|
The “neatest” thing I’ve seen for dealing with potholes and bad cracking is essentially an IR pad that heats up the affected area, letting your add additional asphalt material and then you just grade and compact. Ends up looking a lot cleaner than just filling a pothole. Something like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUl__J4q6_Y If what you have is stemming from a base failure this obviously won’t do poo poo but the municipality next to us has one so our street guys borrow it every now and then. Also I sadly had to say no to a possible 2nd roundabout the city I work for today. The geometry just wasn’t there and the right-of-way would have been a nightmare but man I really want another roundabout. Happy Noodle Boy fucked around with this message at 15:25 on May 3, 2018 |
#
?
May 3, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
Are there any fancy solutions to the dangerous situation where when two highways intersect you can end up with trucks driving on the right side lane of the left highway being overtaken by car drivers on both sides who can't see each other? I've seen such drivers mindlessly merging onto the truck's lane and almost hitting one another. Obviously the leftmost lane car driver ideally should have stayed to his own lane and allow the right side driver to merge but  .
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
ThaBus posted:Are there any fancy solutions to the dangerous situation where when two highways intersect you can end up with trucks driving on the right side lane of the left highway being overtaken by car drivers on both sides who can't see each other? I've seen such drivers mindlessly merging onto the truck's lane and almost hitting one another. You should not be merging into an area directly in front of a truck, that area belongs to the trucker because if you have to brake, he can’t stop his truck from murdering you. If you are leaving the truck enough room, you will see the other car. At that point it’s the same issue of cars trying to land change into one land without a truck entering the picture. The mitigation if there is weird geometry or crash history would be to add solid lines to prevent lane changes before the traffic has a chance to size each other up, or install warning signs to watch for merging vehicles
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
Devor posted:add solid lines to prevent lane changes
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
If you have to prevent certain driver behaviors, you have poorly designed your road in the first place and no amount of traffic control devices can change that.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:Do traffic engineers actually think this works? Not really, I was being glib as shorthand for using lane markings or other cheap modifications to extend the area where the merging roadway is getting up to speed, which would preferably include a longer and wider theoretical gore to really discourage people crossing over before traffic has had a chance to come up to speed. If there was something truly dangerous going on you could use concrete barriers or w-beam as a permanent installation, but generally speaking adding obstructions will make the area less safe.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
Devor posted:Not really, I was being glib as shorthand for using lane markings or other cheap modifications to extend the area where the merging roadway is getting up to speed, which would preferably include a longer and wider theoretical gore to really discourage people crossing over before traffic has had a chance to come up to speed. Sadly, this is more or less what we've been doing in Florida recently, as people just don't give a care about lines painted on asphalt or cement. For example, we're currently spending millions to keep cars merging from I-4 onto I-75 in their lane for a mile to prevent collisions. http://www.fdottampabay.com/project/83/428954-1-52-01 The same thing is going to be built two interchanges south at FL SR60. http://www.fdottampabay.com/project/234/428953-1-52-01 Varance fucked around with this message at 16:28 on May 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
Speaking of solid lines, I've been wondering about this intersection for a while. The solid lines on the right mean it is definitely illegal to move into the bikelane when a car is trying to turn right, right? I frequently find myself sitting at this light with my blinker on (in the lane like a good boy) and some rear end in a top hat will come cruising up the bikelane to take their right and I have to honk when I take my turn so they don't hit me.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
