|
Minenfeld! posted:Scheming? In Connecticut? You don't say! 84, 95, and... I forget, but one other major route will be tolled every six miles, border-to-border. ENJOY~
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
Koesj posted:New Central European primary roads have a shitload of fauna measures included, really top notch from what I saw last week.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:84, 95, and... I forget, but one other major route will be tolled every six miles, border-to-border. ENJOY~ I'd heard 91 and the Merritt mentioned. But tolls every six miles? The hell?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Minenfeld! posted:I'd heard 91 and the Merritt mentioned. But tolls every six miles? The hell? If it was the Merritt, it'd have to be electronic only tolling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Minenfeld! posted:I'd heard 91 and the Merritt mentioned. But tolls every six miles? The hell? In for a penny, in for a pound. The Feds gave CT a grant to study "value pricing" (Lexus lanes) on I-95 and a tiny stretch of I-84. They're going to use that as the foot in the door to put tolls throughout the state. All the important state legislators are being individually "convinced" by industry insiders with deep pockets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Want to drive through Fairfield County on a road with more than one lane in each direction? Pay up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Want to drive through Fairfield County It's better than stopping there, sure. I'd pay plenty of money to leave.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Groda posted:Is it uncommon with game fences around 130 km/h motorways in the Netherlands? I seem to remember driving a lot without them in the North. Coming from Sweden it's pretty shocking. What game? Land consolidation/enclosure, (sub)urbanization, and a very strict planning culture have shoved large animals into small, very heavily managed areas. If you're talking about the North of the NL, there have been some recent developments in fencing/nature bridges along the A28 near the Dwingelderveld, but IIRC this was done in anticipation of an extension of the national 'main ecological structure' to the other side of the freeway. We've been investing in a lot of fauna measures in order to reintroduce, rather than to mitigate existing safety concerns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Koesj posted:What game? Land consolidation/enclosure, (sub)urbanization, and a very strict planning culture have shoved large animals into small, very heavily managed areas. If you're talking about the North of the NL, there have been some recent developments in fencing/nature bridges along the A28 near the Dwingelderveld, but IIRC this was done in anticipation of an extension of the national 'main ecological structure' to the other side of the freeway. We've been investing in a lot of fauna measures in order to reintroduce, rather than to mitigate existing safety concerns. This, and the fences I remember were placed a little bit into the forest, so that you would not spot them easily from the highway. I'm sure they were there around the Dwingelderveld and Veluwe for example, just not directly next to the road. We do have roe deer roaming around in the north and east in the countryside, even outside of the national parks, so there must have been some fencing already for that. There are certainly traffic signs that warn of them on smaller roads. But indeed, the general trend is that the 'nature' we have is fenced in, rather than roads and built-up areas being fenced in, because all of our nature is fake. e: We also have these things in some places:  It reflects headlamp light off to the side whenever a car approaches, to scare any animals with ideas of crossing back into the forest. This way they will hopefully only cross when no car is coming. Entropist fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Entropist posted:
Thats a neat idea, though would need to be placed every so often to be effective, if it even is. Though could cause the "deer in headlights" which would solve the problem too as they would stop moving. But better than a whistle that you could possibly hear drive by on a car.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
drgnwr1 posted:Thats a neat idea, though would need to be placed every so often to be effective, if it even is. They're attached to hectometer markers, so they are placed every 100m. I have no idea how effective they are, but they're probably cheap so it doesn't cost much to try.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I-95 will be the next freeway to get its exits renumbered, by the way. Between New York and New Haven, there are exits about every mile or so, so there won't be much of a change. On the other hand, "EXIT 2 OLD EXIT 77" creates less potential ambiguity than "EXIT 2 OLD EXIT 3" does. Oh my god, they're actually going to re-number i95 exits? DC will descend into chaos. I haven't checked the thread in forever (literally thousands of new posts, decided to take a look today on a lark), is there a page that summarizes why this is being done? If there isn't, well, can we summarize why this is being done? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
SpaceDrake posted:Oh my god, they're actually going to re-number i95 exits? DC will descend into chaos. It's national standard to have your exits be either mile-based or kilometer-based, with use of suffixes if there's too many exist too close together. CT is a relatively alte holdout in not doing it, along with like Massachusetts and a few others. Generally, in most of the country you'll only see sequential numbers on short spur freeways, or long distance toll roads with very few exits (and many of those have transferred to mileage based). Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0251288,-76.1764711,16z what would be a cheap, theoretical way to slow down traffic along the stretch of Geddes St. shown there, between Glenwood and Stolp? Geddes is a pretty well-traveled road, and because it's reasonably flat / straight / wide / smooth it's easy to go 10mph over the limit down that stretch without realizing it ( and much faster if you realize it but don't care ). There's a four-way stop at Stolp, a four-way stop at Arden, and a hideous clusterfuck of a five-way stop at Glenwood. People in the neighborhood have suggested more stop signs ( despite many complaints about people blowing through the three / four-ways in the neighborhood ) and speed bumps, but I feel like there has to be a more useful option aside from running heavy machinery up and down the road for a while to
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
