babyeatingpsychopath posted:

In counterpoint: Portsmouth/Norfolk Downtown Tunnel.

If you're trying to get away from Portsmouth, VA, there are three zipper merges in about 140 yards. They're all executed with VERY little hassle. Sometimes someone will crowd, but the guy behind lets two in. Traffic always drops to ~15, but never locks up solid. There are buses, semi trailers, and all manner of trailer-toting pickups/vans, and they're just treated as "two cars" for the zipper merges.

That said, when the drawbridge opens, it stays hellish for a while; sometimes as late as midnight.

The other side is a bag of used assholes, though. Weaving, stupid people. Different speed limits from different approaches. Steel-deck bridge. Left exits. That side is not fun.

Fixed Gear Guy posted:

Hello friends. Can anyone tell me why no one in the US can execute a proper loving zipper merge? Are we all too self-centered to let our fellow drivers in in front of us? Or are we all too brain dead to intelligently execute the act? Let me present you this:

Dutch Engineer posted:

http://goo.gl/maps/bj69

...is that grating on the drawbridge?

Baronjutter posted:

What's wrong with grating?

Dutch Engineer posted:

Swap the kid for a motorcyclist and you got the general idea.

Install Gentoo posted:

So try not to fall off, or wear some better protection.

The grating's there for a reason, it allows the area that needs to be moved to be lighter, so that the counterweights used in many designs can be made smaller. See the huge concrete blocks in the towers in this one? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/BurlingtonBristolBridge.jpg They need to closely match the weight of the lifted area for the bridge to open.

Dutch Engineer posted:

Yes, I know. Please don't take this as arrogance, but I design bridges for a living.

If I would design a bridge deck like that, I'd use composite materials, or (ultra) high performance concrete. Not slippery steely death to humans grating.

Also, on your second link, are those pylons the only safety features when people are doing maintenance? That might scare me even more.

Dutch Engineer posted:

Yes, I know. Please don't take this as arrogance, but I design bridges for a living.

If I would design a bridge deck like that, I'd use composite materials, or (ultra) high performance concrete. Not slippery steely death to humans grating.

Also, on your second link, are those pylons the only safety features when people are doing maintenance? That might scare me even more.

Install Gentoo posted:

I'm pretty sure they didn't have suitable composite materials or ultra high end concrete in the 1920s through 1950s when these bridges were designed and built. And certainly not the money since those things were invented to redesign the entire bridges to use them, and then put the new materials in place.

I'm not sure what pylons you're referring to, but the one time I ever was on that bridge and saw guys working on it they were hooked up to what looked like climbing harnesses and safety lines.

Dutch Engineer posted:

We've got even older bridges here in the Netherlands, without grating. All hail our socialist paradise, I guess.

I meant the orange safety cones, sorry. That just seems like a huge safety risk to me, working on the road without any protection except some visibility measures.

Airconswitch posted:

Looking at that bridge makes me want to go back to Bridge Construction Set. You could make some bizarre designs in that.

Baronjutter posted:

What's wrong with grating?

babyeatingpsychopath posted:

Crossing that thing in the rain on a motorcycle is frightening. In the dry, the wheels want to "track" a little and you get a bit of a wobble. In the rain, the front end wants to squish and the rear wants to spin up and it just sucks. I decided to be stranded on one side of the water rather than cross steel-deck bridges in the wet.

grover posted:

It's mildly annoying in a car, but poo poo, they'd be terrifying on a bike. The worst part, though, is how people freak out and hit the brakes. It's almost like they say "hey, I'm in a low grip situation, I know what I'll do, I'll slam the brakes really hard!" The high-rise bridge on 64 seems to be the worst for this; not sure if it has a different design of grating from the others, or it's just the higher speeds.

It's also slightly creepy to be stuck in traffic on one, look down, and see water.

Baronjutter posted:

Baronjutter posted:

This actually looks pretty cool!

quote:

New Jersey has suspended its controversial red-light camera program over questions about the accuracy of the devices that have frustrated motorists while generating millions of dollars for towns.

Officials from the state Department of Transportation said 63 of the 85 red-light cameras in New Jersey — including all 19 in Newark — have not been tested to ensure yellow lights were timed in accordance with the statute that created the pilot program.

Beginning Wednesday, tickets will not be issued at those 63 locations until it is determined whether the traffic systems are in compliance with the law.

In the meantime, the cameras will remain on. If the devices are found to be in compliance, violators would still be fined. If the traffic systems are not in compliance, DOT spokesman Joe Dee said, "we will shut down that camera."

The other 22 cameras — including a dozen in Jersey City — are working properly and are not affected.

The suspension was first reported Tuesday on NJ.com, the online home of The Star-Ledger.

Under national standards, yellow lights are expected to stay lit one second for every 10 mph — or 3.5 seconds in the case of an intersection where the speed limit is 35 mph.

But the statute that created New Jersey’s red-light camera program also calls for towns to study the speed at which vehicles approach the intersection before determining how long the yellow lights stay lit, taking into account the speed at which 85 percent of drivers travel through the intersection.

For 63 of the 85 cameras in 21 towns, those speeds had not been determined before the towns received approval to install the red-light cameras, according to the DOT.

