|
Terminal Entropy posted:Clark Griswold got a decent Christmas bonus this year. His new car was just a few inches taller than the station wagon, and that made all the difference. nm posted:That is a sedan. At the moment, it's just a chunk of scrap metal. Looks like the passenger cabin was kept intact, thankfully. We clearly need to start building our cars out of sign posts.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:07 |
|
|
Hopefully, nobody was hurt... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:At the moment, it's just a chunk of scrap metal. Looks like the passenger cabin was kept intact, thankfully. We clearly need to start building our cars out of sign posts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
Here's a Connecticut question... I saw in the paper that they are soon starting work on that Downtown Crossing project to turn most of Route 34 into non-expressway in New Haven. Isn't there also a long running project to replace the ramps from 95/91 to that existing expressway? How are those supposed to mesh?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Here's a Connecticut question... I saw in the paper that they are soon starting work on that Downtown Crossing project to turn most of Route 34 into non-expressway in New Haven. Isn't there also a long running project to replace the ramps from 95/91 to that existing expressway? How are those supposed to mesh?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:If what was talked about earlier in the thread is any indication, they'll mesh every bit as gracefully at a truck full of ball bearings hitting a truck full of oil head-on, but with more ensuing pedestrian fatalities. Yeah, I don't see how that transition is going to be smooth. But I guess I figured out my question... the image below shows that the redeveloped part (grey) still leaves a bit of highway that the ramps (red arrow) can tie into.  Also, it's a good thing they have presentations for the public meetings, because uploading those seems to be the only actual maintenance that goes on for these project websites.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
It's finally begun  Christ, the intersection at College and N. Frontage is already a mess at about the 6 minute mark into it with College also now being one lane.. I hear they may not be getting rid of the exists though and they'll now be underground? Any truth? Are they trying to mitigate the corridor of death that is needed for one exit? Oh well, I look forward to our new corridor of death regardless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
I look forward to driving through New Haven later this week, and I'll certainly be sure to call the number on every traffic light box just to bitch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I forgot to include the presentation from the construction briefing: http://downtowncrossingnewhaven.com/pdfs/tiger_outreach_presentation_022013.pdf It's not great, since they presumably explained some of the slides in person, but it does have some more dates for when things are happening. And don't miss the suggested alternate routes they tell people to take at the end. Some of them would probably add 15 minutes to your trip, like going from 91 past the green to get to Yale Medical.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
I want nothing more to do with the New Haven project. The whole thing is just one blatant cash-grab on the City's part, and it's frankly depressing to even be reminded that it exists. I've got plenty of messy projects of my own, but New Haven's not my district - and thank goodness for that! I was only brought in to review some VISSIM analysis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
Since we are discussing New Haven traffic, why are the traffic lights at the intersection of Central Ave. and Edgewood Ave. timed so poorly? It doesn't seem like it's a high speed area, but the time between transitions where both lights are red is five seconds, and when I'm approaching the intersection on Central Ave, I've seen the Edgewood light cycle from green to red, then go back to green without Central Ave. getting a green light. Is this the worst intersection in Connecticut (from a traffic light perspective)?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
I don't know how long it lasted for, but I remember the city's chief engineer in Jane Jacob's seminal book talking about proudly how they tried to make the streetlights as annoying as possible in terms of timing to hopefully get people out of their cars.(Which is kind of  when you think about all the Urban Renewal poo poo from the Rt.34 connector to huge widening of Church st that was going on simultaneously in glorious tribute to the automobile)
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
