|
FISHMANPET posted:It's made fun of because of the poor way NYC has implemented it, though. NYC is basically "VisionZero, as long as it doesn't inconvenience anybody in a car" From what I heard its more that the NYPD dont buy into VisionZero at all and acting like its still the age where the car is king. And since theyre the ones who do ticketing and enforcement... 
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:From what I heard its more that the NYPD dont buy into VisionZero at all and acting like its still the age where the car is king. And since theyre the ones who do ticketing and enforcement... Oh. Yeah, I see what you mean. http://www.autoblog.com/2015/03/31/new-york-vision-zero-success-criticism/ quote:Although they comprise only 14 percent of all traffic fatalities nationwide, pedestrians were 58 percent of NYC's death toll between 2011 and 2013, according to city records. Last year, pedestrians accounted for 144 of 269 traffic fatalities, according to a public-radio project called "Mean Streets," which tracked deaths in the city. The solution to pedestrian fatalities is clearly to crack down on pedestrians, not dangerous drivers. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Random questions I've always wondered about and thought someone in this thread might have an answer. I've also tried googling the subject, but can't seem to find the right search terms because all I get is about red light enforcement cameras. But... I was wondering how the traffic light cameras that change the lights work. These are the ones pointed down at the stop line and look like they are used in place of sensors in the ground. Do they just look for movement of a certain size? How do they know it's not a shadow that's moved in, and how do they work at night?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
MisterTurtle posted:I apologize in advance for my rudimentary descriptions, I know very little about the topic of urban planning and civil engineering. I'll give some of this a go, although this isn't exactly my area of expertise. Way back, some time in the industrial age, setting towns out in grids came into vogue. Why? well, because the towns being laid out at the time were the first true greenfields developments where the houses were built in rapid succession, instead of growing around customary use. Especially in the US, with a great deal of reasonably flat land, the terrain wasn't really a concern. Therefore, the people who had to come up with the towns had no reason to do anything other than lay out square or rectangular lots, which minimize wasted space. At this stage, surveyors are the ones who design the towns because the main consideration is fitting the properties into the land you have available. Straight lines are easy and time efficient to lay out, especially when you might have to cut them into dense forest. Technology advances, with the advent of the car (and also in railroads) where speed means suddenly calculating large radius corners is a thing. Too many intersections mean lots of cars decelerating. We're also no longer creating towns out of nothing, we're expanding the fringes of them. Most of the major routes exist already, so developments tend to take one or two farms and subdivide by creating two lane residential roads that stretch between main routes. So from the 1940s to the 70s you tend to see roads with occasional corners punctuating long straights. Point view drive and it's offshoots near the top of your picture are a pretty good example and it wouldn't surprise me if they fit within the time-frame. We get into the 70s through 90s. Car speeds keep going up, causing accidents. Computers are in use, so it becomes easier to design roads that use constant gentle curves to discourage motorists from hooning down suburban streets. Placing large amounts of houses in cul-de-sacs gives rise to the "dead worm" style of subdivision with lots of low traffic cul-de-sacs coming off a feeder road. (It also costs less to develop because there is less road area.) Local bodies are starting to get hard-core on the hierarchy of roads stuff because having tiny roads emptying onto four lane arterials causes accidents and congestion. So they often want a new subdivision to only have one or two exit points that can be made into big, expensive intersections controlled by traffic lights or roundabouts. The area west of Stringfellow road on your map is a pretty good example. So that's my impression of how we got to where we are today. What I'm seeing these days in some places there's a trend towards densifying with townhouses allowing smaller blocks with a more logical semi-grid pattern, using narrower roads with parking bays to keep speed down while keeping parked cars out of the way. Other places are still stuck in the 90s because hey, the rules haven't changed and the minimum lot size is too large to make dense housing economic. Baronjutter posted:Yeah it shouldn't be hard to move it back a few feet right off the sidewalk. A good chunk of the land beyond the sidewalk might even be city land too, property lines rarely start at the edge of the sidewalk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
dexter6 posted:Random questions I've always wondered about and thought someone in this thread might have an answer. I've also tried googling the subject, but can't seem to find the right search terms because all I get is about red light enforcement cameras. http://www.modot.org/stlouis/links/signalcameras.htm There's some good information on how those lights work. Doesn't cover how they work at night, but I imagine they're similar to those security cameras that use IR LEDs. I actually like them. They seem to pick me up on my motorcycle consistently. They also seem to have pretty good range and see you coming from down the road unlike the induction loops where you have to sit right on top of. Seems like when I'm pulling up on a red at an empty intersection, the other direction starts cycling a little sooner than it would with induction loops. xergm fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Jun 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Hey all, I'd love some input from fellow road designers! For the I-84 project, I've been analyzing local