|
Urban freeways also tend to be repurposed pre-interstate-system and below-standard roads, which naturally have a lower safe speed. Faster traffic does indeed have higher noise, but it's much more important how many vehicles at all travel a stretch, and especially how much of them are trucks - just like trucks cause disproportionate amounts of road damage, they also generate disproportionate road noise.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:22 |
|
|
Sri.Theo posted:In other news, Cycle superhighway 6 is being extended in London. Which is good when you look at the numbers it's carrying now. https://twitter.com/e14cyclist/status/848206815104053249. I think the democratic process around these things happens during council or Mayoral elections - there's never really been a scheme-level direct democratic process in the UK, and there certainly wasn't when they decided to devote lots of public space to motor traffic last century. There does seem to be a recent trend to lead consultation reports with percentages for and against which I agree is a bit misleading, although it does sometimes help highlight how small these "common sense" opposition groups can be. However, the main purpose is to solicit feedback, minimise impact and maximising benefit rather than measuring support. Jonnty fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
Sri.Theo posted:In other news, Cycle superhighway 6 is being extended in London. Which is good when you look at the numbers it's carrying now. https://twitter.com/e14cyclist/status/848206815104053249. Some of these people really need to adjust their gears rather than acting like they're climbing the Alps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:Does car noise increase with car speed? I am curious because I tend to see lower limits on urban highways vs rural highways and I am wondering if that is a reason (drove through central CT and the I-84/i91 interchange) Pollution increases with speed too!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
Entropist posted:Pollution increases with speed too! Not really that simple. Air pollution from stop-and-go traffic can be significantly higher than from flowing traffic at high speed. Basically anything that takes a lot of gas causes a lot of pollution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Here, pollution is usually the main argument for lowering the speed limits through urban areas or nature reserves. It seems unlikely that pollution would be decreased with a higher speed limit...
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Pollution is not an argument for higher speed limits here, but it is an argument against anything that might reduce the level of service of a road. More congestion means more pollution. This is used as a straight faced reason to not take away traffic lanes for bus or bike use here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Entropist posted:It seems unlikely that pollution would be decreased with a higher speed limit... I didn't say it would. I said "it's not that simple". What's your measure of pollution? Greenhouse gases? Microscopic particles? Nitrogen oxides? Ozone? All of them together, weighted somehow? What's your area of concern: local, regional, global? Maybe one of our resident traffic engineers can explain, because I don't have any good references for this, but it seems perfectly logical that whatever consumes the most fuel (acceleration) also produces the most greenhouse gas, meaning that you can't say, without further qualification, that increased speeds on a road will produce more of it. The most obvious driver of local pollution levels is the number of cars in an area. Anything that keeps cars there will mean more local pollution, but not necessarily affect global pollution. A high number of red lights, or speed bumps, also cause increased pollution, since cars decelerate and accelerate more, as does stop-and-go traffic. I can imagine that for a given stretch of road, raising the speed limit will often result in more local air pollution, because it means most drivers will accelerate harder and/or longer. However, reducing speeds by putting in humps would be counterproductive for pollution and noise. I think it would make perfect sense that a high-LOS freeway with a lot of cars on it could emit less air pollution than a congested main street with an equal amount of cars. But would love to see numbers on that. Hippie Hedgehog fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
The anti-bike lane anti-traffic calming brigade in my city uses pollution and climate change as a super disingenuous excuse to oppose those things and demand more car lanes and new highway overpasses. "These socialists keep going on about climate change but then they want bike lanes?? Bike lanes cause traffic jams and idling cars create pollution!! Checkmate libtards, your war on cars is killing the planet!!" They also did some math showing that a 1980's diesel bus they got their stats for emits more of a couple specific types of pollution per person moved per km therefor cut transit funding and cut gas taxes so more people can afford to drive personal vehicles which are the most environmental and safe way to get around. These sort of things make it to "letters to the editor" and actually published. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:What's your measure of pollution? Greenhouse gases? Microscopic particles? Nitrogen oxides? Ozone? All of them together, weighted somehow? Usually PM 2.5 gets the most attention but also Nitrogen oxides. Government tried to raise the speed around a few cities to 100 kph (from 80kph) but people had a judge block it because that would cause the air quality to drop too far, the judge specifically cited values of microscopic particles and nitrogen oxides to motivate his decision. Noise is also often used to keep the speed down, some towns near the A2 motorway agreed it could be built only if speed on this perfectly straight 5 lane motorway was limited to 100 kph, resulting in over a million fines* per year. Recently they decided speed will be raised to 130 kph anyway, maybe they'll try to have a judge stop that as well. *= consistently over €40 million per year in traffic fines since it opened. NihilismNow fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:Some of these people really need to adjust their gears rather than acting like they're climbing the Alps. As someone who cycles almost solely in 6th gear on that route, it's so stop start that you end up constantly going up and down, it's way too annoying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Usually PM 2.5 gets the most attention but also Nitrogen oxides. Government tried to raise the speed around a few cities to 100 kph (from 80kph) but people had a judge block it because that would cause the air quality to drop too far, the judge specifically cited values of microscopic particles and nitrogen oxides to motivate his decision. After a full year of driving to Amsterdam almost every day, I developed a pretty good sense of exactly how fast I could go without getting fined by the automated system. Turned out my car's speedometer had enough margin that I could push 110kph, never tried going beyond that 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:The anti-bike lane anti-traffic calming brigade in my city uses pollution and climate change as a super disingenuous excuse to oppose those things and demand more car lanes and new highway overpasses. "These socialists keep going on about climate change but then they want bike lanes?? Bike lanes cause traffic jams and idling cars create pollution!! Checkmate libtards, your war on cars is killing the planet!!" Isn't this an argument for propane buses (Busses should use propane or natural gas and not diesel, ideally they should be electric but propane will do)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Usually PM 2.5 gets the most attention but also Nitrogen oxides. Government tried to raise the speed around a few cities to 100 kph (from 80kph) but people had a judge block it because that would cause the air quality to drop too far, the judge specifically cited values of microscopic particles and nitrogen oxides to motivate his decision. Don't some of the particles come from tyres and blacktop? In that case, it would make some sense to limit speeds to reduce those, since road wear increases at higher speeds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:Don't some of the particles come from tyres and blacktop? In that case, it would make some sense to limit speeds to reduce those, since road wear increases at higher speeds. I think I saw a quote from some paper recently, that claimed electric cars produced more pollution from the vehicle itself than modern gasoline cars, simply because the EVs weigh more due to batteries, while modern gas engines are very efficient and compact. And the extra weight causes more particles to be released from tires and road surface.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Electric cars don't emit all kinds of stuff where they drive though, tyres excepted, which is mostly the point of them. They should have a positive effect on air pollution in cities, as well allowing them to run on wind or solar power when the grid will hopefully eventually be mostly that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:Don't some of the particles come from tyres and blacktop? In that case, it would make some sense to limit speeds to reduce those, since road wear increases at higher speeds. I just looked up the specifics, appearently the increase from 80 to 100 kph causes a increase in NO2 from 0.5-0.8 microgram per cubic meter, for locations that are already at 38-55 microgram per cubic meter. It was also determined to increase the noise by 1.5 db. But since these locations were already at or over the limit for NO2 and noise the judge still decided the raised speed limit was not legal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
nielsm posted:I think I saw a quote from some paper recently, that claimed electric cars produced more pollution from the vehicle itself than modern gasoline cars, simply because the EVs weigh more due to batteries, while modern gas engines are very efficient and compact. And the extra weight causes more particles to be released from tires and road surface. It's amazing the kind of bad-faith arguments that can be made opposing changes because of the "environment" that utterly fail to see the forest for the trees. Hell, they can't even see the tree with all the sticks in the way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
