|
What's supposed to happen at a four way stop but the east/west directions also have a turning lane? Half the time people just do whatever at this intersection. Sometimes people think each side goes together (turning and straight) even though the turning lane vehicle just arrived. I treat it as yet another road and it seems to work but not everyone has my enthusiasm towards this mindset. Any thoughts?
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
Option C: petition the local authority to make it a roundabout
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
NOBEARD posted:On some stretches of road in Norway they are experimenting with small LED lights on the barrier between lanes. Not to illuminate the road, just to mark the barrier and where the road is heading. An alternative to no lights at all and full illumination. I could see this happening with road reflectors within the next 10 years. Too expensive right now (about $7-8 per reflector, compared to $2-3 for traditional), but wider adoption of solar and LED technologies should drive the price down. Can't afford to put street lighting on every road when the costs associated with paving are going through the roof.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
oooo I like. If they did it on both sides like theatre aisle ligting that would be rad. 99% of my driving is in the city, during the day. Driving on highways at nights scares me. It's DARK, there could be monsters...
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
Boner Wad posted:What's supposed to happen at a four way stop but the east/west directions also have a turning lane? If I'm stopped at an all-way stop, and the car taking the intersection makes a move that "shields" me I'll move too. If a northbound car turns left to westbound, I'd turn right from eastbound to southbound.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
Boner Wad posted:What's supposed to happen at a four way stop but the east/west directions also have a turning lane? There are a few ways to look at this. From a traffic engineering point of view, we expect each approach to move independently, like split phasing. In your example, it'd be the northbound car, then eastbound through/right and left at the same time, then the southbound car, then the westbound through/right and left at the same time. 6 cars per "cycle." When you're driving, you're much more likely to make your move based on what other drivers are doing. Two opposing left turners can go at the same time, as well as the complementary right turns, or all four rights could move at once. If we want to look at capacity, look at conflicts: a stopped car can go as long as nobody else at the intersection conflicts with his planned path. Left-turners experience 4 conflicts. Through cars have 4 conflicts, too. Right-turners only have 2. A 4-way AWSC intersection with no turn lanes has 4 vehicles at a time, and 12 possible movements. One of those vehicles is you, so there are 3 others, with 9 paths. You have a 5/9 chance of being able to move if you're going through or left, and 7/9 if you're going right. Now let's say you add a left-turn lane on two approaches. Your conflicts don't change, but now you've got 6 cars at the intersection instead of 4. If everyone's using those lanes, you could get 50% higher capacity. In practice, of course, it's not quite so good. If I was going to design AWSC with turn lanes, I'd make them right-turn lanes, because I'd rather the right-turner not be stuck behind someone else when he could otherwise move. Of course, multi-lane AWSC is incredibly rare in Connecticut; when volumes are that high, an intersection will probably warrant signalization. And remember, roundabouts are higher-capacity than AWSC for all volume situations. As an aside, after doing some math today, I came up with a nice little equation: Number of possible lane use combinations = 2n^2+4n+1, where n = the number of lanes on that approach.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:oooo I like. If they did it on both sides like theatre aisle ligting that would be rad. 99% of my driving is in the city, during the day. Driving on highways at nights scares me. It's DARK, there could be monsters... Sorry, stupid samsung bada phone ate my reply, dont feel like reentering it on this god drat phone, fix this when I am at the computer Vanagoon fucked around with this message at 22:44 on May 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
Who wants a Traffic Engineering Wallpaper? Tell me the resolution you want, and I'll bring it to that size. The original is over 4000X4000, so no worries about blurriness.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 20:36
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Who wants a Traffic Engineering Wallpaper? 1600:900, please?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
The Goog posted:1600:900, please? Sure! 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
Just heard someone from the City of New Haven talk about how great the Route 34 reconstruction will be. Too bad there's no Q&A session after the presentation, although I wouldn't want to be too confrontational about it. Any luck making your case that it's BS?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Just heard someone from the City of New Haven talk about how great the Route 34 reconstruction will be. Too bad there's no Q&A session after the presentation, although I wouldn't want to be too confrontational about it. Any luck making your case that it's BS? There's too much political pressure from above to make an effective argument, even though we have tons of evidence. Can't argue with the big bosses. And the reason there was no Q&A is that New Haven is absolutely terrified of their bicycle interest groups. The ped and bike lobbies hate this project, despite what the City and Nelson Nygard are saying, and they could sink the project if they kept up the pressure.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:There's too much political pressure from above to make an effective argument, even though we have tons of evidence. Can't argue with the big bosses. What does it do, that makes things harder for pedestrians and cyclists? Or are you allowed to say?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Sure! Thanks, dude!
