|
Baronjutter posted:
There's a similar setup with a tram track branching off somewhere in the east of Amsterdam but it's on a bigger road and they made the branch part of the crossing, including an extra bike traffic light for the path that crosses it. https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.3651136,4.9487667,89m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=nl
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
Varance posted:These things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjkeBOA2cHg I like the stop bar variant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7TYcqYnE3Y Also it'd be pretty neat to see these sorts of things put in the "cat tracks" at multi-lane intersections and configured to light up along with the appropriate phases of the signals to make it clear which lanes could go and where it was OK for then to end up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
I'd be interested to see if they've done testing of those in-road LEDs in places with cold weather & snowplows 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
Chris Knight posted:I'd be interested to see if they've done testing of those in-road LEDs in places with cold weather & snowplows Are they that much different than runway entrance lights? I imagine those have to deal with plows every winter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
They're good for southern/southwest states, assuming road crews sweep them out every year or so. Everywhere else, they're useless half the year in slow climes, which is most of the United States and all of Europe/Canada. The exception is that they're a good choice for summer destinations like beach and boardwalk areas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 22:30
|
|
|
Varance posted:These things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjkeBOA2cHg Ugh. I love it when people push these and then immediately step into the road. Those lights don't stop cars people, especially when the car is 5 yards from the crosswalk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
In California even without those lights you're required to stop for a pedestrian. If there are pedestrians next to a crosswalk you should anticipate them using the crosswalk and slow down.quote:A crosswalk is the part of the roadway set aside for pedestrian traffic. Most intersections have a pedestrian crosswalk whether or not lines are painted on the street. Most crosswalks are located at corners, but they can also be located in the middle of the block. Before turning a corner, watch for pedestrians about to cross the street. Pedestrians have the right-of-way in marked or unmarked crosswalks. Although pedestrians have the right-of-way, they also must abide by the rules of the road. A pedestrian should not suddenly leave a curb, or other place of safety, and cross into the path of a vehicle as this creates an immediate hazard. Furthermore, a pedestrian must not stop unnecessarily or delay traffic while in a crosswalk. That guidance, from the DMV, covers suicidal pedestrians who dive out in front of your car on purpose to hurt themselves before we go down that path. Chemmy fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
Chemmy posted:In California even without those lights you're required to stop. If there are pedestrians next to a crosswalk you should anticipate them using the crosswalk and slow down. Same in Florida. It's state law to yield to any pedestrian at the curb, trying to cross.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
I used something like these to cross at an unsignalized intersection of a 4-lane two way undivided road (2 lanes each way) with parking on both sides that obscured people trying to cross. http://www.kirklandwa.gov/depart/Public_Works/Transportation_and_Traffic/Pedestrian_Flags_-_FAQs.htm I felt like a total jackass while using them, but they worked. I feel like if a driver can think to himself "Ehh, he's probably just waiting for a gap" they're more likely to keep driving when someone's waiting to cross. When you shove a flag out there, you're making it pretty clear you're trying to cross.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
What's up with these X's on the street every once in a while? They're the same reflective paint as everything else and maybe 5ish feet to a side.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:What's up with these X's on the street every once in a while? They're the same reflective paint as everything else and maybe 5ish feet to a side. Are they located at intersections? Could be motorcycles or bicycles stand here to trigger the traffic signal
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
Sometimes they put those along with a DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION sign because people love blocking the intersection and creating gridlock
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
Nope, one's along side of a marina, not near the entrance, and one is just along a random stretch of road. They are both low speed, for what that matters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
Crosswalks? I see those at mid-block crossings in Ontario. Alternatively, do you have a coyote problem in your area?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:Nope, one's along side of a marina, not near the entrance, and one is just along a random stretch of road. They are both low speed, for what that matters. Give us google street view
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.4734678,-82.690835,3a,75y,226.67h,62.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spJLLEvrUiddltkcJ6HeckQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
Probably a Ground Control Point for photogrammetry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 00:31
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
sleepy.eyes posted:https://www.google.com/maps/@27.4734678,-82.690835,3a,75y,226.67h,62.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spJLLEvrUiddltkcJ6HeckQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 Tha's no' an X, tha's a plus sign!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Probably a Ground Control Point for photogrammetry. I like this guess. Try emailing your local DOT and asking. Send a pic and link to the street view. As an extra, they might also obliterate it for violating the MUTCD
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
