|
If you think urban highways are needless, you don't think.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
fishmech posted:If you think urban highways are needless, you don't think. The ones they wanted to build in Amsterdam and Utrecht were needless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
I’m always sad about the cities built on waterways that bulldozed the port areas after container shipping took over and replaced them with highways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
fishmech posted:If you think urban highways are needless, you don't think. What if you think cities can function perfectly well with vastly fewer cars and therefore you don’t need to build large highways?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 12:50
|
|
|
Sri.Theo posted:What if you think cities can function perfectly well with vastly fewer cars and therefore you don’t need to build large highways? Then you're wrong? It's that simple? Commercial traffic still exists, all sorts of other traffic still exists to serve a series of one off needs. And most major cities are located as hubs for all surrounding traffic and a lot of long distance stuff. Especially since some countries are far more reliant on road truck freight shipments than others, it's a serious issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
Sri.Theo posted:What if you think cities can function perfectly well with vastly fewer cars and therefore you don’t need to build large highways? Stop arguing with Fishmech.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Then you're wrong? It's that simple? Commercial traffic still exists, all sorts of other traffic still exists to serve a series of one off needs. And most major cities are located as hubs for all surrounding traffic and a lot of long distance stuff. Hmmm yes. I see your point. All the European cities who didn't go to US style highways have totally fallen apart now. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
iospace posted:Hmmm yes. I see your point. All the European cities who didn't go to US style highways have totally fallen apart now. That's not what I'm saying at all, but ok.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Oh great, let's argue with Fishmech again.fishmech posted:If you think urban highways are needless, you don't think. Amsterdam is doing well without them for the most part!
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
Entropist posted:
So you're admitting adding some here and there would probably help solve some problems and allow for things like reducing some of the current street-level lane provision by traffic being able to take such alternate routes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
The idea that people still think we should city-plan for cars and not people is insane. I'm not sure if fishmech is on that path but it sure sounds like it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
Entropist posted:You know who else advocated for urban highways? That's right, Hitler. Countries with huge highway systems and won the war: USA, Russia Countries without huge highway systems that got run the gently caress over: Netherlands, France, Belgium 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:The idea that people still think we should city-plan for cars and not people is insane. I'm not sure if fishmech is on that path but it sure sounds like it. The fact that you're thinking the distinction is between "cars" and "people" and you don't consider freight movement at all is pretty telling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
Belgium and The Netherlands have really dense, heavily-travelled freeway networks, with numerous segments handling more than 200k vehicles as AADT.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The fact that you're thinking the distinction is between "cars" and "people" and you don't consider freight movement at all is pretty telling. e: Here's a link for what percentage of traffic is freight traffic in various US cities(circa 2002, the only more recent thing I could easily find was here, which uses numbers from 2011 but doesn't just look at highway city traffic). In the bigger cities, only 10-15% of traffic was freight. Smaller cities bump that up to 30-40%, although it's not clear how much of that is specifically going to each location and how much is passing through on the way to another destination. Remove the people driving cars to get themselves from point A to point B, and you need a lot less roads(and less wide freeways) just to handle freight traffic. Haifisch fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Jan 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
Haifisch posted:Huge highways aren't specifically there for freight(and aren't the only way for freight to get into and out of a city). They're there because a city planned itself around assuming everyone would be driving a car, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where the infrastructure rewards driving a car and punishes trying to get around any other way(and where huge amounts of space are wasted on highways/parking lots/parking garages/etc). You're using some bizarre idea of a "huge highway" then. They really do get heavily used for freight and other commercial traffic. And tons of them are in cities that are way the gently caress older than the concept of internal combustion vehicles let alone the mass populace having access to such vehicles. Haifisch posted:e: Here's a link for what percentage of traffic is freight traffic in various US cities(circa 2002, the only more recent thing I could easily find was here, which uses numbers from 2011 but doesn't just look at highway city traffic). In the bigger cities, only 10-15% of traffic was freight. Smaller cities bump that up to 30-40%, although it's not clear how much of that is specifically going to each location and how much is passing through on the way to another destination. What I'm seeing on those things is only looking at a limited amount of roads and freeways within the various cities and it's certainly showing a very large volume of freight traffic. It also doesn't look outside roughly the NYC-Chicago axis which happens to be among the best served by freight rail parts of the country (besides the notable fact that there are no freight rail crossings possible below about Poughkeepsie thanks to tunnel restrictions, unless you use car floats). But also, tons of the "get themselves from point A to point B" is not regular commutes that can be well served by public transit, it's also people moving, it's people who work jobs that require them to show up on site with a significant amount of tools/equipment, it's people who are doing a plain old commute but it can't be accommodated in a bearable way by public transit that must necessarily organize itself to be most efficient for the most people. As such what you'd really get int then end isn't needing "less roads" or "less wide freeways". Rather what you'd probably get is much the same amount of roads, and the ability to adjust said freeways so they can have, say, safer lane widths, more extensive acceleration/deceleration lane usage, and other such things that make for a better roadway. fishmech fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Jan 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