Special A posted:Since we are discussing New Haven traffic, why are the traffic lights at the intersection of Central Ave. and Edgewood Ave. timed so poorly? It doesn't seem like it's a high speed area, but the time between transitions where both lights are red is five seconds, and when I'm approaching the intersection on Central Ave, I've seen the Edgewood light cycle from green to red, then go back to green without Central Ave. getting a green light. Is this the worst intersection in Connecticut (from a traffic light perspective)? I've still got to give the "worst traffic signal" award to the ones on Route 9 in Middletown. Signals are (frighteningly often) anti-optimized. New Haven's not my district, but Middletown is. The city controls most of the signals on Route 66 downtown, despite it being a state route. It'd be a cinch to optimize them and pretty much eliminate congestion, but the businesses along Main Street love the congestion and won't tolerate any scenario where it's reduced. For New Haven, I can definitely see them doing the same in order to hinder motor traffic, and what Amused to Death says makes that pretty clear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 12:42
|
|
|
Are traffic signals all solid state now? Would hackers conceivably be able to pull a Die Hard and reprogram every traffic light to turn green simultaneously?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 14:07
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I've still got to give the "worst traffic signal" award to the ones on Route 9 in Middletown. For what it's worth, I recall reading in the New Haven Independent a few months ago that New Haven I think is trying to synchronize the lights in the future, at least on busy streets. I think they said the goal was to try to keep a continuous flow of 25-30mph, something fast enough to keep cars moving but at the same time doesn't make pedestrians and cyclists terrified. Although if downtown crossing is any indication, they'll synchronize the lights to keep up a pace of 55mph. Totally cyclist and pedestrian friendly guys 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
grover posted:Are traffic signals all solid state now? Would hackers conceivably be able to pull a Die Hard and reprogram every traffic light to turn green simultaneously? Mostly. We do have some electromechanical signal controllers around still, which are always fun. Their signal plans are printed on linen. However, the vast majority aren't interconnected, so you wouldn't be able to get at them remotely. If you could hack into the City of Hartford's operations center, which probably runs Windows NT, you will have free reign over their signal network, which is all centrally controlled. Amused to Death posted:For what it's worth, I recall reading in the New Haven Independent a few months ago that New Haven I think is trying to synchronize the lights in the future, at least on busy streets. I think they said the goal was to try to keep a continuous flow of 25-30mph, something fast enough to keep cars moving but at the same time doesn't make pedestrians and cyclists terrified. "Hey, a corridor coordinated for 55mph is also coordinated for 27.5 mph! We set the speed limit to 25, why is nobody obeying it?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Mostly. We do have some electromechanical signal controllers around still, which are always fun. Their signal plans are printed on linen. However, the vast majority aren't interconnected, so you wouldn't be able to get at them remotely. If you could hack into the City of Hartford's operations center, which probably runs Windows NT, you will have free reign over their signal network, which is all centrally controlled. Is there a local interlock which would prevent remotely setting the lights to an unsafe state (even by accident) or could a dastardly attacker genuinely generate sequences designed to cause crashes from the control centre?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:Is there a local interlock which would prevent remotely setting the lights to an unsafe state (even by accident) or could a dastardly attacker genuinely generate sequences designed to cause crashes from the control centre? There's the conflict monitor, so you'd have to reprogram the phases in there somehow. I don't think that's possible. On the other hand, you could just set the yellow time to 0.1 seconds; that'd cause some crashes for sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:Is there a local interlock which would prevent remotely setting the lights to an unsafe state (even by accident) or could a dastardly attacker genuinely generate sequences designed to cause crashes from the control centre? If an attacker manages to get a worm onto a laptop used by technicians to service standalone traffic light controllers, guess what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
grover posted:Cyberattacks can attack the programming itself and override interlocks like that. Unless the interlocks are completely hardwired (introducing components that add cost and are subject to failure), they can be attacked. STUXNET caused Iranium uranium centrifuges to overspeed and fail, all the while showing all systems normal to the operators- and this was a highly protected standalone industrial control system not connected to any other network. It's scary what's possible. I suppose that's possible, but so much of it is hardwired, and most controllers don't hook up by USB or anything. They don't even use standardized hardware. As far as I know, there haven't been any signal viruses going around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
Well in general despite the stereotypes, "hackers" are only going to bother if there's some way they can turn a profit. I don't see much of a business case or financial incentive for taking the effort to both learn the traffic light system, and then build an exploit. Just what are you going to get from it? A spectacular wreck or two? Same reason Apple was insulated from viruses for years, there just wasn't a user-base enough so that you could exploit for profit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