I've re-jiggered this intersection to make it safer, I think. It's a main route with a bit more of a "side street" coming off of it and I think this arrangement makes it more clear who has priority. So that cars trying to turn onto the main road don't block the sidewalk or bike path I created an area about one car length for vehicles to wait to turn, otherwise they'd have to creep through the tram track, sidewalk, and bike lane before being able to even see if they can make their turn. The tram is now out of the road and off to the side and only crosses the side street and does so at a nice logical 90 degrees. The curb/pavement on the "north" end of the crosswalks is widened to be enough for people trying to cross the (unsignalled) road to be visible and not in the way of the bike path. This isn't a major intersection and it's not signaled so I see no reason to go overboard on the "classic" dutch intersection, bikes can just use the crosswalks like everyone else.  Safer? Better? Dutcher?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I've re-jiggered this intersection to make it safer, I think. The transit probably needs to operate in the median in order to allow for traffic signal operations down the corridor. It would obviously help this intersection to not have it in the median, but there's typically a reason they do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
Devor posted:The transit probably needs to operate in the median in order to allow for traffic signal operations down the corridor. It would obviously help this intersection to not have it in the median, but there's typically a reason they do. It's mostly running in its own right of way down pedestrian streets so this is actually one of the few places it crosses vehicle traffic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It's mostly running in its own right of way down pedestrian streets so this is actually one of the few places it crosses vehicle traffic. Is this a real one or for the thing you're building? It depends on what the adjacent land uses are, but ANY adjacent traffic signals are going to have to massively change their operations if you run on the outside instead of the median. And if you have things fronting on the road on the outside, putting the trolley there will obviously impact your usage - you can't have outside parallel parking that serves businesses, for example, because they'd have to step across the trolley tracks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I've re-jiggered this intersection to make it safer, I think. My gut says that the Tram Stop should be pushed back from the perpendicular road a little bit. If it's fully signalled then it's not a big deal, but I've never seen a train platform build immediately adjacent to a crossing road like that, I assume it's that way for safety and visibility reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:My gut says that the Tram Stop should be pushed back from the perpendicular road a little bit. If it's fully signalled then it's not a big deal, but I've never seen a train platform build immediately adjacent to a crossing road like that, I assume it's that way for safety and visibility reasons. I figure if the tram stops there it will already be crossing the street slowly, rather than possibly having to slow down while going at full speed. It would stop, load, then ring its bell and creep forward until cross traffic yielded to its priority. There's also nothing "south" of the tram line, it's a drop down to a grade separated freight line. The tram is wedged between the street and the railway right of way, so no buildings or access south. Although even if there were it would be fine, I've seen plenty of tram tracks integrated subtly into pedestrian environments with a total lack of signals or barriers. Just stay out of the tram's way or it will politely ring its bell at you.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I've re-jiggered this intersection to make it safer, I think. Hm. The way you designed it now it looks like it is supposed to be an 'uitrit', with all the traffic from the side street crossing the sidewalk and pedestrians on that sidewalk having priority. This looks different however: you would not have the bit of road leading up to the sidewalk, it would just be an angled kerb. You said it's there for the cars to wait, but they would just wait on the raised bit of sidewalk between the road and the bike path. Also, you would not have the stop bar on the small road, nor would the median line be interrupted. And the crosswalk on the main road looks different  In the Netherlands this kind of intersection is only done with very small local streets, and such a street would not be big enough to have its own bike lanes. The sidewalk would also be raised compared to the road and bike lanes. It is therefore a bit strange to have bike lanes ending on a sidewalk like that, though not completely impossible. An example of an intersection with this kind of setup: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.3620234,4.9436407,134a,35y,357.35h/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=nl If it is supposed to be a normal crossing it is also not Dutch, as the bike lane would never end before a crossing. Even if there are no signals and/or no priority crossing for the bike, the bike lane would still run all the way to the road and then there would be some lines delineating where they should cross to (not a crosswalk), and then there would be little connecting paths to connect the north bike path to the road where the bikes can cross. This would be between the crosswalk and the car intersection. You still need something for the bikes to get from the side street onto the bike path either way, no matter what kind of crossing it is. The Dutch way is indeed to have trams stop before the crossing, but this would have to be on both sides. So, the trams coming from the west would stop to the west of the intersection, and those coming from the east would stop to the east of the intersection, at separate platforms, such that when the tram is leaving it is always leaving slowly across the crossing from a full stop, with enough time to watch for careless people. This is also the case in the example I linked above which has a tram line in the median.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
It reminds me of this situation near my old home: https://www.google.nl/maps/@51.8733996,4.4533174,90m/data=!3m1!1e3 Not urban but essentially looks the same.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
Any idea what these chevrons on the shoulder of the Merritt Parkway might be? They're not evenly spaced, direction doesn't seem to correlate with slope, and I don't see any obvious thing they're marking. Street view https://goo.gl/maps/FJeUkTcJdGo
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
An attempted bike lane?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