Haifisch posted:Huge highways aren't specifically there for freight(and aren't the only way for freight to get into and out of a city). They're there because a city planned itself around assuming everyone would be driving a car, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where the infrastructure rewards driving a car and punishes trying to get around any other way(and where huge amounts of space are wasted on highways/parking lots/parking garages/etc). This is correct. In Florida, expressways that carry 250k AADT generally only have 10-20k AADT in freight. In other words, less than 10% of the traffic is freight. In many cases, especially with beach traffic, it's less than 5%. Coincidentally, traffic in Miami-Dade is least dense near MetroRail stations. Hmmm. All traffic in central Miami-Dade:  Freight traffic counts in the same area:  Varance fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Jan 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:10
|
|
|
Speaking of Florida, our transit stats for 2017 are out now, covering every agency in the state: http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Documents/2017_transit_hdbk_FINAL.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 07:34
|
|
|
How are dockless bikeshares implementing themselves in cities so ruthlessly? It seems like they barely go through any regulation/licensing process and dump a bunch of bikes on the sidewalks.Count Roland posted:I visited Amsterdam this year and was shocked to see they had an underground system. I didn't think you could build something in a place so water logged. Never underestimate the Dutch tenacity in their battle against water.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 09:57
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:How are dockless bikeshares implementing themselves in cities so ruthlessly? It seems like they barely go through any regulation/licensing process and dump a bunch of bikes on the sidewalks. Where? All I've seen in the news has been the debacle in China, I didn't know it happened elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 13:02
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:Where? Washington DC recently had a batch of the companies show up. There were a spate of stories with photos of bikes parked in the middle of handicap ramps at intersections around the time. I also recall a video that a guy shot of a crazy lady who stole and damaged his rental bike. May have been a bikeshare though. Fake edit: I really like the title of this news story DC police to residents: Don’t dial 911 when seeing bikeshare users
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 13:08
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:How are dockless bikeshares implementing themselves in cities so ruthlessly? It seems like they barely go through any regulation/licensing process and dump a bunch of bikes on the sidewalks. In Amsterdam they got dumped all over the city this summer, taking up scarce bike parking space and annoying locals by being cheap plastic crap, and also useless because everyone already has five bikes. People were dumping them in canals or putting them in the spots where you are supposed to put garbage. A few month ago the city banned them entirely and started removing them but now they announced plans to allow three companies to reintroduce them in limited numbers and under the condition that each one is used at least 4 times per day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:Where? Durham NC went from zero to three services practically overnight
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
Devor posted:Fake edit: I really like the title of this news story Are people doing that because they think the users are stealing bikes, because they're parking the bikes in illegal/inconvenient spots, or because they're opposed to bikes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Are people doing that because they think the users are stealing bikes, because they're parking the bikes in illegal/inconvenient spots, or because they're opposed to bikes? The overarching strategy is to complain a bunch (facetiously, in this case) in order to make the bikes a nuisance for the city. It's a poorly thought out strategy because these bikes didn't just spring from nothing, they coordinated with the local DOT before they began operations. As far as your three specific points: 1. They think the users are stealing bikes They don't honestly believe this, but there is a bunch of racism mixed in to their opposition to bike infrastructure. They see any outside folks as a nuisance and danger. See also: proposal to bring light rail to college campus, objected to because 'those people' will come and steal and then escape on transit. 2. They're parking the bikes in illegal/inconvenient spots There's some validity to this, being addressed by an information campaign. Certainly doesn't require a 911 call. 3. They're opposed to bikes Somewhat, see #1. They're probably okay with their own use of bikes as recreation devices, but don't want strangers coming into "their" spaces.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
There was a big dockless bike rental thing launched in my city, I see them everywhere but never anyone riding them. To use them you have to install an app that wants full access to your email, facebook, and general social media as well as photos and contact list, basically everything. The app and the bike share both trace back to a company in China. It's also not cheap. No thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
The dockless bike share has also happened in Dallas, with 4 different companies. Of course with Dallas having next to absolutely nothing for bike infrastructure means it has been mess, although it is good to see people riding bikes now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 01:58
|
|
|
So speaking of high/freeways... Back in the 60s and 70s when the world had a raging hardon for them the 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan was drafted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Melbourne_Transportation_Plan It was a pretty comprehensive plan but of course apart from the first underground 'city loop' stations in the CBD, all that eventuated from it was road projects while other train and tram projects got shelved. I present, the web of roads. Completely dominating the inner city areas and (wealthy) bayside suburbs which were and still are well serviced by the tram and bus network. Note that the poulation of greater Melbourne 12 years later in 1981 was around 2.8m, it is currently 4.5m.  So after some discussions on another forum I did a quick paintover tonight showing what currently exists of that plan, quite a bit of it actually although the current projects about to begin construction are further out and in the developing outer north and western suburbs which didn't exist in the 80s, including the outer metropolitan ring road, despite the metropolitan ring road never having been finished (although the toll road project had contracts signed last month to 'complete' it with the shortest route)   The light green roads in the south east have been built recently as bypasses, at grade (to save money) but with provisions to grade separate these roads in the future with very wide median strips and the major intersections for bridges to be built, although I doubt that'll happen for awhile yet, most of those have only just been upgraded from local roads. If you want to explore the region: https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.8551786,144.9610293,32333m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en drunkill fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Jan 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 15:06
