|
I'm so glad the worst I have to deal with is the crazy lady who insists her neighbors are trying to drown her with stormwater.
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
BTW, a follow-up to those who think our roads are too drat big: FDOT is making them even bigger, so that when all of us are driving automated cars, they can just restripe everything to add an extra lane or two. Nevermind the fact that half of Florida may be underwater by the time the tech matures and spreads enough for that to happen. Only 64% of Americans have a smartphone, and the government lifeline phone program is giving out the iPhone 4S for free these days. But hey, why waste money later when you can waste money now? http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2015/10/23/driverless-cars-are-coming-heres-what-fdot-is.html Varance fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Oct 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
will_colorado posted:a new DDI interchange opened along the Boulder Turnpike this week: I drove it the other day but it is a disaster right now because they are still working on it and there are lanes out of operation. I am excited for it though because that overpass is a mess and this will be a big help once everyone gets used to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Disappointing, but also unsurprising given current U.S. tax policy: The True Costs of Driving
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
If gas taxes jumped to where they "should" be, though, a lot of people would just be hosed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Javid posted:If gas taxes jumped to where they "should" be, though, a lot of people would just be hosed. Not if you did it now, the concept of $3 gas isn't as unreasonable or as unplannable as it used to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Well, even with gas prices being 2/2.5 times higher, government raking it in to a much higher degree because the extra outlays are 100% tax components instead of the product's price, and the intake possibly covering even the most hidden of externalities, a country like Germany still manages to gently caress up road maintenance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:Not if you did it now, the concept of $3 gas isn't as unreasonable or as unplannable as it used to be. Agreed. With gas prices so low this is a perfect time to raise taxes on it. American gas taxes are extremely low compared to international levels, and it would not only generate revenue but decrease future taxpayer costs by encouraging transit usage and decreasing the need for costly road expansion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Agreed. With gas prices so low this is a perfect time to raise taxes on it. American gas taxes are extremely low compared to international levels, and it would not only generate revenue but decrease future taxpayer costs by encouraging transit usage and decreasing the need for costly road expansion. You can't encourage transit use when the transit ain't there yet! And the typical "well we got a bus that goes on a single route in the town and the next one over 2 times in the morning and 3 times in the evening" doesn't count as transit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You can't encourage transit use when the transit ain't there yet! And the typical "well we got a bus that goes on a single route in the town and the next one over 2 times in the morning and 3 times in the evening" doesn't count as transit. This is my situation. The greenway foundation is busily linking a bike path from a highway rest area to a tiny highway town instead of linking either to somewhere with groceries or anything useful at all, and the bus either direction runs once in the AM and once in the PM. There is nothing to "encourage".
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
I've been reading this thread off-and-on for a few months now, and I'm up to... page 44. Anyway, since I've been seeing it in my bookmarks as still active all this time, and a quick glance shows that the OP is still posting here years later and everything, I thought I'd pop over to the present day and thank Cichlidae for such a great thread! Continually both informative and funny, perfect filler for when I want to waste a few minutes without feeling terrible about it. I might not ever read all 300 pages of it, but I've yet to get bored and start skipping years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
My office has started laying out bike plans in Hartford, and the results are really discouraging. I tried showing them how bike infrastructure works in the Netherlands (using Utrecht as an example with its bike paths, signals, and the way bicyclists make a left there) and just got blasted with a bunch of American exceptionalism in return. "Well they're doing it wrong!" "America is different and we'll do it our own way." "We're not deviating from the established standard." I'm sick of American Exceptionalism and engineers vomiting bike boxes everywhere. Is there a city in the US that has proper bike infrastructure that I can use as an example so I won't get murdered by rolleyes? Ditocoaf posted:I've been reading this thread off-and-on for a few months now, and I'm up to... page 44. Aw, thank you 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