I'm sure people have actual stats, but I've noticed when places try to deal with speeding on long straight wide roads with high visibility by installing humps or stop signs drivers just get even more aggressive between them. The road feels like it should be fast, and the "pointless" stop signs infuriate them. If you want to slow down the road you have to make it not feel safe to speed on. Narrow the lanes by adding medians down the middle, get some trees and parked cars along the edge. If there's space, you can even add some gentle curves via medians/planters along the sides. Basically people will always ignore speed limits and drive as fast as the road feels safe to them. In our quest to make roads "safer" by removing trees, widening lanes, improving sight lines, we've generally just made the roads faster vs actually safer, because people will always just go as fast as they feel safe. What's dangerous is when a road gives the illusion of safety for speeding when it isn't, and what is great road design is when a road feels much more dangerous than it actually is. That gets drivers to slow down and pay attention. A street near my old place was a wider than normal residential street and it was between two more important roads, so a lot of people would speed down it. They ended up talking to the residents and found most of them agreed to give up some of the street parking for a few blocks to build some big curved planters to create narrow chicanes. Seemed to have worked out because I notice way less traffic on that street plus everyone goes about the speed limit because that's about as fast as you can go and safely navigate the area due to the narrow chicanes and limited visibility from parked cars and tons of side streets. For your specific case of this Geddes St the main problem is that the road is super wide and straight. I assume those are bike lanes on the sides? Even without the bike lanes those lanes seem really wide compared to the cars I can see on street view. The cheapest actually effective thing I'd do for this road is provide a physical barrier between the car lanes and the bike lanes so the car lanes actually feel physically narrow and the bike lanes are more than just big paved shoulders. It doesn't have to rip up the road, it could be some K-barriers and some big concrete planters. A couple medians near the intersections would help too but would involve road work.  But honestly a little residential street like that, does it even need bike lanes? Get the traffic slow and reduced, add parked cars, should be fine for everyone. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm sure people have actual stats, but I've noticed when places try to deal with speeding on long straight wide roads with high visibility by installing humps or stop signs drivers just get even more aggressive between them. The road feels like it should be fast, and the "pointless" stop signs infuriate them. the white lines on both sides delineate street parking. It's usually more occupied on the side of the street with houses than the Street View pictures show ( the issue was raised because of a few recent hit-and-runs on parked cars there ), but no one save the occasional utility truck ever parks on the side where the reservoir is. It's not really a 'little residential street' ... despite its size it's an artery of sorts for the SW side of the city, since it's become a main route for going from the southern suburbs into the city as well as getting bus / car traffic for probably four or five nearby schools. triple clutcher fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Jul 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:In for a penny, in for a pound. The Feds gave CT a grant to study "value pricing" (Lexus lanes) on I-95 and a tiny stretch of I-84. They're going to use that as the foot in the door to put tolls throughout the state. All the important state legislators are being individually "convinced" by industry insiders with deep pockets. Is this being done as a congestion pricing scheme, a revenue scheme, or both? The public hasn't had any recommendations from that transportation funding panel yet--is tolling going to end up being one of their recommendations?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
triple clutcher posted:.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
triple clutcher posted:the white lines on both sides delineate street parking. It's usually more occupied on the side of the street with houses than the Street View pictures show ( the issue was raised because of a few recent hit-and-runs on parked cars there ), but no one save the occasional utility truck ever parks on the side where the reservoir is. It's weird to have all that street parking and not have it used. I guess they need to add some little planted bump-outs here and there to narrow the road, along with medians, and I guess if it's actually a major local route, some proper bike lanes too. Probably just need to get rid of parking on one side and you can fit it all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
triple clutcher posted:the white lines on both sides delineate street parking. It's usually more occupied on the side of the street with houses than the Street View pictures show ( the issue was raised because of a few recent hit-and-runs on parked cars there ), but no one save the occasional utility truck ever parks on the side where the reservoir is. Yeah, seriously, they need to make it look like not a 55mph highway. It just doesn't look like a 30mph street to a driver. That said, hitting parked cars is not a speed problem, that is a distracted or stupid driver problem. I think shrinking it with k-rails (or something better looking) and creating a separate bike path is a great idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
nm posted:I think shrinking it with k-rails (or something better looking) and creating a separate bike path is a great idea. That'd be a good idea. Plus, dump the unwarranted stops. Minenfeld! posted:Is this being done as a congestion pricing scheme, a revenue scheme, or both? The public hasn't had any recommendations from that transportation funding panel yet--is tolling going to end up being one of their recommendations? Both, but mostly just funding. They'll use the congestion pricing as the carrot. "If you're richer than average, your commute will get better! If not, you get to pay for billions of dollars of freeway widening and might spend an hour or two less in traffic once the whole thing gets built!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Cross posting from the Schadenfreude thread. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LJPZDtOfS8 What traffic engineer thought installing a speed hump in the middle of what looks to be a freeway was a good idea??