roads to see how our designs will affect them. I've been assuming 10' lanes with 5' shoulders / bike lanes, and full dedicated pedestrian phases at every signal. I'm also trying to keep roads within their existing cross-section, which is very tricky when the ramps are being moved around. I've been putting roundabouts pretty much everywhere they'll work out. For about 80% of the roads, I can match these criteria and keep the signals at LOS D or better, which is perfect, as far as I'm concerned. I'll have to be creative with the others, but they're going to be very sensitive to minor changes. Does this sound like a good philosophy? I'm a bit worried that the pedestrian crossing speed will eventually be reduced from 3.5fps to 3.0fps, which would really mess with those borderline signals. Also, I'd love to provide more than a 5' shoulder (and I will be able to on many of the roads that see a reduction in traffic), but a few intersections, especially around the freeway ramps, wouldn't be ideal places, and I'll have a lot of trouble fitting 'em. Is it ok to reduce active transportation accommodations on heavily traveled roads if there's a good parallel route nearby?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Is it ok to reduce active transportation accommodations on heavily traveled roads if there's a good parallel route nearby? Do you mean, not providing a bike lane on literally every road? That's the new hotness in complete streets design, as a reaction to the initial rush of "Complete Streets means every road should accommodate cars, peds, and bikes". Now you look at the transportation system holistically, and if it makes sense to sign a bike route, and have minimal/no bike facilities on some other routes, then you can do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Devor posted:Do you mean, not providing a bike lane on literally every road? That's the new hotness in complete streets design, as a reaction to the initial rush of "Complete Streets means every road should accommodate cars, peds, and bikes". Now you look at the transportation system holistically, and if it makes sense to sign a bike route, and have minimal/no bike facilities on some other routes, then you can do that. The trickiest part is that we have no idea which routes are going to be heavily used by bikes and peds. As far as I know, planning software isn't equipped to estimate such things, and I wouldn't trust it even if it claimed to. Heck, our car volume estimates are probably +/- 30%. I figure I'll provide fully accessible roads wherever I can manage (and not dumb poo poo like a quarter mile of isolated bike lane in the middle of nowhere).
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:The trickiest part is that we have no idea which routes are going to be heavily used by bikes and peds. As far as I know, planning software isn't equipped to estimate such things, and I wouldn't trust it even if it claimed to. Heck, our car volume estimates are probably +/- 30%. It's really most appropriate when you have a dense grid system, so you would have things like a northbound bike corridor, a southbound bike corridor, and then one corridor for transit and vehicles. And it should really be done as part of a regional planning process, rather than during isolated projects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Devor posted:It's really most appropriate when you have a dense grid system, so you would have things like a northbound bike corridor, a southbound bike corridor, and then one corridor for transit and vehicles. And it should really be done as part of a regional planning process, rather than during isolated projects. The regional planning process is currently out for bid and I won't get any real results for months, if not years. I'm just trying not to box myself in in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
This is a marketing video, but I thought it might interest the crowd in this thread. Prototype car software detects and reports potholes. Car-to-car communications really picking up speed now, but for some reason I don't think I've seen this particular application before. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPiynbknYVE Other stuff I've heard about from other vendors includes skid sensors sending alerts over the Internet, giving a dashboard warning to other drivers when approaching an icy patch. I have a feeling these things really could improve road safety, if they can only make sure drivers don't constantly get barraged with too much information.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:The trickiest part is that we have no idea which routes are going to be heavily used by bikes and peds. As far as I know, planning software isn't equipped to estimate such things, and I wouldn't trust it even if it claimed to. Heck, our car volume estimates are probably +/- 30%. Can you use the Strava dataset?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Chemmy posted:Can you use the Strava dataset? How much non-recreational bicycle travel does Strava pick up? It seems pretty self-selecting to me, not that there's much better data out there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:How much non-recreational bicycle travel does Strava pick up? It seems pretty self-selecting to me, not that there's much better data out there. I know strava sells data to municipalities, and as one more datapoint, I use strava for my commute.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
