|
poo poo, now I wish Cities: Skylines had you draw where you wanted roads to be built, and then they'd take a small amount of time to build from one end to the other, complete with cute animations like that.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btOE0rcKDC0 Lazy structural engineers refusing to put a skewed face on the end of the movable tunnel to make it line up nice and pretty with the roadway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
They're probably gonna pour it in-situ since the westbound roadway still needs a ton of work?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Pile of Kittens posted:poo poo, now I wish Cities: Skylines had you draw where you wanted roads to be built, and then they'd take a small amount of time to build from one end to the other, complete with cute animations like that. I seem to recall SimCity 4 did this, though it was mostly cosmetic and didn't seem to have much effect on the actual gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2016 11:45
|
|
|
Avenida posted:I seem to recall SimCity 4 did this, though it was mostly cosmetic and didn't seem to have much effect on the actual gameplay. Yeah SC4 had this, purely visual candy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btOE0rcKDC0 That is one well planned weekend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
I'm interested in starting a purely transit-based A/T thread. Should I just start posting more transit stuff in here, or do you guys think it merits another full thread?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 09:03
|
|
|
Have you see this tread: Transit Politics: The Little Engines That Could Get Federal Funding? I assume you're talking about something more engineering focused, but it would be great to get that perspective in the D&D thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Varance posted:I'm interested in starting a purely transit-based A/T thread. Should I just start posting more transit stuff in here, or do you guys think it merits another full thread? Post your own thread. Transit discussion, especially operations discussion, is sufficiently different, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
That's very much covered by the UK trains thread though, even in all its specificity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
That thread (while excellent) doesn't really cover intracity transit and it completely ignores bus operations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
sim posted:Have you see this tread: Transit Politics: The Little Engines That Could Get Federal Funding? I assume you're talking about something more engineering focused, but it would be great to get that perspective in the D&D thread. I've seen that thread, and it's mostly "Here, let me post the transit system in my home town and some random news articles about transit." I'm thinking more along the lines of, "I have experience with dispatch and planning, and can tell you what goes on behind the scenes and why things are the way they are." Edit: Also, my agency is really far ahead of the curve in terms of technology. We were one of the first agencies to roll out OneBusAway (we beat NYCMTA, WMATA, MBTA and MARTA to that one), plus we're implementing our own version of the Los Angeles tap farecard system with full credit card/mobile/ApplePay support later this year. Not bad for an agency with an $85 million/year budget. Varance fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Jun 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Varance posted:I've seen that thread, and it's mostly "Here, let me post the transit system in my home town and some random news articles about transit." Go for it!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Varance posted:I've seen that thread, and it's mostly "Here, let me post the transit system in my home town and some random news articles about transit." I've kinda been waiting for you to post more. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
A question for the engineers: This is an intersection on our local bikeway. The bikeway is 10th Ave, while the major road it crosses is Main Street. Right now, it's a stop sign on the bikeway side, with a pedestrian walk signal, but a full red/orange/green signal in the Main Street direction. This gets pretty confusing, though, since people biking see the pedestrian signal and go straight through the stop. Meanwhile, cops occasionally sit in the bushes and fine people for doing that (this just happened to a friend of mine). Anyway, they're currently upgrading the whole of 10th Avenue with better bike infrastructure, and doing consultations for it. My friend suggested that they turn the intersection into a fully signalised one in both directions (as is the case for some other intersections in the city where bikeways cross major roads). What I want to ask is how much roughly this would cost (to add in signals in one direction to an existing intersection)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:A question for the engineers: Isn't the bikeway 2-way? So you'd be adding signals to 2 legs of the intersection, or maybe even redoing more. Also, that is a really weird configuration as they have it. My guess is that the signal was installed so that the transit that uses the overhead catenary can get a break to turn. With all the overhead utilities, I would guess 100k-200k to upgrade the intersection to fully signalized, maybe a little more if they end up reconstructing everything. The existing signal arms seem really short and thin, but maybe they're a different construction than I'm used to seeing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/hearings/ho_weston062216.pdf For us Northeasters, the Masspike is moving to all-electronic tolling. The toll gantries are already installed (except for the Ted Williams Tunnel and Callahan/Sumner tunnels which are being installed as we speak). All the toll plazas will be demolished and the interchanges reconfigured. The first will be the I-90/MA 30/Route 128 (I-95) interchange in Weston. This is a really complicated interchange if you look at existing aerials with a lot of ugly weaves.  The elimination of the tollbooths will greatly simplify the interchange, reducing weaves and leaving the remaining weave (I-90 east to 128 south) with a much larger merge area than today—it'll have more than four times the length for a merge/weave. The ramps to Park Street (to/from Route 30) will no longer have dangerous splits that result in near-wrong way incursions and the I-90 eastbound merge happens off the mainline. Both capacity and safety will be massively improved with this new design. I'm looking forward to how they will reconfigure the Allston/Brighton interchange. 