It's really hard finding prototypical examples of the sort of setup I'm trying to do, even without the tram. Where I live in north america it's quite common to have various medium-capacity streets intersecting each other and maybe one would have a stop sign, or our delightful 4-way stop situation. There's absolutely streets with bike lanes that are also low-priority enough to not have signals, just stop signs, hence the constant rage towards "cyclists who treat stop signs like yield signs". Zooming around NL in google though, in cities there's basically only two types of streets: Some sort of multi-lane two-way arterial with signals for most crossings other than the smallest side street, and local streets which tend to be one-way, lack bike lanes because they're so small and local, and manage to get by without signals. As a bike or pedestrian you generally have a variety of direct routes to your destination, but motor vehicles are all funneled onto these larger streets because the maze of local streets often don't allow through traffic. Really, with the volumes I'm imagining it should probably have a signal, I just don't know how to make them and do all the wiring to light them up let alone have them cycle through phases and switch to red for the tram. So I'm trying to do everything I can to avoid lights. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 01:19
|
|
|
Entropist posted:An attempted bike lane? On the Merrit? Not unless you have a death wish. Two narrow lanes of twisty highway traffic is not a good match for a bike lane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 03:23
|
|
|
devicenull posted:On the Merrit? Not unless you have a death wish. Two narrow lanes of twisty highway traffic is not a good match for a bike lane. He didn't say that it was a safe or a responsible attempt at a bike lane. That's really all I can think of that it might be - its clearly nothing to do with parking, and the width is small enough that it could be an attempt by people decades out of date who have no idea what they're doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 06:42
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Any idea what these chevrons on the shoulder of the Merritt Parkway might be? They're not evenly spaced, direction doesn't seem to correlate with slope, and I don't see any obvious thing they're marking. They're used to remind automated cars which way they should be driving.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 07:18
|
|
|
http://singletrackworld.com/2018/01/collision-course-why-this-type-of-road-junction-will-keep-killing-cyclists/ Collision Course: Why This Type Of Road Junction Will Keep Killing Cyclists vvvv Agreed, a stop sign on the smaller road would be appropriate, and/or a temporarily lower speed limit on the larger road, some distance before the crossing I guess? Drivers' Ed here says you should always reduce speed before a crossing, but they still do a poor job of explaining why. Another point we could make is that the A post might not be a very important part of the equation. The bike would still be in a constant relative position, making it easy enough for a tired or negligent driver to miss. Comedy option: Plant a dense hedgerow along the major road, removing visibility and thus nudging them towards slowing down voluntarily. They do that in roundabouts here, they're no longer supposed to have visibility straight across. Hippie Hedgehog fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Jan 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 08:53
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^ His comments to the contrary, a stop sign would do effectively the same thing. Even if people don't fully stop at the stop sign, they will slow down to the point that hitting a bike will be non-fatal and likely reduce the speeds to the point at which the accident can be avoided. Re-routing a road, even that short distance, is pretty expensive, particularly if the government doesn't own the land. You can actually get stop sign installed and prevent everything but a 1 in a million fatal or you can try for the modification and have nothing done. devicenull posted:On the Merrit? Not unless you have a death wish. Two narrow lanes of twisty highway traffic is not a good match for a bike lane. Putting unsafe bike lanes everywhere instead of designing safe cycling infrastructure is the new hotness among lazy traffic engineers. nm fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Jan 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 08:54
|
|
|
nm posted:^^^^^^^^ Yeah, I was going to say - in no areas of my state would we do an uncontrolled intersection like that, even the rural weird parts. We would always have a stop sign for one or both of the roadways. It's always weird when I'm flipping through AASHTO and they devote a big section on how to property design an intersection that kills people in spectacular fashion, in order to what - save the very low traffic volumes from having to stop? I realize you might have poor compliance in retrofits where you add the stop - but that's not a reason to keep installing more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 13:50
|
|
|
scandoslav posted:They're used to remind automated cars which way they should be driving. I know this is a joke but some of the chevrons point towards the median. I thought they would be indicating drainage points (as the arrows on some highways in Massachusetts do) but I can't see any drainage bits near them, so... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 15:04
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:I know this is a joke but some of the chevrons point towards the median. They seem to be spaced exactly at 100 feet - and some of them are located in stupid places within lanes, or relative to an on-ramp. If the 100-foot spacing was just a coincidence of how they were laid out, when you miss one of them, you'd expect the spacing to be some new arbitrary spacing instead of the next one being at 200 feet. My guess is that they are semi-permanent indications for indicating the stations on the baseline (a station is a unit equal to 100 feet, and it's how the distances along the baseline of construction are labeled). If you skip between street view and aerial view on this spot, you can see that the arrow moves laterally from the edge of the through lane in the aerial, to the middle of the on-ramp in the street view. This would make sense for stationing, because it would stay consistent relative to the centerline of the roadway. Different spots are more useful to have the marker depending on where they've shifted traffic. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1636935,-73.372602,3a,60y,209.39h,63.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjR3c7Qp3MDNKIx3uaGpXnw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 15:25
|
|
|
nm posted:
Joking aside, it's illegal in Connecticut to operate a vehicle on a limited access highway with less than 5 horespower and/or less than 150 cc engine displacement (i.e. bikes, small mopeds, horse drawn vehicles etc). And the ongoing Merritt Bikeway project seeks to build a parallel pathway, largely because there's no safe room under the landmark bridges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
I don't know of another thread for this (Is there an ArcGIS thread?) but I was working through some pretty neat modeling for town growth then ArcGIS kept losing poo poo, working half the time, etc. I swear ArcGIS is gaslighting me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 00:08
|
|