Chaos Motor posted:Well in general despite the stereotypes, "hackers" are only going to bother if there's some way they can turn a profit. I don't see much of a business case or financial incentive for taking the effort to both learn the traffic light system, and then build an exploit. Just what are you going to get from it? A spectacular wreck or two? Same reason Apple was insulated from viruses for years, there just wasn't a user-base enough so that you could exploit for profit. The turrorists!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
Chaos Motor posted:Well in general despite the stereotypes, "hackers" are only going to bother if there's some way they can turn a profit. I don't see much of a business case or financial incentive for taking the effort to both learn the traffic light system, and then build an exploit. Just what are you going to get from it? A spectacular wreck or two? Same reason Apple was insulated from viruses for years, there just wasn't a user-base enough so that you could exploit for profit. They could charge to make a certain route have all green lights for a time, for those people who would like to get somewhere faster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
Normally you hire witches for that though, like in The Craft.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Chaos Motor posted:Well in general despite the stereotypes, "hackers" are only going to bother if there's some way they can turn a profit. I don't see much of a business case or financial incentive for taking the effort to both learn the traffic light system, and then build an exploit. Just what are you going to get from it? A spectacular wreck or two? Same reason Apple was insulated from viruses for years, there just wasn't a user-base enough so that you could exploit for profit. Maybe the rear end-backwardness and age of our utilities will actually help us for once. If it really is all hardwired and non-standard, it's a lot harder to attack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vzDDMzq7d0 Very interesting video on the total replacement of a busy car-focused intersection into a crazy double-roundabout sort of thing. Good on the town for taking back the street. Nothing kills a place like cars or the idea that a road's highest purpose is the efficient movement of cars. The segregation of not just zoning in america, but the segregation of cars from humans has been one of the greatest disasters in america. So when are we going to catch up with the rest of the world and figure out the way we've been engineering our traffic for the last 50 years has been a god drat disaster? I also love that pavement. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Mar 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
grover posted:I'm not worry about hackers for this (well, I'm sure someone would get their jollys off it) so much as a concerted cyber-attack on infrastructure as a whole. Nation-sponsored STUXNET level stuff. There are elements out there who would be very interested in shutting down america's road network as a precursor to attacks on other utilities and infrastructure, if only to impede response by means of an accident at every intersection. Who in the world would have the means and the motive, as well as an incentive and what would they be hoping to achieve?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
Chaos Motor posted:Who in the world would have the means and the motive, as well as an incentive and what would they be hoping to achieve? "Terrorist organizations" backed by nation states with a grudge, and to cause gridlock concurrent with an attack on other infrastructure preventing an effective response. It's all very "lovely Tom Clancy novel" but it's something people are worried about. Apparently there's a not insignificant amount of important infrastructure exposed on the internet; imagine if you could control the C&C equipment for a chemical plant that handled really nasty stuff. Venting a cloud of chlorine gas is bad, but preventing the county or state response teams from being able to respond multiplies the effect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
It would be easier and more effective for them to just bomb major power lines rather than try to cause gridlock by fiddling with the traffic lights. Concentrated effort to take out power substations could cause a lot of fallback switching like New England Blackouts. Traffic lights should be the least of your worries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
Chaos Motor posted:Who in the world would have the means and the motive, as well as an incentive and what would they be hoping to achieve? Deactivation of our F-22s and combat lasers, presumably
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