|
|
|
for those of you that don't live in the US that are in snowy mountainous areas, does your local government conduct avalanche control in a similar method? http://denver.cbslocal.com/2018/01/03/avalanche-risk-explosives-loveland-pass/ dropping explosives out of helicopters or firing high explosive howitzer shells into the side of a mountain to create controlled avalanches.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
I heard that in the Alps, they sometimes use helicopters. I think that howitzers are not found outside of the military, except in the US or Russia... Both methods must be hell on the wildlife though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 13:12
|
|
|
Canadian military uses 105mm howitzers and have built 17 road side gun platforms on one stretch of highway because of the snowfall in the Rockies. http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/shoot-it-with-artillery-how-canada-tames-avalanches-in-the-treacherous-passes-of-the-rocky-mountains
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRy0RA3gsyE Recoilless rifle. I've also heard of explosives fired with air cannons, like a giant potato gun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
Avalanches blocking roads, pfft. How about the roads melting? https://twitter.com/VictoriaPolice/status/949149370833760256 The (Deadly) Hume is the main road between Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney, the busiest (regional) highway. The fun part is it is only ~30c today, a bit warm but pretty average. Tomorrow it'll be 42, perhaps warmer out in that area. Edit: Bonus tram-car related map and story for Melbourne. https://twitter.com/aussiewongm/status/949064232061976576 https://wongm.com/2017/07/categorising-melbourne-tram-network-environment/ Most length of most routes is still shared space with car lanes and still no priority activation at traffic lights. drunkill fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Jan 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 07:32
|
|
|
There’s at least a couple of instances of surplus M60 tanks being used for avalanche control in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 14:21
|
|
|
Ahahahahaha. RRFBs have been banned in the US, as the patent dispute over the tech has now been resolved and the device has been reclassified as patented. Federal regulations prevent using patented devices as traffic controls.  This technically happened last April, but now the appeal has been denied, so new installs are not permitted at all. The device is no longer legal under the MUTCD and must be replaced with something else if damaged or replaced due to age. Varance fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Jan 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 03:48
|
|
|
 How horribly dangerous would this hosed up T intersection with a bi-directional tram median veering off through the bike path and sidewalk be?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 10:01
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:
I am quite sure this exact situation exist in The Hague. It's not all too bad, because the sidewalk thing turns into a sort of crosswalk where the tram crosses, and whenever the tram driver sees other traffic potentially in their way, they ring the tram bell and slow down. Very importantly, the angle between the tram lines and the bike path is large enough to make it very unlikely for bike wheels to get stuck into the gap of the rails. Also, the bike paths are separate from the road at the actual intersection, with the typical 'triangular' kerbs, and the place where they need to stop is in front of the place where cars need to stop, so car drivers will always see cyclists before they cross. For an intersection with a tram line, this is a reasonably safe solution for cars, trams AND bicycles. I'd prefer it if the tram lines never run on the road at all, but that usually means changing an entire city, and there might not even be space.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:09
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:
You'll put traffic lights in, stopping crossing car traffic, right? We have a few situations like this in my town, without lights, and the tourists mess up every once in a while. Eastbound drivers might assume they have right-of-way since the tram is approaching from their left. The result can sometimes look rather nasty, but I don't recall anyone dying. These intersections are only in low-speed areas. Hippie Hedgehog fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Jan 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
Varance posted:Ahahahahaha. RRFBs have been banned in the US, as the patent dispute over the tech has now been resolved and the device has been reclassified as patented. Federal regulations prevent using patented devices as traffic controls. I'm going to assume there's already a strong and expensive lobbying push to get that restriction on patented devices removed legislatively because no way would the original manufacturer be dumb enough to lock themselves out of the market like that
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:I'm going to assume there's already a strong and expensive lobbying push to get that restriction on patented devices removed legislatively because no way would the original manufacturer be dumb enough to lock themselves out of the market like that Here's the official memorandum, and yes, Florida Man is to blame: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/terminationmemo/index.htm Basically, there's a guy down in Venice, Florida with a small traffic fixture business that owns two patents on the tech (there are already thousands of RRFBs throughout Florida). One of the big traffic control companies started manufacturing their own variant of RRFB. When the lawsuits started flying, FHWA figured out the whole patent thing out and banned them all. FDOT is looking into guidance, but flashing road reflectors look to be the alternative. They're not WiFi-based, so they do require wiring, but that also gets them around the patent problem. These things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjkeBOA2cHg Varance fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Jan 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 15:26
|
|