kefkafloyd fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Jun 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Devor posted:Isn't the bikeway 2-way? So you'd be adding signals to 2 legs of the intersection, or maybe even redoing more. Also, that is a really weird configuration as they have it. My guess is that the signal was installed so that the transit that uses the overhead catenary can get a break to turn. Thanks! Yes, two legs of the intersection would need upgrading, (sorry I was mixing terminology there), basically to something like this. Also it's likely they'll be doing something like turning the bikeway into one-way for cars with separated bike lanes on either side, so there'll probably be some digging / removal of redundant left turn lanes, etc on the intersection anyway. And yeah it is a pretty weird design. I think it was basically that they added a pedestrian crosswalk, then added the bike buttons as an afterthought. It's unfortunately pretty common around here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/hearings/ho_weston062216.pdf I'm glad they're moving to all electronic. Although this past week all-electronic tolling which they just instituted at the Tappan Zee Bridge in New York tripped me up - didn't have an ez-pass holder in the rental car so I'm not sure I held my tag up in time!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Thanks! Yes, two legs of the intersection would need upgrading, (sorry I was mixing terminology there), basically to something like this. Also it's likely they'll be doing something like turning the bikeway into one-way for cars with separated bike lanes on either side, so there'll probably be some digging / removal of redundant left turn lanes, etc on the intersection anyway. Ideally you'd want a Dutch type intersection:  Basically, some distance before the actual intersection, the bike lane is split into a path separated by raised median. Then the intersection is laid out such that the bike traffic light is a few meters further ahead than the traffic light for cars coming from behind. The advantage of that is that cars turning right will see if there's people using the bike crossing and won't turn straight into them and cause an accident. If you do a similar thing for the other road, it might end up looking like this:  First example I could find, but not the best, because in this case it looks like the cyclists coming from the 'top' have to take a real sudden S-turn if they want to continue going south. Those bike paths could be smoothed out a bit. Note that this set-up doesn't cost any extra space. All it does is turn some bits of the intersection that aren't required into bike-protecting medians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Totally! I'm super aware of Dutch intersections, and advocate for them when I can. But in Vancouver, the closest thing we have to a proper Dutch intersection is this. I believe they're putting one in at the university (which falls under different planners), after some lobbying from my bike co-op, but in the City, we're some way away from that level of infrastructure. That said, in case you're interested, here's the preferred design proposal for another section of that same bikeway (the first that will be upgraded): http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/10th-ave-health-precinct-open-house-displays-unidirectional-bikeway-option.pdf It's not quite up to Dutch standards, but it'll be pretty nice I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
In serious, world-shaking news, everyone's favorite under-height bridge has got a make over with signals and a fancy electronic warning sign. We'll see how much good it does. Is tying the over-height detector with the signal so that it triggers a red light something that can be done? The sensor is a couple hundred feet or so downstream from the intersection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
I loving love that insane elevated straddle bus thing the chinese have been hyping recently. Why yes sending a huge 2-lane straddling "bus" with barely enough clearance for a sedan to pass under it will work just fine. There will be signs and warnings so clearly no one over-height will hit it, nor will anyone drive into its legs when trying to change lanes or turn. It's right up there with "solar roads" in terms of dumb pointless unfeasible ideas but man it's getting hyped hard. "It has the capacity of a metro but for 1/5 the cost!!! This will revolutionize cities!!" We can't even get people to stop driving into static bridges covered in warning signs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I loving love that insane elevated straddle bus thing the chinese have been hyping recently. Why yes sending a huge 2-lane straddling "bus" with barely enough clearance for a sedan to pass under it will work just fine. There will be signs and warnings so clearly no one over-height will hit it, nor will anyone drive into its legs when trying to change lanes or turn. It's right up there with "solar roads" in terms of dumb pointless unfeasible ideas but man it's getting hyped hard. "It has the capacity of a metro but for 1/5 the cost!!! This will revolutionize cities!!" If it makes you feel better, it won't actually get built.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I loving love that insane elevated straddle bus thing the chinese have been hyping recently. Why yes sending a huge 2-lane straddling "bus" with barely enough clearance for a sedan to pass under it will work just fine. There will be signs and warnings so clearly no one over-height will hit it, nor will anyone drive into its legs when trying to change lanes or turn. It's right up there with "solar roads" in terms of dumb pointless unfeasible ideas but man it's getting hyped hard. "It has the capacity of a metro but for 1/5 the cost!!! This will revolutionize cities!!" Me too. I particularly like the rendering where it bends smoothly with the road as if the vehicle was made of rubber. Does anyone have an explanation for why 95% of the unrealistic inventions you see in Popular Science and its ilk seem to be either vehicles or weapons?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:In serious, world-shaking news, everyone's favorite under-height bridge has got a make over with signals and a fancy electronic warning sign. We'll see how much good it does. The Parkway is a limited access highway and vehicles over 8 feet tall are always prohibited, so those warnings were in addition to the normal signs at every entrance and interchange warning that they weren't allowed on the road in the first place and signs alongside those warning about reduced clearance. edit: Jasper Tin Neck posted:Me too. I particularly like the rendering where it bends smoothly with the road as if the vehicle was made of rubber. GWBBQ fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Jun 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Traffic calming question: My road is ~24 ft wide right now. The town is planning on widening it to 30ft, and adding curbs. They claim this will slow traffic, but I don't really see how. Do curbs somehow slow people down? Is there anything I should be asking them to explain? We live on a side street that's between two major roads, so we get a lot of people driving very fast as a 'shortcut'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