nielsm posted:I think I saw a quote from some paper recently, that claimed electric cars produced more pollution from the vehicle itself than modern gasoline cars, simply because the EVs weigh more due to batteries, while modern gas engines are very efficient and compact. And the extra weight causes more particles to be released from tires and road surface. What I had read (I think in the bastion of questionable science and layout choices Wired) back when Priuses started becoming popular was that the battery production at the time was not terribly environmentally friendly. The production facility poisoned the surroundings enough to be used for NASA rover tests, and they had to be shipped across the ocean to be added to the cars, then shipped back across the ocean to be sold to the consumer in America (which was made worse due to their added weight that normal imports do not incur). Has that changed in the last decade and a half? Almost certainly. But, at least for a time, something of an argument could probably be made that hybrid vehicles weren't really the environmentally friendly option they were sold as.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
Blue Moonlight posted:So, I'm not informed of the current state of affairs by any means, so I have no dog in this ideological fight. That article was debunked a bunch of times. It assumed a hummer H2 would last like 300k mi and that a prius would last 100k mi (which is shorter than the battery warranty). Also, the city in canada cites was polluted in like the 1950s and was suffering residual effects -- modern processes are not nearly as dirty. A bunch of other things too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
Yeah Sudbury's been a nickel mining town forever. It's not like there was a sudden demand for the stuff and they decided to go open up the Shield for the first time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
Blue Moonlight posted:Has that changed in the last decade and a half? Almost certainly. But, at least for a time, something of an argument could probably be made that hybrid vehicles weren't really the environmentally friendly option they were sold as. Hybrid vehicles have all sorts of problems inherent in them. Electric vehicles have considerably fewer. Notably: * No need to produce a combustion engine * Powertrain? Gone Both of these should contribute to a significantly lower environmental impact in manufacturing, as well as no longer producing any NO2, CO2 etc locally when driven. Of course, battery manufacture and car manufacture both still have huge environmental impact. I think it's quite possible that buying a new Tesla would have a higher climate impact than continuing to drive an efficient modern gasoline car for a number of years. Someone will have done the numbers on that, I'm sure. Possibly the outcome would depend on which organization provided the funding for the study... Hippie Hedgehog fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
It probably also makes a difference whether you measure in uninterrupted highway traffic, or in urban stop-and-go traffic, and whether the gas car is allowed to turn off the engine when stopped. (A gas car stopping and restarting the engine all the time probably also causes additional wear, which you'd have to factor in.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
I just realized I'm a few years behind on this thread, but I should probably spend some time catching up because I just accepted an offer as a roadway design engineer. I'm kinda tempted to reinstall Cities: Skylines and mess around a bit...
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
A few days ago they implemented a new traffic plan in Ghent. People have been working through the night to replace a bunch of road signs. Suddenly, about 70 one-way roads have changed direction, completely changing basically any route from one place to another in the city. On top of that, they added a bunch of pedestrian zones (which is good), which are currently only blocked for cars by some red lines on the road and a traffic fine cam (that will only send out warning letters for the first 30 days). They're planning to put down more barriers. The news says everyone was confused, loads of people were driving in the wrong direction, getting stuck because a car approached from the other side through the narrow road. People even saw police being confused, hesitating, and then driving a one-way road in the wrong direction. I hope it doesn't cause too many accidents. There must be a better way to implement such a huge change in the traffic plan, though?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:There must be a better way to implement such a huge change in the traffic plan, though? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagen_H
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
What do you guys think of that wrightspeed stuff, I think it's basically a series hybrid but with a gas turbine generator.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
Somewhat interesting, about signage design which surely is relevant to this thread: https://priceonomics.com/a-designers-war-on-misleading-parking-signs/
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
Good article on the plan to repair/overhaul an existing rather rickety bridge over the masspike, involving a total shutdown of normal car traffic for two weeks: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...MQPP/story.html  Also a pertinent quote: “'You’re not stuck in traffic,' he said. 'You are traffic.'"
