|
NihilismNow posted:So do we. Even all those full red routes are still faster than transit.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
Kaal posted:Well that and also typically there's not much that anyone can do to prevent suburbs from being built up, since developers will just go right outside of whatever growth boundary or zoning ordinance might try to block them. No one gets to vote on it and so people just shrug their shoulders and ignore it. Except that in many states there's no way to get "outside" of zoning or growth boundaries. Because those states implement comprehensive region wide planning, or failing that, there's not just no unincorporated county land, there's also county level zoning decisions which the various municipalities composing the county can't throw away on a whim. And sometimes, with county government dead, you have all the towns being NIMBY as hell about having the random growth stuff in their town - and by the time you get to the towns willing to not give a gently caress you're so far out from the main city, that no one's going to bother to sit behind a lesser city's traffic as well to live in your development and commute to where they work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:That's not the case here, but only because I'm on the New Haven Line, which defies transit stereotypes in some ways including being the best and fastest way for rich white people to get to work in lower Manhattan. Same with the Metra here in dense downtown Chicago. It's like the Acela with street-level stops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
European Bike Stealing Championships: Prague, Amsterdam, Rome. A bicycle is parked in a busy area, where is it stolen fastest? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yTFiP_co0U not surprisingly it's Amsterdam
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
Prague cheated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Having driven it yesterday, there's no reason the I-290 designation should still exist. poo poo should just be 395 the whole length, although really 395 should probably be an even numbered auxilliary since it effectively joins 95 and 495.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
There's a perfectly valid for the reason why it is; I-290 was built first and existed well before I-395. 395 wasn't even dubbed as 395 until the mid-80s. It was Route 52 before that, and the rest was the non-95 portion of the original Connecticut Turnpike. The MA 52 expressway (built at the same time they constructed the I-290/90 interchange extension in the late 60s) was just a short road and didn't complete through to Connecticut until the late seventies, a decade after 290 was finished. Connecticut had to finish building CT 52, which took the better part of the seventies to do. CT had to trade in its unused interstate mileage for the Hartford-Providence connection on 84 to get I-395 designated at all. The scars of unfinished roads also influence this decision; I-290 was supposed to continue from 495 to route 128 in Weston, while I-190 was supposed to continue up through western NH to Manchester, following Route 101. Theoretically, 395/290/190 would then be dubbed as one highway. It's long enough to be its own 2DI, but which one you would use is a tough call. It would probably be dubbed either I-93W or I-91E, even though people hate using suffixed 2DIs. I-86 would be right out due to historical reasons (the 84/86 renumbering was still fresh) and the shuffle that created I-395 in the first place would give I-86 to New York. Given a safe guess that the extension to Manchester and to Weston will never be built, what would you renumber the highway to? There's plenty of X90 numbers available (and indeed, you could safely renumber the entire road I-290 with little fuss). That would be a no-go for Connecticut, though, because I-95 splitting to an x90 doesn't make much sense, especially because the road doesn't end at -90. For x95s, that's trickier. Connecticut has no other x95s in use except 695 which is the unumbered portion of the CT turnpike to US 6, while Massachusetts has 195, 295, 495, the unbuilt 695 and the unbuilt 895. There wouldn't have been any other available numbers at the time that decision was made, because of the shifting freeway landscape of the 1970s. Nowadays those numbers are free, but the FHWA is loathe to re-designate already existing roads. People were used to I-290 by then and given the freeway revolts that happened at the time I doubt the residents of Metro West would be very happy about having their highway renumbered due to people in Connecticut. If we could go back and do it over again it would have a different designation, but there's real consequences to renumbering something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
I'm personally in favor of renumbering it to 895 because it, in coordination with the tie-in to 495, provides a route from eastern CT to NH/Maine, which starts at 95 and eventually ends at 95. And there's also no ongoing chance that a different 895 would be built given current right of way considerations and road planning within CT and MA. I don't really think it'd deserve a 2di. Sure, I-97 in Maryland is just 17 and a half miles long but that was just a dumb decision. The actual length from 95 in CT to 495 in MA is only 86.8 miles. Incidentally the state of the exit renumbering on 395 in CT is extremely confusing at the moment. Sometimes all the signs for the exit have been renumbered to the correct mileage exit, sometimes the only sign renumbered is the exit sign itself with all lead-up signs using the old number. Sometimes it's a mix of both!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