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:What traffic engineer thought installing a speed hump in the middle of what looks to be a freeway was a good idea?? The Saudi boss of a traffic engineer who didn't want to get his work visa rescinded and sent back to Iraq with 48 hours notice, on the other hand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
There's temp bumps at roadworks all the time in the Middle East, because idiots will keep speeding into traffic cones, jams, and workers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Koesj posted:There's temp bumps at roadworks all the time in the Middle East, because idiots will keep speeding into traffic cones, jams, and workers. They don't do much good if drivers don't see them, though...
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
That is a second-order issue wayyy too complicated to be covered by anything more than Inshallah, Bukra, and Malesh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
OP, have you played Cities: Skylines? If so, have you been able to successfully apply your traffic engineering knowledge? The whole game more or less hinges on proper road layout, and mine invariably suck with tremendous bottlenecks in the industrial districts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
Hydrolith posted:OP, have you played Cities: Skylines? If so, have you been able to successfully apply your traffic engineering knowledge? The whole game more or less hinges on proper road layout, and mine invariably suck with tremendous bottlenecks in the industrial districts. A bit.  Clearly it's been a while, though - I was a bit frustrated with the way lane changes, signals, and merges work, so I eventually just built entire cities based on narrow one-way roads. That, plus subway networks, leads to an essentially ideal city, and your size is only limited by the number and quality of external connections. And as I mentioned earlier, it's possibly to build a map with hundreds and hundreds of freeway connections!
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:A bit. Speaking of games, I'd be interested in your opinion of how the road networks and interchanges are laid out in GTA V if you've ever played it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Speaking of games, I'd be interested in your opinion of how the road networks and interchanges are laid out in GTA V if you've ever played it. I might grab it when it's on sale for $5, but I was really disappointed in the road network in GTA IV (as well as a lot of other things about the game).
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I might grab it when it's on sale for $5, but I was really disappointed in the road network in GTA IV (as well as a lot of other things about the game). V is miles ahead of IV. For one, the storyline is actually fun. The roads are a lot better and more like how San Andreas was. The at-grade intersections for Sandy Shores and Grapeseed off the freeway are the only really glaring issues I remember.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:V is miles ahead of IV. For one, the storyline is actually fun. The roads are a lot better and more like how San Andreas was. The at-grade intersections for Sandy Shores and Grapeseed off the freeway are the only really glaring issues I remember. Those aren't really freeway though, they're a sort of surface improved road like you get in a lot of the country where it's not worth it to build a full interchange for low traffic connections to an otherwise freeway standard road. You can see them a lot on heavier-traffic US routes in the Midwest and parts of California. The Trans-Canada highway also uses them a bunch out in the middle of nowhere because there's no point at all to making it full freeway standard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:A bit. Haha cool. I'm going to have to read back through this thread, then, to learn how to do it properly 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
I just went to an informational hearing about a roundabout the state DOT is planning to install at an intersection in dire need of work, and hoo boy was that something. "The sound of downshifting trucks will scare my horses!", "I understand the state police set the speed limit, but will you guys set the speed limit leading to this intersection?", "So wait, do I stop or not when I approach the circle???" Do you guys have any special tricks or training for how to handle those sorts of public meetings, or is it all just gritting your teeth and dealing with an irate public one meeting at a time?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Lots of good signs and slides. Even more patience. The thing about public meetings is that everyone who went to one is, in their own way, a concerned citizen who is contributing to the public process. It's important to remember that, even when it's infuriating to be dealing with the same basic misconceptions for the thousandth time. Communication, as ever, is key.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Yes, sounds to me that if you expect there to be many people who aren't familiar with roundabouts, you start the meeting with a step-by-step powerpoint presentation of how they work, how drivers deal with them and what traffic efficiency studies show about their use (or just show them that mythbusters episode about roundabouts). First give them all facts and numbers, then let them say whatever they want. At least that way the actual hearing won't be clogged down by ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:"The sound of downshifting trucks will scare my horses!", Probably means jake braking, which is a real (and real loud) thing. But you can just make a law in the town/county/however the hell your government works that says "don't do this".
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Probably means jake braking, which is a real (and real loud) thing. But you can just make a law in the town/county/however the hell your government works that says "don't do this". People asked ConnDOT to install "TRUCKS NO JAKING" signs like they have in Rhode Island. We had a canned response, basically a press release from the company that makes Jake Brakes saying that they only make that noise when they're installed incorrectly, and that the plaintiff should be pushing for stronger inspection standards. Speaking of public informational meetings, I have a day-long open planning session in Clay Arsenal today. If you're in the area, feel free to come in and learn about I-84.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Yes, sounds to me that if you expect there to be many people who aren't familiar with roundabouts, you start the meeting with a step-by-step powerpoint presentation of how they work, how drivers deal with them and what traffic efficiency studies show about their use (or just show them that mythbusters episode about roundabouts).
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
While looking for an article on a story a heard a few months ago about an elderly person who came to a roundabout that had been recently built in their normal driving area, didn't know what to do, so they drove straight across it. Yes, over the grass in the middle as if it wasn't there. I stumbled upon this article. Most of them I found interesting, a few of them I knew.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 16:12
|
|