drat. Can't you convince them with scientific studies? I don't have any references on this though, sorry. Or ask this guy to make a demonstration video: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/explaining-the-dutch-roundabout-abroad/
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
This ahould be completed in the next couple of months: https://www.codot.gov/projects/I70mtnppsl Allowing drivers along an extremely busy section of interstate to basically pay $30 to drive on the left shoulder only part of the distance they usually travel. A couple of things with the $72M spent on this. 1. There is nothing included to start any type of regional transit service from Denver to the ski resorts along I70, which is what is really needed. The Denver RTD service goes only up to Evergreen, and that's only during rush hour 2. The extra lane is only from the Eisenhower tunnel to Idaho Springs, it's about 25 miles short of where it should end at the 470 interchange on the west side of town 3. With some of the really nasty weather that area gets, is it really a good idea to take away a section of inside shoulder for that long? Instead of just throwing money at an extra lane up there, can't we just put some of this effort into a rail line going up there instead? I hear that Switzerland and Japan are really good at it. Surely something like what is used in those countries can be built.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:My office has started laying out bike plans in Hartford, and the results are really discouraging. I tried showing them how bike infrastructure works in the Netherlands (using Utrecht as an example with its bike paths, signals, and the way bicyclists make a left there) and just got blasted with a bunch of American exceptionalism in return. Yeah that's infuriating. The dutch methods ARE the standards. Bike boxes are dumb as hell. Bikes are bikes, traffic is traffic. It's like all the enigneers and politicians who resisted roundabouts because "this ain't europe!!! Americans don't know how to use them!". Engineering and engineers should be about data and facts and best practices. But I guess the old chestnut about engineers being absolutely unable to have any ideas of their owns, only memorizing tables and looking poo poo up in standards books is true to an extent. The american way of bike lanes is correct because the book says its correct.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:My office has started laying out bike plans in Hartford, and the results are really discouraging. I tried showing them how bike infrastructure works in the Netherlands (using Utrecht as an example with its bike paths, signals, and the way bicyclists make a left there) and just got blasted with a bunch of American exceptionalism in return. Salt Lake City is the only place I've seen even implementing one project that resembles Dutch bike facilities. The NACTO guide loves bike boxes and American bicyclists who lobby for bike improvements love being treated as vehicles for reasons I can't understand. Not Invented Here syndrome sucks. It's even worse when you can't get people to even look at how other states are doing things, let alone countries. Here's the project in question: http://www.slcgov.com/200West
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:Salt Lake City is the only place I've seen even implementing one project that resembles Dutch bike facilities. The NACTO guide loves bike boxes and American bicyclists who lobby for bike improvements love being treated as vehicles for reasons I can't understand. Not Invented Here syndrome sucks. It's even worse when you can't get people to even look at how other states are doing things, let alone countries. Davis has America's highest bike mode share, according to this somewhere between 15 - 22%: http://www.cityclock.org/urban-cycling-mode-share/ quote:Is there a city in the US that has proper bike infrastructure that I can use as an example so I won't get murdered by rolleyes? quote:"Well they're doing it wrong!" quote:"America is different and we'll do it our own way." quote:"We're not deviating from the established standard." The 'established standard' led to bike transportation being a rounding error in most parts of the country. We're seeing quite a bit of change now as people recognize this: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/09/23/u-s-dot-to-publish-its-own-manual-on-protected-bike-lanes/ Cicero fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Oct 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Thanks so much for your help, guys. I've sent it along to the project team and I'll discuss it with them tomorrow. These are the same guys I have to fight tooth and nail for every little thing (like 10-foot lanes instead of 11, or removing on-street parking).