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
i don't know if I've asked this in this thread before, but what in the holy gently caress is going on Rt. 2 in Leominster? these "on-ramps" and "off-ramps" are like 50 feet long and terminate in 90 degree three way turns onto (usually) busy roads. also - how in the gently caress do houses get built like this right on exit ramps? isn't it not only obnoxious to live literally on top of a pretty major highway, but hard to drive to your own house? just like, what in the holy gently caress is this? people probably die at this intersection 
barnold fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Apr 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Turdsdown Tom posted:i don't know if I've asked this in this thread before, but what in the holy gently caress is going on Rt. 2 in Leominster? these "on-ramps" and "off-ramps" are like 50 feet long and terminate in 90 degree three way turns onto (usually) busy roads. also - how in the gently caress do houses get built like this right on exit ramps? isn't it not only obnoxious to live literally on top of a pretty major highway, but hard to drive to your own house? That part of Route 2 is an old-rear end highway, it was built through Westminster and Leominster in the 50s, and has a lot of trademark crappy Massachusetts 1950s highway shortcuts, like those ramps. However, plenty of stuff nearby predates the highway. If you look at Historic Aerials, those houses were already there. Route 2 was just punched through with no regard to such things. The "Ramps" are actually just the road that was already there split in half and attached to the highway. I wish I was joking. quote:just like, what in the holy gently caress is this? people probably die at this intersection That's at the beginning of the Super Two grade separated highway section of Route 2 in Orange. Very little traffic is making the turn from 2A west to 2 east there (or 2 West to 2A east, for that matter); the vast majority is going straight through, or getting off of 2 East to 2A east via the slip ramp. More people get in accidents from crossing over the double yellow going further down route 2 proper. That intersection is probably no worse than any other two lane highway in the pioneer valley or the Berkshires. Movements just aren't being made there. More people were killed just due west near the Erving paper plant; that dangerous section was eliminated about ten years ago with the Erving bypass.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Turdsdown Tom posted:i don't know if I've asked this in this thread before, but what in the holy gently caress is going on Rt. 2 in Leominster? these "on-ramps" and "off-ramps" are like 50 feet long and terminate in 90 degree three way turns onto (usually) busy roads. also - how in the gently caress do houses get built like this right on exit ramps? isn't it not only obnoxious to live literally on top of a pretty major highway, but hard to drive to your own house? While were on this subject, what's the explanation for this Tesla only on ramp? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
CA-110 is, like the above freeway, old as hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:The "Ramps" are actually just the road that was already there split in half and attached to the highway. I wish I was joking.  quote:Very little traffic is making the turn from 2A west to 2 east there (or 2 West to 2A east, for that matter); the vast majority is going straight through, or getting off of 2 East to 2A east via the slip ramp. More people get in accidents from crossing over the double yellow going further down route 2 proper. This makes a lot of sense. At the time I was driving by there, there happened to be a lot of traffic, and just driving past it eastbound made me say "what the gently caress" out loud. It didn't occur to me at the time that most traffic probably didn't move in that direction, I think I was too distracted by how confusing the whole layout of Rt2/2a is
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Turdsdown Tom posted:This makes a lot of sense. At the time I was driving by there, there happened to be a lot of traffic, and just driving past it eastbound made me say "what the gently caress" out loud. It didn't occur to me at the time that most traffic probably didn't move in that direction, I think I was too distracted by how confusing the whole layout of Rt2/2a is Not an uncommon arrangement when a newer highway supersedes an older highway. Route 2 certainly has some more bizarre intersections. Crosby's Corner was recently replaced with a flyover, but that was certainly bad in its movements. If you're feeling adventurous, there's an abandoned double switchback section of the old Mohawk Trail inside the current hairpin turn in North Adams.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
When you are at a stoplight there are three options: A) turn left B) turn right C) drive directly into the house in front of you Why is it necessary to have a huge reflective sign with arrows pointing out that you only should choose A or B?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:When you are at a stoplight there are three options: Because it's necessary. Sadly the sign moves too fast for the people who really need it. About a week or so ago someone "ran" a T interesection near my house going fast enough that not only did it total a parked car, but it literally caused part of the condo on the opposite of the T to collapse onto the (now no longer speeding) car. Thankfully cars are built well enough to protect the passenger that the driver didn't die. And the apartment that collapsed onto the car was unoccupied and used for storage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Yeah, people drive into buildings all the time, even in broad daylight. The average driver has very poor driving skills and is only half paying attention to the road on a good day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:When you are at a stoplight there are three options: Because at night, particularly if it's raining, it can be not at all obvious that the road does not continue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:22 |
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:Why is it necessary to have a huge reflective sign with arrows pointing out that you only should choose A or B? fog or a snowstorm or even a particularly heavy rainstorm can easily obscure your view of the road, and you have to account for people who don't live in the area and know exactly how the layout of every road is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 19:30
|
|