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:What does it do, that makes things harder for pedestrians and cyclists? Or are you allowed to say? It's pretty simple: we're putting freeway traffic on city streets, and calling it a pedestrian improvement.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:It's pretty simple: we're putting freeway traffic on city streets, and calling it a pedestrian improvement.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 03:04
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:It's pretty simple: we're putting freeway traffic on city streets, and calling it a pedestrian improvement. Really? Wow, no wonder folks want to stop the project. It definitely takes some nerve to call that a "pedestrian improvement".
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Really? Wow, no wonder folks want to stop the project. It definitely takes some nerve to call that a "pedestrian improvement". New Haven figures that, if the freeway goes away, so will the traffic. They're completely neglecting the fact that a good chunk of the city was built around the freeway, including 3 huge new developments that are going to draw 50% more cars to the area.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:It's pretty simple: we're putting freeway traffic on city streets, and calling it a pedestrian improvement.  and was not open to the public.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 04:02
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:New Haven figures that, if the freeway goes away, so will the traffic. They're completely neglecting the fact that a good chunk of the city was built around the freeway, including 3 huge new developments that are going to draw 50% more cars to the area. Bloody hell, that is one stunning example of short sightedness. Just to make sure that it is indeed as stupid as it sounds, there isn't a set of alternative high capacity and fast routes to take all that traffic right?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 11:32
|
|
|
Don't you guys know that if we ignore problems, they go away?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 14:59
|
|
|
Munin posted:Bloody hell, that is one stunning example of short sightedness. Haha, no way! The three alternate routes we looked at to absorb capacity are all city streets. We WOULD have had some other freeways to help out, but they were all canceled 40 years ago. New Haven keeps a fixed signal cycle on every one of its signals, so they're not going to change anything to improve capacity elsewhere, either. Also, we're nearly done with a billion-dollar project to improve the interchange that leads to the freeway they're closing. Now it'll just be a billion-dollar stub that backs up constantly onto the Interstates.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 16:11
|
|
|
Tell Newhaven to get with the times and call Rhythm Traffic. http://rhythmtraffic.com/ Reggie's a good guy and can massively increase their capacity for only about $20K per intersection.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Haha, no way! The three alternate routes we looked at to absorb capacity are all city streets. We WOULD have had some other freeways to help out, but they were all canceled 40 years ago. New Haven keeps a fixed signal cycle on every one of its signals, so they're not going to change anything to improve capacity elsewhere, either. Heh, will they be able to reverse the decision once the consequences hit or have they already sold off the land the freeway was on to developers etc? Man, have they actually put forward any rationalisations or do they just genuinely expect that traffic to vanish? The world is generally not supply driven... vv Heh, typical. You see that kind of stuff with council and developers in the UK as well. Munin fucked around with this message at 16:49 on May 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
Munin posted:Heh, will they be able to reverse the decision once the consequences hit or have they already sold off the land the freeway was on to devellopers etc? They've already sold it off; that's the main motivation for the project. It's state property, too, which makes the whole situation even more hosed-up. I don't think the state is seeing a dime. Chaos Motor posted:Tell Newhaven to get with the times and call Rhythm Traffic. They don't WANT to increase their capacity.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Munin posted:Man, have they actually put forward any rationalisations or do they just genuinely expect that traffic to vanish? The world is generally not supply driven...
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 17:05
|
|
|
What the hell is wrong with CT, I mean they want expansion, yet they won't contribute to the roads needed for that? Also, how do you cross CT now, I mean there is no way I know of that isn't rear end backwards from New Haven cross state.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
So do they purposefully put the stupidest people with the worst ideas in charge?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:What the hell is wrong with CT, I mean they want expansion, yet they won't contribute to the roads needed for that? They literally expect that a huge proportion of the doctors and researches at Yale's medical campus will start taking bikes to work, or walking, instead of driving. I'm not sure whether they actually believe it, or are just using the whole thing as a pretext to get that sweet, sweet developer cash. As for crossing the state, you can always take 15 around New Haven, or I-84, depending on where you're going. Chaos Motor posted:So do they purposefully put the stupidest people with the worst ideas in charge? I think the loudest people get put in charge, and the loudest people also tend to have the worst ideas.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:They literally expect that a huge proportion of the doctors and researches at Yale's medical campus will start taking bikes to work, or walking, instead of driving. Sounds like UMKC, they have 15K students and 3K parking spaces because they want people to live on campus. But they don't have beds or parking enough for that. So we just get to park on side streets and get tickets, since the lots are all full, and UMKC keeps lobbying the city to remove on-street parking to force us to buy parking passes, of which they sell more than they have spots for, and sell out every semester anyway. They say they can't "afford" enough parking but they sure get those enrollment numbers up every year, and own more than 200 houses in the surrounding area.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