Terminal Entropy posted:It would be easier and more effective for them to just bomb major power lines rather than try to cause gridlock by fiddling with the traffic lights. Concentrated effort to take out power substations could cause a lot of fallback switching like New England Blackouts. Traffic lights should be the least of your worries. If you're launching a malicious crippling cyber-attack, simply shutting off power is pointless; everywhere important has back-up generators anyhow. Cyberwarfare has progressed well beyond simple disruption and nuisance DDoS, though- cyber weapons are sophisticated enough to cause kinetic damage- not just shutting off power, but causing a power spike at maybe 2x normal voltage to fry everything plugged into it, followed by an overspeed that physically destroys the generator and turbine/engine/etc powering it. And to do that to every water tower, sewage treatment plant, gas line, refinery, cell phone tower, telephone switching center, TV studio, radio station, you name it. Whoever made stuxnet (probably Israel) did it 5 years ago. Just imagine what US, China, Russia and other major players are capable of. We've never seen an all-out cyber assault, but it will be devastating if we ever do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 13:58
|
|
|
On many of Indiana's rural highways with only 1 lane each direction there are places where 2 state roads intersect and are controlled by a set of flashing lights overhead. Either flashing yellow one direction, red the other, or a 4-way stop flashing red all directions. It used to be that the two light heads each direction would flash back and forth between each other. Lately I've noticed more and more of them get reprogrammed so both lights flash at the exact same time. Can you think of any reasoning for this change? It seems like back and forth would be better because one signal head each direction would always be lit up, and in my opinion it catches your attention more than both blinking at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I've still got to give the "worst traffic signal" award to the ones on Route 9 in Middletown. Those assholes! I went to Wesleyan for my undergrad, and I always wondered why it took so long to get to the school from Route 9. Now I know, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
This was in our local paper, front page today. With boost from KC, race to build driverless cars is in full throttle KC Star posted:To call Tim Sylvester a road builder misses the point. The streets he intends to build are embedded with electronic sensors that may keep cars of the future from speeding, veering and crashing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Sorry I haven't been around much; I've been studying for the PE, and it's eating through my free time more than Bioshock:Infinite and Crysis 3 combined.Baronjutter posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vzDDMzq7d0 That is indeed some awesome pavement. I can't see an intersection like that working well here, if only because American drivers turn into complete idiots when faced with anything more complicated than one single-lane roundabout. On top of it, there are no pavement markings. Our roundabouts here are absolutely covered with markings and signs, and the Highways guys keep asking us to add more and more. Maniaman posted:On many of Indiana's rural highways with only 1 lane each direction there are places where 2 state roads intersect and are controlled by a set of flashing lights overhead. Either flashing yellow one direction, red the other, or a 4-way stop flashing red all directions. Wig-wag lighting is reserved for railroad crossings. The standard configuration has both lights blink at once so they won't be confused with a crossbuck. Simple enough answer, right? Chaos Motor posted:This was in our local paper, front page today. I really wonder how driverless cars will affect my career. Someone will still need to design roads, but signs, stripes, and signals could be made obsolete. On the other hand, traffic simulations would be a lot more realistic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Aren't driverless roads just less efficient trains?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Aren't driverless roads just less efficient trains? No, because trains aren't efficent at carrying random routes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
They also have to make stops even if only one person is getting on/off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I really wonder how driverless cars will affect my career. Someone will still need to design roads, but signs, stripes, and signals could be made obsolete. On the other hand, traffic simulations would be a lot more realistic. If anything you will be more in demand, because driverless as a subscription based service will provide new revenues for the PubWorks & DOT so they can actually afford to do more projects. I had a sweet idea today to put a high speed rail line down the middle of a major local highway route between two medium cities (large in local terms) that has a park'n'ride carrier on it where you'd drive your car into a pod, get on the train, and when you get off at your destination, your car is waiting for you in the pod in the parking lot. Combines the speed & efficiency of high speed rail with the individual mobility of a car once you reach your destination. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:07 |
|
|
If I remember right the main problems with those systems is the time it takes to load cars on and off. What'd be really neat is to have a system like this implemented all over, though it'd be complex to do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgantown_Personal_Rapid_Transit
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2013 23:58
|
|