There is ongoing discussion about the redesignation of the MA 24 Expressway from Fall River to Randolph. Most think it will be designated I-895, though right now there is debate as to whether it will be 895 or 493. The only other available number would be 695, given that the inner belt highway in Boston will never be built.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:There is ongoing discussion about the redesignation of the MA 24 Expressway from Fall River to Randolph. Most think it will be designated I-895, though right now there is debate as to whether it will be 895 or 493. The only other available number would be 695, given that the inner belt highway in Boston will never be built. Well to be honest an x93 makes a lot more sense, considering it ends at 93 at the north end. Plus through its entire length 93 only has two auxiliary routes, so why not make it 3 total?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:There is ongoing discussion about the redesignation of the MA 24 Expressway from Fall River to Randolph. Most think it will be designated I-895, though right now there is debate as to whether it will be 895 or 493. The only other available number would be 695, given that the inner belt highway in Boston will never be built. Oh wow, I had no idea about that. Would the RI portion get redesignated as well? How concrete is this idea?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
So my first impression of Amsterdam was pretty bad. You're dumped out on an island, obviously surrounded by water, but then also surrounded by a nasty "car sewer" with sidewalks way too small for the massive volume of not-cars, including trams. I'm glad they're going to fix it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnkhk-hOh4E https://goo.gl/maps/6WWMMQCuSNn Here's the area. The "Prins Hendrikkade" really divides the riverfront and station island from the rest of the city. This is how it will end up looking  Here's how it looked in 1995 
Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Dec 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
They've already opened the tunnel behind the station mentioned in the video, but I don't know when they'll close the other road. I'm looking forward to it, since I have to fight my way through that mess every day... They also opened up a new cycle path that goes under the west part of the station, saving a few minutes when you want to bike to the ferries on the other side. A post about that: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/amsterdam-central-station-tunnel/ That 1995 shot looks quite different than the current situation, I didn't know there used to be even more roads there. Entropist fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Dec 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Oh wow, I had no idea about that. Would the RI portion get redesignated as well? How concrete is this idea? They've been calling for an interstate upgrade for MA 24 for decades, but the reality is that it would cost more than the Route 3 widening because it would require the reconstruction of most of the highway. The 895 versus 493 comes from the fact that the cancelled 895 would have used some of MA 24, but 493 is probably the more modern designation. There's been two studies in the past 20 years (which I can't find online but I'm pretty sure are in the state transportation library) about it. It would be from Route 128 down to I-195, the part south of 195 to RI would remain route 24.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
I cannot stand this intersection. Basically it's a standard left turn lane, except that the oncoming traffic is coming downhill, with a curve. So you are sitting there in your car waiting to turn (where the red box is) and oncoming cars are flying past a foot away at 50 MPH+. I've noticed some intersections of this type would include a buffer space to the left of the turn lane. Is that considered best practice? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
smackfu posted:I cannot stand this intersection. Basically it's a standard left turn lane, except that the oncoming traffic is coming downhill, with a curve. So you are sitting there in your car waiting to turn (where the red box is) and oncoming cars are flying past a foot away at 50 MPH+. Looks like it needs an advance, or what ever americans call it. A left turn signal. Protected left?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
It has a left turn signal, it's just hard to see. You can make out the red arrow on the light to the right of the sign, underneath one of the streetlights. That aside, that kind of intersection is so amazingly standard around here(outside of San Antonio) that it honestly never occurred to me that some people would have a problem with them. There's some roads out here where I'm sitting in a left hand turn lane while oncoming traffic goes 65+.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
smackfu posted:I've noticed some intersections of this type would include a buffer space to the left of the turn lane. Is that considered best practice? I know that some intersections of this type do include either a buffer space or more often a raised concrete curb to the left of the turning lane. I don't know if I'd say it was considered a best practice, but it does seem like a good idea and it doesn't require very much space.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Khizan posted:That aside, that kind of intersection is so amazingly standard around here(outside of San Antonio) that it honestly never occurred to me that some people would have a problem with them. There's some roads out here where I'm sitting in a left hand turn lane while oncoming traffic goes 65+. They are really common around here too. This one just gets me because of the curve and the hill. It feels like cars are coming right at you when you are sitting still, even though when you are one driving the other way, it doesn't feel dangerous at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:They've been calling for an interstate upgrade for MA 24 for decades, but the reality is that it would cost more than the Route 3 widening because it would require the reconstruction of most of the highway. The 895 versus 493 comes from the fact that the cancelled 895 would have used some of MA 24, but 493 is probably the more modern designation. There's been two studies in the past 20 years (which I can't find online but I'm pretty sure are in the state transportation library) about it. What stuff needs to be upgraded for MA 24 to meet interstate standards? I've driven on it a few times, albeit only to Stoughton from 93, and in that section it seems perfectly fine (although it would be nice to not have completely standard cloverleafs for every interchange).