I'm pretty distrustful of any forecasting software now that I've gotten a glimpse inside their algorithms. For short-term, short-distance stuff, like the effect of a new road or a new subdivision, it's pretty good. But we're looking at the busiest road in the state, 25 years out - the roads we design will have a huge impact on the traffic patterns, not so much the other way around. Edit: since we're talking about traffic forecasting, someone mentioned a few pages back how the trip generation manual overestimates traffic, and while that's certainly true, it's important to understand how it's used. Around here, we don't say, "oh, this shopping center is going to bring in 300 new trips, we need another lane." It's the starting point of a negotiation process with the developer. So we say "you're adding 300 trips," they say "half of those are internal, so it'll be 150," we'll say "you still need a left turn lane," they say "how about a bypass?" There isn't any thought given to "this will reduce traffic at the shopping center across town" because each development is looked at as an individual process. And again, if you're using numbers straight out of the manual, that means your developer doesn't know poo poo about negotiation. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Jun 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:How much non-recreational bicycle travel does Strava pick up? It seems pretty self-selecting to me, not that there's much better data out there. I use it on my commute, and a lot of guys I work with do as well. Obviously that's anecdotal but I can't imagine we're that weird.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:The trickiest part is that we have no idea which routes are going to be heavily used by bikes and peds. As far as I know, planning software isn't equipped to estimate such things, and I wouldn't trust it even if it claimed to. Heck, our car volume estimates are probably +/- 30%. Some of this can come down to education -- even in Vancouver, which has a fairly complete network, a lot of people don't know (at least at first) where the bike routes are. It helps that the city puts out free maps, and the signage is getting better, but you still get people riding along the sidewalk on the busiest street in town (and [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cyclist-killed-after-falling-off-vancouver-sidewalk-1.1321457]falling into traffic and dying[url]). Some of it is also that you need to consider destinations. If the main road is also the one with all the businesses on it, and the bike route is a block or more away, then people will end up riding on the sidewalk to get where they're going. I feel like commercial streets should have all users taken into consideration, but that the big arterial roads that are intended just for cars shouldn't also be commercial streets (for other reasons, too, like traffic being held up by drivers looking for parking).
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
In a few weeks, Connecticut's new Bike Bill will come into effect, which will modernize the design and operation of bike facilities. This has been a long time coming. Now bicyclists can legally pass each other and cars can legally cross the centerline to pass a bicyclist. It allows bikers to take the whole travel lane, or to go around right-turning cars, or to avoid catch basins and potholes. Most exciting for me, it allows two-way bike lanes, which are going to be a BIG help for me designing some of my roads. It's hard to believe this stuff wasn't legal before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
This sounds more like laws catching up to reality than an actual change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:In a few weeks, Connecticut's new Bike Bill will come into effect, which will modernize the design and operation of bike facilities. This has been a long time coming. Now bicyclists can legally pass each other and cars can legally cross the centerline to pass a bicyclist. It allows bikers to take the whole travel lane, or to go around right-turning cars, or to avoid catch basins and potholes. Most exciting for me, it allows two-way bike lanes, which are going to be a BIG help for me designing some of my roads. Congratulations! Javid posted:This sounds more like laws catching up to reality than an actual change. Yeah, having now read the amendments (which are here, for reference), that seems to be pretty much exactly what it is. Sadly, traffic laws pertaining to bicycles across North America are pretty outdated, vague, and often actively harmful. What it seems to be missing is an amendment regarding apportionment of blame in case of an accident (to place more on drivers by default) like the Netherlands and NYC have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
The only difference between that set of laws and what happens here anyway is that the laws actually have them building bike lanes. Here we get a "share the road" sign and fog lines painted halfway into the gravel shoulder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Congratulations! There is a vulnerable users bill, too  I think it may already be in effect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Hey all, been following this thread for some time and I figured I'd introduce myself. I work right-of-way maintenance and street repair (including signage) for the city of Tumwater, Washington. It's nowhere near as interesting Cichlidae's work, but it has its moments. Anyway, I finally decided to post in this thread to show you all the pain and suffering I experienced today at work when I arrived to see one of my precious traffic circles lying wounded and covered in bits of car: There was oil all over the plants, along with antifreeze, and the trash bag is full of car parts (including a license plate!) from this unreported collision. Nice of them to leave us with the plate, now we know exactly who to fine for the damage and who to charge with hit-and-run. Anyway, if you have any questions about the day-to-day operations of maintaining the infrastructure Cichlidae and others work so hard to design, build, and keep up, feel free to ask and I'll do my best to answer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
No specific questions, just a request for funny stories, stupid people, and stupid pictures of funny stories.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:In a few weeks, Connecticut's new Bike Bill will come into effect, which will modernize the design and operation of bike facilities. This has been a long time coming. Now bicyclists can legally pass each other and cars can legally cross the centerline to pass a bicyclist. It allows bikers to take the whole travel lane, or to go around right-turning cars, or to avoid catch basins and potholes. Most exciting for me, it allows two-way bike lanes, which are going to be a BIG help for me designing some of my roads. Did they legalize idaho stops? Lead out in cuffs posted:What it seems to be missing is an amendment regarding apportionment of blame in case of an accident (to place more on drivers by default) like the Netherlands and NYC have. nm fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Jun 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