34 in New Haven is already a weird little road. It feels like a little silly connector between 95/91 and an arbitrary point next to downtown, with some offramps to drop you into downtown. It's maybe a few miles long. So it's not a road that anyone feels like they would miss, and the fact that it was only half completed as an expressway makes it all seem expendable. Especially since it does split that side of the city in two. The traffic problem is that there is a big hospital at that arbitrary ending point now, and a cancer research center, and new housing, etc. etc. Also they just built a new community college downtown that is also right off of this pointless little highway.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
Compared to other, successful, freeway removal projects what makes this one a bad idea? The most likely reasons i can think of is that there isnt any change to zoning and the new roads wont actually be pedestrian friendly.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Compared to other, successful, freeway removal projects what makes this one a bad idea? The most likely reasons i can think of is that there isnt any change to zoning and the new roads wont actually be pedestrian friendly. Yeah, sounds like the density/planning of the city is still very car-centric. This isn't the removal of urban freeways of San Francisco.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Compared to other, successful, freeway removal projects what makes this one a bad idea? The most likely reasons i can think of is that there isnt any change to zoning and the new roads wont actually be pedestrian friendly. What freeway removal projects are you thinking of specifically? I don't think this is really anything like say the Embarcadero or Harbor Drive.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
Here is the TIGER grant request that kicked the whole thing off if you want more reading: http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/economicdevelopment/ARRA/DowntownCrossingNHARRATIGER091409.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:What freeway removal projects are you thinking of specifically? I don't think this is really anything like say the Embarcadero or Harbor Drive. The motivation is sort of the same, namely that people in the 60's sure liked to build 4 lane highways through poor people's houses to the center of cities and now we would prefer the city to the highways. Especially in places where the highway breaks the city into sides and gentrification won't cross the highway. (Argh, stupid double-post.)
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
smackfu posted:The motivation is sort of the same, namely that people in the 60's sure liked to build 4 lane highways through poor people's houses to the center of cities and now we would prefer the city to the highways. Especially in places where the highway breaks the city into sides and gentrification won't cross the highway. Basically, yeah, that's how the freeway was built. But it has frontage roads, and overpasses every couple blocks, so it doesn't really divide the city into two parts like some freeways (I-84 west of downtown Hartford is a good example). The City fudged some data to get federal money to remove it, saying it wouldn't be a big deal and they could fit the traffic just fine through the existing frontage road. Then, they promised the developer they'd turn over the land to them. By the way, that developer is building a big parking garage, too, so it's not like that's going to encourage people to take bikes. So the City is basically tens of millions in debt at the moment, to both the feds and the developer, and they're going to lose that money if the project doesn't go through. They're also a million bucks in debt to their consultant who they hired to fudge the numbers. Sounds like a recipe for fun? You betcha! Now let's look at their design. They're sending all Route 34 traffic up to what's now Exit 1, and removing a side ramp on what's currently Exit 1, which will send about 5000 cars in the peak hour up to the signal. 5000 cars means a 7-lane cross-section, minimum, but they're doing 5 lanes, one of which is a lane-drop right that is SUPER over-saturated. We had to fight tooth and nail just to get that, because a channelized right turn is not bicycle- or ped-friendly. They are putting a bike lane just adjacent to the ramp filled with 60mph traffic. The City says that shade trees along the roadway will slow people down on this 5-lane road. They're also planning on turning the first signal into a raised intersection, which I'm sure will be awesome when an ambulance runs through it at 50mph on the way to one of the adjacent hospitals. The raised intersection was a compromise. Their initial plan was to have raised crosswalks on two of the approaches, instead, with speed tables. Of course, this whole intersection has SUPER tight geometry already, so they couldn't even fit them if they tried. They also wanted bike boxes in front of the stop bars; you know, for all the bicyclists who ride on the freeway. There were bike lanes zig-zagging across the intersection, too, until our bike safety guy saw them and flipped out. I'm talking something you would NEVER want to bike across. It was just super dangerous. So now that they have that raised intersection, the porkchop island for the channelized right turn isn't really raised anymore; it's a flush island. Supposed to be a refuge for peds and bikes to basically sit in the middle of an intersection at the end of a freeway. Sound safe yet? The road gradually reduces in cross-section through the next few intersections, so every one of them is over capacity. To make matters worse, the developer's footprint overlaps with the frontage road, so they'll have to reduce it to 1 lane during construction. FUN. The next phase, to be undertaken at some time in the nebulous future (probably never), is to introduce signals BETWEEN each block, further loving the capacity issue. They also promise to build a separated bike facility at some point, but I wouldn't trust that.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
I wonder if New Haven's city planner is on board with this or is just sitting somewhere banging his/her head against the wall repeatedly.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
Jesus christ that sounds like a pedestrian/bicyclist death trap. Hell, a death trap for drivers too at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask / Tell > We don't need eyes for what we're planning 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 21:43
|
|