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
MA 24 would need actual acceleration/deceleration lanes for exits, interchanges other than cloverleafs at several points (and higher capacity ones at others), real shoulders, and bridge heights would have to be raised to 16 feet minimum clearance. It would basically necessitate the complete reconstruction of the highway a la US 3. MA 24 was built in the 1950s, with all that entails. You could flip a coin as to whether Route 24 or the Lowell Connector is the most dangerous freeway in the state. kefkafloyd fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
smackfu posted:I cannot stand this intersection. Basically it's a standard left turn lane, except that the oncoming traffic is coming downhill, with a curve. So you are sitting there in your car waiting to turn (where the red box is) and oncoming cars are flying past a foot away at 50 MPH+. Hey, I remember that intersection. It's not nearly as bad as the entrance to the apartment complex just up the hill. That was a nightmare in the snow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
Do traffic signals talk to each other at all? Do they prioritize different parts of the cycle according to empirical results about what's busiest at a given time of day? I feel like I've seen so many situations where networked traffic lights would know e.g. that no cars are coming East-West, so in fact the green light plus turn to the empty road is not helping allay congestion. I've been interested in computer simulation of traffic for the purposes of optimized traffic light behavior, but haven't been able to find any research on it. I think a public health argument can be made that it would reduce blood pressure. Is there a better reason for traffic lights to go completely red to everyone when a railroad crossing goes into action, and only after the gates go completely down does the light go green for the road going parallel to the tracks (even if it was already green before) than "easier to certify?" I used to have 3 such crossings on my commute (where I was going parallel to the tracks), and that pissed me off to no end. Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Dec 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
What you're talking about is called an intelligent transportation system (ITS), and yes, it exists. The main problem in many cases right now is that many municipalities cannot afford a proper implementation, or the staffing/maintenance to keep it running well. This is especially true in the United States, where infrastructure is the white elephant in the room which most people really don't care enough about to get it fixed up. Intersections next to railroad crossings typically go green for the road the rails cross right before or as the gates come down, as to get people off of the tracks quicker. Varance fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Dec 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
http://www.theonion.com/article/al-qaeda-claims-us-mass-transportation-infrastruct-21008 Relevant to thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Do traffic signals talk to each other at all? Do they prioritize different parts of the cycle according to empirical results about what's busiest at a given time of day? The city of Tucson is big enough to need ITS, and small enough to afford it. Shamelessly stolen from their summary page Tools of The Trade Software is used to analyze the performance of the current system and future improvements. Following are snapshots of software applications used in the RTOC. Progression Analysis Tool  Analysis of progression for Broadway Blvd. The Red-Green bands represent(top to bottom): Swan Rd, Rosemont Blvd, Williams Blvd and Craycroft Rd. The image shows the loss of progression with ¼ mile signals.  The above image shows Kolb Rd, Prudence Rd and Pantano Rd. Here you can see the good progression between properly spaced intersections. System Monitoring Software  This map depicts all regional signals and their current status. This map is updated every second. The dots represent: Green = OK, White = No communications and Flashing Red = Intersection on Flash.  We can also look at any particular intersection to monitor the local operation. We can see who has a green light, if pedestrians are trying to cross and if cars are traveling or waiting in any particular lane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Suddenly the scene in "The Italian Job" where Seth Green hacks the traffic center doesn't seem so crazy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Anybody want to weigh in on why the gently caress this exists? The town recently finished a massive reconstruction project on this intersection. What they didn't do was fix the loving problem. Why does east-bound traffic merge in the middle of the intersection, on railroad tracks coming from a blind angle?!? Some notes here: Left eastbound lane is not a left turn lane, no markings for it. Also no left turn light on this intersection anywhere. And the railroad track sees dozens of trains a day every day of the week, it's extremely busy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:Anybody want to weigh in on why the gently caress this exists? Because every time the local engineer goes to fix it, he realizes he would have to coordinate with the railroad and he says "gently caress THAT" and moves on to an easier project. If you're lucky, they'll fix it the next time they resurface the roadway Edit: Railroads are an enormous pain to work with/around
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:The city of Tucson is big enough to need ITS, and small enough to afford it. Shamelessly stolen from their summary page Do you know what speed are they timed for here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