Corla Plankun posted:Speaking of solid lines, I've been wondering about this intersection for a while. The solid lines on the right mean it is definitely illegal to move into the bikelane when a car is trying to turn right, right? I frequently find myself sitting at this light with my blinker on (in the lane like a good boy) and some rear end in a top hat will come cruising up the bikelane to take their right and I have to honk when I take my turn so they don't hit me. Proper striping: https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9264032,-82.3149454,3a,62.1y,221.66h,80.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syuISne8jfqu7x9UxFj172Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
That looks like some stupid af line paint right there, but I think this is one of those situations where both of you are in the wrong. It isn't a separate turn lane, so nobody should be passing on the right, but you should also be all the way to the right so you don't give a cyclist a right hook.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
Devor posted:Not really, I was being glib as shorthand for using lane markings or other cheap modifications to extend the area where the merging roadway is getting up to speed, which would preferably include a longer and wider theoretical gore to really discourage people crossing over before traffic has had a chance to come up to speed. Isn't that what you are supposed to use those little orange breakaway bollard arrays for? They don't really block things if some sort of crash happens, and someone determined to ignore them can plow right through. But most people don't want to risk messing up their paint job just to cross them.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:That looks like some stupid af line paint right there, but I think this is one of those situations where both of you are in the wrong. It isn't a separate turn lane, so nobody should be passing on the right, but you should also be all the way to the right so you don't give a cyclist a right hook. That's... more or less what I said. The incorrect striping part comes in because it's a buffered bike lane (empty space between the rightmost travel lane and bike lane). With BBLs, the striping should be the same for both lines and should be dashed whenever there is a reasonable expectation for a right turn to occur. Motorists are expected to encroach the bicycle lane when turning right at these locations, for the reason you mentioned.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
Mostly that looks like an example of why bike lanes should be divided from vehicular lanes. There's not an actually safe way for cyclists to be part of a six lane urban highway with only paint to protect them.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Mostly that looks like an example of why bike lanes should be divided from vehicular lanes. There's not an actually safe way for cyclists to be part of a six lane urban highway with only paint to protect them. I agree, for a highway. But for a 2-lane inner city street there's a common way in the Netherlands and Belgium:  The red-asphalt bike lane/area extends to the whole width of this half of the road. Cars are required to stop at the first horizontal line. Cyclists pass them by on the right and then line up in front of the cars. The idea is that no matter which way the cyclist of the car driver wants to go, there's no way for the driver to miss a cyclist right in front of them, and there's no way for them to get onto the intersection before the cyclists and cut them off. The increased visibility for cyclists improves safety quite a lot, although it'd be a risk on roads where the max speed is > 50 km/h, in which case this design isn't used and cyclists usually get separate lanes.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
Cue every driver in North America stopping at the second horizontal line.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 00:31
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
That's very generous. They're actually going to stop on top of the crosswalk.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Corla Plankun posted:Speaking of solid lines, I've been wondering about this intersection for a while. The solid lines on the right mean it is definitely illegal to move into the bikelane when a car is trying to turn right, right? I frequently find myself sitting at this light with my blinker on (in the lane like a good boy) and some rear end in a top hat will come cruising up the bikelane to take their right and I have to honk when I take my turn so they don't hit me. Honestly, as a cyclist who's been hooked, please just move over when you can safely, as soon as you can (within like 200 feet).
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
Bike boxes are great but they depend on traffic laws actually being enforced. Unless drivers start getting pulled over for ignoring laws designed to protect pedestrians and cyclists, they'll continue doing it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 02:16
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Cue every driver in North America stopping at the second horizontal line. Taxis in Amsterdam ignore bike boxes too, I'm speaking from experience here...