How dare you suggest that the actual facts of the incident be examined to determine fault, rather than just blaming the larger vehicle and calling it a day. HOW DARE YOU.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
When there's such a horrifically lop-sided power and safety inbalance it seems like a good idea to legally weigh heavily on the side of the vulnerable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:When there's such a horrifically lop-sided power and safety inbalance it seems like a good idea to legally weigh heavily on the side of the vulnerable. Why assume one side is wrong though? Maybe the consequences should be worse for cars violating certain laws than they are for bikes because the cyclist is unlikely to gently caress up anyone but themselves by the violation, but presumption of fault (or at least greater fault) because of what vehicle you're operating is fucktarded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
I'm certainly not a legal expert, but the Dutch seem to think it's important aspect of road safety. Perhaps one of our Nethergoons could explain the reasons more in depth? I think the jist of it though is that as a driver, being in charge of such an extremely dangerous piece of heavy machinery, you need to be on guard at all times in case anyone around you does anything, legal or not. What if that kid suddenly jumps off the curb? What if the bike suddenly turns left from his bike lane and cuts in front of you? As a driver it should be your responsibly to be driving at a speed and distance from other users to ensure you have time to stop to avoid killing or injuring people no matter what they do. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Jun 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm certainly not a legal expert, but the Dutch seem to think it's important aspect of road safety. Perhaps one of our Nethergoons could explain the reasons more in depth? Actually a lot of cycling campaigners think that presumed liability is a good thing but not really worth fighting for over things like dedicated infrastructure and better junction design. Good when you crash, obviously, but there's not a huge amount of evidence to suggest it changes driver behaviour that much. If the only thing that's stopping you driving in a deadly way is a tweak in civil law then you're probably going to be causing bigger problems anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
People doing the dumbest possible thing and diving in front of a moving car like a confused deer should not be something the driver is then punished for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Why assume one side is wrong though? Maybe the consequences should be worse for cars violating certain laws than they are for bikes because the cyclist is unlikely to gently caress up anyone but themselves by the violation, but presumption of fault (or at least greater fault) because of what vehicle you're operating is fucktarded. It's about liability, not fault. Cyclists can still be held largely or completely liable if the evidence is there, but by default it is partly on the driver. The idea being that cyclists already have an important incentive towards safety by not wanting to die.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Javid posted:People doing the dumbest possible thing and diving in front of a moving car like a confused deer should not be something the driver is then punished for. The other side of this is that making a small mistake in an urban environment should not have routinely fatal consequences. There's a balance to be struck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:The other side of this is that making a small mistake in an urban environment should not have routinely fatal consequences. There's a balance to be struck. If you're driving at 50 kph or slower, the odds for death being the result for a person walking into your car is a lot lower than if you're driving 60 kph.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Tank Boy Ken posted:If you're driving at 50 kph or slower, the odds for death being the result for a person walking into your car is a lot lower than if you're driving 60 kph. Mmm. Even lower at 30km/h, but just look at how much drivers wail when you try and get them to drive at a sensible speed down streets which carry more people than cars. It would actually be nicer if cars were all city-dwellers had to contend with. What's the betting that this truck was doing less than 30km/h when it crushed this woman to death yesterday?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Lorry Drivers really sounds like he's a menace and needs to have his license taken away after killing all those women.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Javid posted:People doing the dumbest possible thing and diving in front of a moving car like a confused deer should not be something the driver is then punished for. Many people intentionally get themselves hit by cars in order to defraud and inconvenience car drivers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Chemmy posted:Many people intentionally get themselves hit by cars in order to defraud and inconvenience car drivers. With the dangers cars pose as well as the loving waste of court time and insurance time regarding people challenging tickets and disputing who did what, dash cams should really be mandatory in all motor vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Javid posted:People doing the dumbest possible thing and diving in front of a moving car like a confused deer should not be something the driver is then punished for.  Death penalty for playing in the streets! (To paraphrase Stop de Kindermoord)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Lorry Drivers really sounds like he's a menace and needs to have his license taken away after killing all those women. I wouldn't bother - doesn't actually seem to help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 22:38
|
|