKCE This was the only road between two large parts of the country and half the traffic was huge logging/palm oil trucks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
Paul.Power posted:Give Way markings on the road itself would be an ok cheap solution, I've seen a few junctions in the UK that are set up like that with the straight road giving way to the curved one. They've still a little counterintuitive, but a big pair of dashed lines across the drivers' path should at least give them pause for thought. One of the more legible ways of handling that kind of thing I've seen is having the subordinate roads come up to curb/sidewalk level as a natural speedbump, combined with the necessary signage/road markings if needed of course. Like this or this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
I was recently in Milan, and we had booked a night at a hotel that was 1km from the airport. One thing we failed to account for is that there is literally NO safe pedestrian access to the airport. You can get there by car (via roads with no footpath or pedestrian crossings), plane, or train, but not on foot. Luckily, the hotel runs a shuttle bus to/from the hotel, and there are taxis everywhere, but still... is this normal for big airports? Also holy poo poo don't hire a car to drive on the Amalfi Coast that road is terrifying italian drivers just don't believe in driving on their side of the road
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
Malpensa I gather? I'm looking at Linate airport and there definitely seem to be pedestrian options. Conversely, it really depends on how the airport is set up with regard to how local access is done. Sprawling 1970s developments and giant midfield terminals don't combine well with pedestrian or cycle access. I can only imagine how poo poo Paris CdG must be for instance. In my experience older or *newer* airports, in Europe at least, tend to be a bit better, in that they have become part of the urban fabric, or were actually designed to be reached by all modalities. Then again, here in The Netherlands Schiphol ducks the modernist trends by having an extensive cycling infrastructure, which shouldn't really come as a surprise. In places like Hamburg, Düsseldorf, or Copenhagen you can pretty much stroll towards a local suburb from the terminal area, but those locales evolved pretty gradually around each other compared to the concrete jungles that most greenfield airports tend to be. e: how do sentences form Koesj fucked around with this message at 10:18 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:I was recently in Milan, and we had booked a night at a hotel that was 1km from the airport. One thing we failed to account for is that there is literally NO safe pedestrian access to the airport. You can get there by car (via roads with no footpath or pedestrian crossings), plane, or train, but not on foot. Luckily, the hotel runs a shuttle bus to/from the hotel, and there are taxis everywhere, but still... is this normal for big airports? Most major airports I've flown through did not have meaningful pedestrian access. As often as not they're laid by a freeway decently out of town with maybe a few hotels around and no pedestrian link to anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
Yeah, out of the 30 busiest airports in the world only Dubai (lol), Sydney, and Mumbai seem to come meaningfully close to being reachable by foot from the immediate non-airport area. The scales at which a modern airport operates pretty much preclude having ped access being a priority though. Cycling should probably rate way higher on that particular scale.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
People don't want airports in the middle of the city because of airplane noise. The rare times I have to fly, I tend to seek out the smallish airports because they offer budget flights if you don't mind sitting in a plane that probably has bits falling off (Ryanair/Transavia). Those airports are often literally in the middle of nowhere. Like a 30 min drive to the nearest town. Then again, last time I flew from the small (one runway) Eindhoven airport, where the terminal/parking lots are right next to some industrial/office neighbourhood, walk through that for a kilometer or so and you're at a regular suburb of Eindhoven.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:People don't want airports in the middle of the city because of airplane noise. Less that. More the massive risks of crashes and necessary restrictions on where and how high you can build.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
Dang, Fishmech'd.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:Also holy poo poo don't hire a car to drive on the Amalfi Coast that road is terrifying italian drivers just don't believe in driving on their side of the road The guidebook to Naples said "Worst driving in the Northern Hemisphere (Cairo close second)." We used to go down to the corner and get a pizza and bottle of wine and watch traffic accidents almost happen for hours. Family of five on a scooter? Yup. On the sidewalk? Yup. Being overtaken by a motorcycle? Yup. Who was being overtaken by an Alfa (also on the sidewalk)? Good times. Glad we didn't get a seat on the sidwalk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
I love the huge foam blocks they use in construction now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
In terms of accident safety, where does "piece of railroad track hammered into the ground" rank as a barrier to protect a fire hydrant? https://goo.gl/maps/uAn3W
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:In terms of accident safety, where does "piece of railroad track hammered into the ground" rank as a barrier to protect a fire hydrant? Might keep them from having to replace the hydrant every time a drunk driver jumps the curb. It looks like it's been hit before. As for crashworthiness, eh, it's better than nothing, but it won't be saving any lives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
GWBBQ posted:In terms of accident safety, where does "piece of railroad track hammered into the ground" rank as a barrier to protect a fire hydrant? That looks like a guardrail post, something the maintenance yard would be likely to have lying around when they got the complaint about the fire hydrant that got damaged for the third time. It's a low speed area, and it's located at the same offset that the trees are, so if someone did manage to lose control at high speed it's not likely to present a greater danger than the trees (and likely less danger, because guard rail posts will shift during high speed accidents, assuming they just embedded it, and didn't give it a concrete foundation or something ridiculous).
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 13:21
|
|