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:10-foot lanes instead of 11
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Bike infastructure is hard and to some degree I agree that the dutch system may not be great in most of the US. The dutch seem to try to elimate cross traffic on bike ways. Every single off-street bike path I see in the US that parallels a street seems to have 20 different driveways crossing it, with is 20 points of both way conflict. I also find that most off-street bike ways are not designed for anyone doing over a walking pace and a seem littered with peds and obstructions which keep drivers from seeing me in the bike path. Also, I hope that you remember that designing a bike path should not cause you to ignore street design. I generally doing about 15-20mph when biking and few, if any MUP style paths can deal with that safely. So it would be nice if the road was still designed with me in mind. I know that narrow lanes are the trend de jour, but they really, really suck on a bike.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I'm sick of American Exceptionalism and engineers vomiting bike boxes everywhere. Is there a city in the US that has proper bike infrastructure that I can use as an example so I won't get murdered by rolleyes? Some cities in my area are working on revisiting their transportation plans to try and get some sweet sweet grant money, but all the bike infrastructure making it on these plans are low hanging fruit such as adding bike lanes where there is already plenty of right of way. There is nothing on the plans I have looked at about connecting communities that are separated by freeways and high volume arterial roads. Occasionally there might be something thrown in there like adding an unprotected class two bike lane along a 6 lane road with traffic that travels 55mph (45 speed limit). Biking on the road is fine for enthusiasts, but people who are more casual do not find much safety from a two inch stripe of paint when riding next to high speed traffic. e:The infrastructure in Davis, CA is good and subtle. There isn't a lot of dedicated structure outside of greenbelts and a couple bridges, but they manage to keep the conflict points outside of their downtown core at a minimum. Mostly this is achieved by routing bikes through quiet neighborhood streets with shortcuts that autos cannot make. CopperHound fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Oct 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
I don't gind much safety in the white line, it forces me to ride within dooring distance. Bike lanes on roads with parking could only have been deaigned by people who never bike.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
nm posted:Bike infastructure is hard and to some degree I agree that the dutch system may not be great in most of the US. Well, we have driveways in the Netherlands too. Bike paths have priority over them, just like roads (and in the Netherlands, sidewalks too).
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:Here's the project in question: http://www.slcgov.com/200West And people here are irrationally angry about this. To be fair, though, they tend to be irrationally angry about everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^ That SLC project, is every green spot a driveway? Entropist posted:Well, we have driveways in the Netherlands too. Bike paths have priority over them, just like roads (and in the Netherlands, sidewalks too). Priority means nothing in the US. Come here and try to use an uncontrolled crosswalk outside of a small town. I dare you. CopperHound posted:Ugh! I was hoping to ask you this same thing. nm fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Oct 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Agreed. With gas prices so low this is a perfect time to raise taxes on it. American gas taxes are extremely low compared to international levels, and it would not only generate revenue but decrease future taxpayer costs by encouraging transit usage and decreasing the need for costly road expansion. Raising gas taxes isn't going to encourage me to use public transportation that isn't there, and it's not going to get me to drive less because that's simply not an option. I'm too far from work, too far from school, and I'm too far from stores. Raising the gas tax is basically just going to gently caress me, along with everybody else in my shoes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Khizan posted:Raising gas taxes isn't going to encourage me to use public transportation that isn't there, and it's not going to get me to drive less because that's simply not an option. I'm too far from work, too far from school, and I'm too far from stores. Raising the gas tax is basically just going to gently caress me, along with everybody else in my shoes. Also, having a super low gas tax and not investing into transit screws the poor over in the long run much more than raising it somewhat does in the short run.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:My office has started laying out bike plans in Hartford, and the results are really discouraging. I tried showing them how bike infrastructure works in the Netherlands (using Utrecht as an example with its bike paths, signals, and the way bicyclists make a left there) and just got blasted with a bunch of American exceptionalism in return. NZ has recently had to make a big change to its bike boxes design, changing it from 2m to 4m - because (surprise surprise) a truck killed a cyclist because it couldn't see the cyclist in the 2m bike box in front of it. People still drive right up to the edge of the intersection and block the bike boxes so I really don't see the use. Hook turn boxes have appeared on some newer intersections but as a cyclist I'm skeptical about going that far into the intersection. Also, check out this bicycle lane. What happened here is someone decided 'The bigger the cycle lane the better right?'. Its just big enough for a car to fit into it so of course they do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:Also, check out this bicycle lane. What happened here is someone decided 'The bigger the cycle lane the better right?'. Its just big enough for a car to fit into it so of course they do. That looks like a fairly normal size to me. Compare