Bollmann, a Hunterdon County resident who fought a ticket she received at a red light in Edison on Nov. 25, won her case in April after township officials admitted they did not calibrate the cameras for the 85th percentile of traffic.

She said she was flagged for getting through the intersection .21 of a second too late.

"It was so unfair to the people getting tickets," said Bollmann, who lives in Tewksbury. "The timing of the light was incorrect. When I went to court, I saw these people facing $85 fees — $140 in a safe zone. That might be a week’s groceries and they were only late through the lights by hundredths of a second."

Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon Jr. (R-Monmouth) said many motorists might have been wrongly fined because the yellow lights were incorrectly timed.

"It’s a good victory for the motorists of New Jersey," said O’Scanlon, who praised state transportation officials for quickly responding to new questions over the accuracy of the traffic systems.

O’Scanlon said that regardless of what people think of the red-light cameras, "everybody should be able to agree that we don’t want to punish innocent people."

Added Steve Carrellas, New Jersey representative of the National Motorists Association driving rights group: "I’m very impressed with the DOT’s action. Our goal was to make sure the law was followed, because it was the one key protection for the motorist against the predatory nature of the red-light camera."

Ryand-Smith posted:

Ok, the map went well, was a fun game of cyberpunk 2020, and a thing I wanted to post from my hometown,
Camera


This makes me happy, I mean the red lights at least from driving were absurdly quick, but has this ever happened in CT?

Cichlidae posted:

We haven't approved red light cameras in CT. And what "national standards" are they talking about where Y = V50 / 10? National "standards" say Y should depend on approach V15, grade, and reaction time, and we wouldn't put them longer than 5 or shorter than 3 seconds.

quote:

Towns typically don't get any money from red light cameras, anyway; the only one who ultimately profits is the company that installs and operates them.

Volmarias posted:

That is because you, that is to say Cichlidae, are not timing them to generate revenue.


And maybe the savvy entrepreneur in the local DOT who receives a cushy job after pushing those cameras through.

Koesj posted:

Wait how does privatizing red light cameras work??

John Dough posted:

My guess would be that a company pays the city to install cameras, and they then get to keep the fines.

quote:

Exceeding the minimum value by a second has decreased the desirability of running red light cameras by about 80 percent in compliant cities. (...)
"The additional time on the yellow light has significantly reduced the number of citations because motorists have adequate time to get through the intersection," state Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-Cassville), primary sponsor of the new legislation, wrote in his weekly column. "Since most of these cities have stated that safety was the primary reason they installed red light cameras, they should be thrilled that citations have been significantly reduced; however, many are pulling the cameras out because they are no longer making a profit."

Phanatic posted:

So in a lot of places the ticket company needs to submit the "citations" to a cop, who signs off of them, and then if the ticket's challenged in court the cop needs to show up.

Chaos Motor posted:

Irrelevant, the officer was not a witness and is unable to verify any information. His testimony is hearsay and hearsay is not admissible.

Chaos Motor posted:

Irrelevant, the officer was not a witness and is unable to verify any information. His testimony is hearsay and hearsay is not admissible.

Volmarias posted:

And if you don't have a lawyer, who would cost more than just paying the ticket, the judge will say "I trust an officer of the law more than I trust you, and if he says that the ticket is valid, it is. You're guilty, your fine is $X + $Y in court fees."

Phanatic posted:

Yes, that's one of the legal difficulties with enforcing one of these tickets in court. The whole business model is predicated on people getting a ticket in the mail, not challenging it, and writing a check. Presumably fewer people challenge a ticket sent on official cop stationery with an official cop signature than one signed by Marge from Almagamated Traffic Camera Bullshit Inc.

Chaos Motor posted:

Believe it or not, a judge cannot accept hearsay as testimony just because they want to. Trust is not in any way relevant to this.

Cichlidae posted:

I spent a good, long time looking these over, and here's my analysis, in brief:

North side:

A: Probably the best design from a balanced standpoint. Relatively inexpensive, constructible, and makes good use of space. On the other hand, you're introducing a skewed intersecion, and losing continuity on Columbia Street. It also involves some substantial ROW takes.

B: Maintains existing traffic patterns to a large extent. It's probably also the cheapest option to build. Only takes a couple of properties. If I had to bet on what will eventually get built, this is what I'd choose.

C: It's a structural engineer's wet dream. Viaducts and tunnels all over, stacked roadways... that means it'll be a big pain in the rear end to build, and expensive on top of it all. Somehow, though, it ends up with less direct movements than the other alternatives. No property takes, at least. Perhaps they're using that to show the public, "we can save $100 million by buying up $5 million of property."

D: This one is rather weird, too. I don't think I like it. Royal Avenue gets a kink in it, and there's some ROW taken, it's not a good use of space, and you're sticking another signal on Columbia Street right next to the other one. I really don't get it; it looks like someone designed it as a joke.

South side:

These two alternatives are very similar; the only difference is changing between a diamond and a parclo with Scott Road. I'd base that one off the volumes; a parclo will flow better, but a diamond will free up more space for development.

I hope this is concise enough!