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
Entropist posted:They'll get the message when you squeeze your bike in in front of them anyway, give them an angry look, point at the bike sign, and take all the time you need to get going when the light turns green. That's cute. Then they run you over with their f250.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
Entropist posted:They'll get the message when you squeeze your bike in in front of them anyway, give them an angry look, point at the bike sign, and take all the time you need to get going when the light turns green. haha I do this at the bike boxes in Tucson when people ignore them. Making sure to get a drink of water and to check my phone in the process.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
Entropist posted:They'll get the message when you squeeze your bike in in front of them anyway, give them an angry look, point at the bike sign, and take all the time you need to get going when the light turns green.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
Just seeing a bike triggers the rage center in some people's brains. I legit get more aggressively tailgated/passed when I have my bike on the back of the car, even though I don't drive any differently.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
Old but related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzZzGzQvoN4
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
Anyone have case studies, experiences, anecdotes, etc. of drones used for traffic engineering/planning?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Anyone have case studies, experiences, anecdotes, etc. of drones used for traffic engineering/planning? My company has a drone guy that's kind of a hobbyist, and he'll use the drone to fly the same path several times during construction of a transportation project to make cool displays showing progress Some firms are exploring using drones for doing photogrammetry, where you use the drone to actually establish points relative to known monuments (I think, I just heard a short summary of what they're doing)
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2018 13:57
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Old but related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzZzGzQvoN4 In the good universe a cop would have come over and cited that car for a noise violation.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Old but related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzZzGzQvoN4 What kind of idiots think that horizontal red/green traffic lights are a good idea? Isn't that a disability lawsuit waiting to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
Foxtrot_13 posted:What kind of idiots think that horizontal red/green traffic lights are a good idea? Isn't that a disability lawsuit waiting to happen. It's so that you can see the lights when you're on the other side of the bridge - if you stack them vertically, you can't see the top red light soon enough to stop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Foxtrot_13 posted:What kind of idiots think that horizontal red/green traffic lights are a good idea? Isn't that a disability lawsuit waiting to happen. horizontal lights are used a lot and are fine if they are turned the right way 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
Foxtrot_13 posted:What kind of idiots think that horizontal red/green traffic lights are a good idea? Isn't that a disability lawsuit waiting to happen. I've never heard of it being an issue. In the horizontal stack red is always on the left, which is just as clear as red being always on the top in a vertical stack. While turning lights here are typically vertical, I can't think of an intersection with the non-turning lights in a vertical stack, they're always horizontal. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Jun 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
I've never seen a horizontal stop light where the leftmost color wasn't red.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Anyone have case studies, experiences, anecdotes, etc. of drones used for traffic engineering/planning? My professor uses it as an alternative for using cameras and loops for measuring traffic flow for simulation stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:My professor uses it as an alternative for using cameras and loops for measuring traffic flow for simulation stuff. I would like to know more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-thank-rick-scott-for-hartford-train-guest-editorial-20180622-story.html I wish the op was still around, cause I bet he had something to do with this. Tl;Dr: Rick Scott turned down transit money for Florida in 2011 and Connecticut scooped it up to revive rail service between New Haven and Springfield Mass. It was so popular on opening weekend that they needed to call in bus replacements.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
twerking on the railroad posted:http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-thank-rick-scott-for-hartford-train-guest-editorial-20180622-story.html It's only a big deal because Rick Scott is trying to buy off Central Florida voters with public money for his Senate campaign. He just gave the transit agency I work for millions to run our streetcar system fare-free over the next few years, plus announced that he has a private company lined up to build high speed rail along I-4 from Tampa to Orlando. We're all pointing to the fact that it could have been in place right now, had Gov. Scott just actually followed the will of the voter when we passed a state constitutional amendment to build high speed rail. http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/06/22/rick-scott-announces-potential-high-speed-rail-linking-tampa-and-orlando/ Varance fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Jun 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:I would like to know more. Stuff like this: http://www.mtri.org/mdot_uav.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
Why are dedicated bus lanes, especially partitioned/walled lanes, not more of a thing in US cities? They seem like a no brainer when public rail transit is at heavy capacity/underserving areas and building additional rail seems cost prohibitive. Can they effectively improve public transit and decrease solo car use? Or have there been studies that show they don’t decrease car use enough to make up for the lane they take up? (Then again, I’ve lived urban enough for long enough I’m just at ‘gently caress cars’ mentality so maybe I’m missing something here.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
BadSamaritan posted:Why are dedicated bus lanes, especially partitioned/walled lanes, not more of a thing in US cities? The goal for transit in most US locations is not to effectively move people around, it's to tick off the "has transit" box so politicians and planners can shrug and say their region is served by "transit". It's all poor people and disableds and olds using them anyways so who cares how efficient the system is? The goal isn't to get people out of their cars, the goal is to be able to check the "has transit" box for as cheaply as possible while not inconveniencing drivers. A bus lane would take away a lane from cars. Why would you take away people's ability to drive to work for some bus lane? Did you know the poor people on a bus don't pay gas taxes? Why should they get a lane?!?! And in the few areas in the US where buses ARE actually being used to sort of effectively move a cross-section of the population around, they still are heavily looked down on. Why improve the existing bus system that's moving thousands that could be way way better with a few lanes and priority signals when you could build a little mile long tram that could move hundreds for the same money?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2018 21:02
|
|