devicenull posted:Traffic calming question: Just straight up widening it with no new lanes or adding parking or anything? If so then they're bullshitting you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
The best way to really slow down cars is to A. narrow the road, for instance by creating perpendicular parking spots to the side of the road (increases available parking space too) and B. make a lot of tiny curves, for instance by switching the side with the parking spots every 100 ft. Just make sure you put a barrier pole of some kind in front of such a row of parking spots or people will drive straight into the first car parked there. If this reduces the road to a one lane road, make the places where the lane switches side a bit wider, so cars coming the other way can pass you there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:In serious, world-shaking news, everyone's favorite under-height bridge has got a make over with signals and a fancy electronic warning sign. We'll see how much good it does. At what point will they just address the problem crossing instead of pretending like there is any amount of signage that will actually make any sort of difference? The costs related to constant collisions blocking the road have got to be adding up by now. "No, THIS sign will be the one that gets their attention" has failed how many times, now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Javid posted:At what point will they just address the problem crossing instead of pretending like there is any amount of signage that will actually make any sort of difference? The costs related to constant collisions blocking the road have got to be adding up by now. "Addressing it" involves either blocking it up or undertaking a very expensive process of raising the grade of the railroad over top for miles on end, digging down to lower the road grade, or both. And it's a fairly active passenger and freight rail line so that adds in extra problems for doing any of those options. Edit: Oh, and don't forget that there's a parallel road on the one side that intersects with the one going under the bridge, so lowering the road under the bridge could have major problems for that road.. fishmech fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Jun 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Just impose heavier fines for hitting the bridge to the point where the bridge makes a profit from people hitting it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Apparently they can't dig further down because they are already at ground water level. Or there is a huge sewage pipe just underneath. Or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
What about the various setups that have been posted in this thread to stop truckers from hitting to low bridges? Obviously they cant go for the real fancy ones since its temporary, but a 'false front' or whatever its called where trucks hit an overhead object thats set a head of the bridge to make them stop instead of running into it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
This is from a few months back, but I have direct experience with this. I'm an engineer working for surveyors on road projects, so I'm the one that turns the pdf plans back into a 3D model. In our company, the plans are gospel and any electronic files from the designer are FIO, just in case you sent us the wrong version, or saved over something instead of "save as", etc. Our stance is that we are responsible for the accuracy of our data, so if I were to use your files, it would still be my responsibility to make sure it matched the plans. We normally don't get the actual InRoads files, just the DWG's used to make the plans, and a DTM of the finished surface, so I would still have to make a model anyways. It's nice to have the designer's files, but I only use it to check my work, or help me understand certain details that aren't very clear in the plans. I also use my model to double-check your plans to see if they are complete and internally consistent (i.e. starting with only a blank file and the PDF plans, do we end up with the same answer). Cichlidae posted:I just spent a couple days at a training program for incorporating 3D models into construction projects. Really interesting stuff, even if it's not directly relevant to traffic engineering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
It's not like someone is hitting it every day, maybe once a month or two. That intersection needed a stop light, anyway. Raising the railway would be a disaster, there's no real alternative road so you can't close it, and the geometry means changing the road itself isn't really viable. Too much work for something that really isn't that big of a deal. There's a sister bridge a mile or so down that I think takes more abuse, but it doesn't have cameras on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Just straight up widening it with no new lanes or adding parking or anything? If so then they're bullshitting you. No new lanes that they've told us about. On street parking is already allowed (and this is a very suburban road where they loved to build massively wide driveways. No one really parks on the road anyway). We've got the guy coming out on Wednesday to explain wtf they're actually going to do, so we'll see...
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Please post here because that sounds hilariously bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Just straight up widening it with no new lanes or adding parking or anything? If so then they're bullshitting you. Is the real reason because the fire department and EMS are complaining about getting trucks down the road in case of emergency?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
Fire departments would rather a hundred die from bad road design than a single fire burn for 5 seconds longer once a year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 01:22
|
|