xergm posted:Suddenly the scene in "The Italian Job" where Seth Green hacks the traffic center doesn't seem so crazy. Yeah, but it still wouldn't work in real life... because a couple of the signals would fail to work with the remote system correctly. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Armacham posted:Do you know what speed are they timed for here? I don't know that it's constant, based on the couple blurbs I've read it varies by time of day and traffic counts. Anecdotally late at night about 5 over-- I can get from Campbell to Swan on Speedway without stopping. Also possible my speedometer is a little high.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
xergm posted:Suddenly the scene in "The Italian Job" where Seth Green hacks the traffic center doesn't seem so crazy. http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/08/researchers-find-its-terrifyingly-easy-to-hack-traffic-lights/
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Devor posted:Because every time the local engineer goes to fix it, he realizes he would have to coordinate with the railroad and he says "gently caress THAT" and moves on to an easier project. I just "finished" a railroad crossing resurfacing as part of a bikeway path connector project. The railroad was a nightmare to work with. Happy Noodle Boy fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
I just got back from a working vacation in central Texas. They have some FANTASTIC road infrastructure, maybe the best I've ever seen. They even have signs they put up to warn you about damaged guide rail. Up here, as safety-conscious as we are, we still just leave big holes in our guide rail without any kind of warning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I just got back from a working vacation in central Texas. They have some FANTASTIC road infrastructure, maybe the best I've ever seen. They even have signs they put up to warn you about damaged guide rail. Up here, as safety-conscious as we are, we still just leave big holes in our guide rail without any kind of warning. My favorite thing about Texas roads (mainly I-10/I-20 through west texas) are the "Rough Road" signs. "We should fix this road" "Let's put up a sign instead" "Ship it!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I just got back from a working vacation in central Texas. They have some FANTASTIC road infrastructure, maybe the best I've ever seen. They even have signs they put up to warn you about damaged guide rail. Up here, as safety-conscious as we are, we still just leave big holes in our guide rail without any kind of warning. From what I've gathered following your thread for 12 years, I think it's less Texas having great roads and instead the place you work being underfunded and awful 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Texas road infrastructure is great, it's just everything else around the roads is horrible,and what they're doing with that infrastructure is also real bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I just got back from a working vacation in central Texas. They have some FANTASTIC road infrastructure, maybe the best I've ever seen. They even have signs they put up to warn you about damaged guide rail. Up here, as safety-conscious as we are, we still just leave big holes in our guide rail without any kind of warning. As a Texan, I can say that Texas actually does good roads...most of the time. The state is big enough it needs those good highways desperately and knows it. It also helps we don't have road-cracking winters with icy situations being non-existant to maybe 1-2 days of freezing rain a year depending on what part of the state you're in*. And when roads get damaged, or the guardrails as you noticed, TxDOT is very good at repairing them (the damaged guardrail signs will rarely be up for more than a week or two in my experience). And then you get to places like loving Austin. Two over-burdened north-south corridors (Loop 1/Mopac and probably the worst segment of I-35 respectively, made worse by them simultaneously being under construction for desperately needed expansion) and absolutely no east-west corridors in town. 183 goes NW-SE in the extreme north part of town, and 360 makes a 270o arc around the north, west and extreme south of town. But if you want to actually go east-west in the middle of the city you're poo poo out of luck. Gotta take the mostly 2 and 4 lane roads that go east-west. *Don't drive on icy roads in Texas though. The roads will generally be good, especially if salted/sanded. The locals can't drive for poo poo on ice though. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:From what I've gathered following your thread for 12 years, I think it's less Texas having great roads and instead the place you work being underfunded and awful This is entirely likely. fishmech posted:Texas road infrastructure is great, it's just everything else around the roads is horrible,and what they're doing with that infrastructure is also real bad. Pretty much. If they had some proper zoning regulations to control sprawl, things would be a lot better, but one thing I learned about the state is that people are very averse to regulations on where they can build or what they can do with their land. Alkydere posted:As a Texan, I can say that Texas actually does good roads...most of the time. The state is big enough it needs those good highways desperately and knows it. It also helps we don't have road-cracking winters with icy situations being non-existant to maybe 1-2 days of freezing rain a year depending on what part of the state you're in*. And when roads get damaged, or the guardrails as you noticed, TxDOT is very good at repairing them (the damaged guardrail signs will rarely be up for more than a week or two in my experience). I LOVED the 75mph rural roads. It was like being in France again. Sure, you have a ton of head-on fatalities, but I'd be willing to wager that from a cost-benefit perspective, it's not worth widening them and slapping down a median unless the ADT breaks 10,000. Unlike when I was in Nebraska, the part of the state I was in actually had some topography, so you didn't get highway hypnosis as badly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 13:19
|
|