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
In the Netherlands I don't think I've seen many bike boxes, but sometimes there are bike areas in front of a traffic light where the road gets a lot of cyclists but doesn't have a separate bike path. This way the bikes can theoretically go first. It basically means the bicycle lane extends into the car lane for a bit like so: https://goo.gl/maps/KEnDg3BUcP72 Cars block the hell out of them even here though, so it's not very effective. Google Street View caught someone in the act, as you can see. The bike icon tile on the street is only barely visible between the cars. It may work slightly better when the bike area is coloured red, but they wanted to keep the cobblestone in this historic location I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 12:35
|
|
|
Question on lane closures. Why are lanes closed like this: Instead of like this:  It would seem like the second arrangement would prevent one lane from having the de-facto right of way so that using both lanes to the point of the merge isn't seen as "cheating" the through lane, and since nobody has to not merge, maybe the zipper would go more smoothly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Entropist posted:In the Netherlands I don't think I've seen many bike boxes, but sometimes there are bike areas in front of a traffic light where the road gets a lot of cyclists but doesn't have a separate bike path. This way the bikes can theoretically go first. It basically means the bicycle lane extends into the car lane for a bit like so: I have heard they aren't used any more in new designs in the Netherlands, because they are considered relatively unsafe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Khizan posted:Raising gas taxes isn't going to encourage me to use public transportation that isn't there, and it's not going to get me to drive less because that's simply not an option. I'm too far from work, too far from school, and I'm too far from stores. Raising the gas tax is basically just going to gently caress me, along with everybody else in my shoes. Raising the gas tax shouldn't be about discouraging car use, instead it should be about communicating the costs of car use and making sure those that use cars are the ones paying that cost. Once money is correctly drawn and allocated, the funds that currently subsidize car use can be used somewhere else, in a way that is more evenly beneficial to the community they were drawn from. If this is public transit, or bike lanes, or something else entirely, isn't the point at this stage, it's just that, as a non car owning public transit user, I'm not terribly interested in my property taxes paying people to drive cars. I perfectly happy to pay taxes, so I'm not advocating for that money to come back to me, but if the government is simply going to fund someone elses lifestyle, I'm against it*. *note that social welfare is a separate discussion, as spending there reduces my costs elsewhere (crime, healthcare, etc), so I don't count that as funding somebodies lifestyle, but instead providing effective prevention of greater ills. (I live in Canada, so the subsidy isn't as bad as the U.S., but it's still present)
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:Question on lane closures. Why are lanes closed like this: Try setting those cones up without getting run over. Also, this doesn't take into account lane closures on roads with more than 2 lanes in one direction. As someone who sets up their fair share of cones on the wild streets of Southern California, the first way is simply the fastest and safest way to do it for workers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:Question on lane closures. Why are lanes closed like this: I have seen the second one used from time to time, but strictly on rather low traffic roads.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:I have heard they aren't used any more in new designs in the Netherlands, because they are considered relatively unsafe. That's the description of nearly every brand new state of the art cutting edge progressive bike infrastructure pushed in north america. My city went nuts with bike boxes around the same time I was reading reports on the dutch abandoning them due to proven experience showing they were lovely. But see that's dutch experience we're different because... And I never felt unsafe with driveways in NL. The way they mark and pave bike lanes makes it very clear who has priority and just like any new type of infrastructure people need to get used to things. If you waved a magic wand and gave north america dutch style bike infra it would not work as smoothly as it does in NL, but in a few years it would. Much like bikes obey the same physics the world over, humans are the same as well. If dutch can figure it out, americans and Canadians can too. Just like we figured out traffic circles. You implement them, there's some initial shock and learning, then it's fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:Question on lane closures. Why are lanes closed like this: You'd need twice as many cones. What, you think those things grow on trees? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
The first method is only bad if you're one of the people who waits till the last possible microsecond to get over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Javid posted:The first method is only bad if you're one of the people who waits till the last possible microsecond to get over. oh good God please don't start this debate using both lanes until the closure increases overall road capacity, reducing congestion and gridlock further down...although if it's not THAT busy and a queue is clearly already forming in one lane, cruising down the outside probably still makes you a dick. even if you yell something about traffic flow while you do it
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
Jonnty posted:oh good God please don't start this debate Whether you're pro- or anti-zipper merging, what makes you an even bigger dick is stopping 500 feet back from the lane reduction trying to squeeze into stopped traffic in the other lane while leaving huge amounts of unused space in front of you and pissed-off queueing traffic behind you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 00:26
|
|