|
We'll be working around the clock regardless, as the nearby residents would rather have the project done in 3 seasons than 5+, and only the main spans are being repaired, which are way out over the middle of the river. Because of the nature of the work, we can't just re-open a lane during the peak hours. This is re-building the entire bridge deck, from the top down, one stringer at a time. There is a lot of steelwork and concrete pouring, and you can't just work on it for 8 hours and then open it up to traffic. It's all day or nothing. As for the detour, that would get us some tremendously bad PR. As is, businesses will probably suffer from the delays; Portland's economy might dry up entirely if we forced everyone to drive 40 miles out of the way to get to the other side of the river. And for a temporary bridge, again, it was considered, but the cost would be huge. Tens of millions. Remember, this is just a repair job, not a bridge replacement. Regardless of scope creep, we can't pull 30 million bucks out of our asses for a temporary bridge.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
grover posted:Even 15-20 minute delays is still pretty horrible from a commuter POV, as is having to drive 30 minutes out of your way to avoid them. You're a government servant; if the public demands a plan B, you might need to go to plan B. Then again having the bridge collapse under me is also pretty horrible. From what i get from the article there is no reasonable plan B. Bitching about the unavoidable is just childish. And i agree with GWBBQ, anyone in a high traffic area would gladly pay to have only 15 minutes of delay on their commute. edit: Come to think of it, how much capacity could a ferry have over the distance of a bridge span? I assume renting a ferry + temporary dock is cheaper than a temporary bridge. Unless of course there is a lot of shipping on the river. NihilismNow fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jan 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Then again having the bridge collapse under me is also pretty horrible. From what i get from the article there is no reasonable plan B. Bitching about the unavoidable is just childish. I don't think it's a matter of shipping; we only have excess demand in the peak hours, which climbs to something like 500 veh/hour. That's a lot to send across on a ferry (1 car every six seconds), and the roads on either side of the river really aren't meant to handle that kind of traffic, nor are the docks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
Construction eh? Just reminded me about these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyJIDO8XxK0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNuE4hbUDag First link is on my youtube channel, I upload lots and lots of road safety ads 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 13:13
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Construction eh? Pretty sobering! Ours here aren't nearly so compelling. Here are our ads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 14:05
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Pretty sobering! Ours here aren't nearly so compelling. Here are our ads. Well that second one is from Wisconsin and is actually pretty hard-hitting for an American campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 16:50
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Well that second one is from Wisconsin and is actually pretty hard-hitting for an American campaign. I meant that I've never seen anything quite so serious in New England. Same with the horrifying Canadian and British PSAs you'll see in threads from time to time. In other news, we may have a commissioner soon. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Jan 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
I was driving through some rural area the other day (I don't remember exactly where now, probably in Kansas but maybe Illinois) and came across a signal whose red light had a bright white led strobe built into it. Freaked me the gently caress out when it went red and started flashing madly at me; being in an unfamiliar US state without perfect knowledge of local traffic laws always leaves me wondering what the hell I'm supposed to do at unusual signals. I figured quickly (and rightly it seems) that it was just meant to bring attention to the red light, and then after that it was just extremely obnoxious to have to sit and look at. I'm not prone to epilepsy fortunately, but strobes to give me a bit of a headache. Have you ever seen or heard of such a thing? Are they actually effective?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 15:34
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:I was driving through some rural area the other day (I don't remember exactly where now, probably in Kansas but maybe Illinois) and came across a signal whose red light had a bright white led strobe built into it. Freaked me the gently caress out when it went red and started flashing madly at me; being in an unfamiliar US state without perfect knowledge of local traffic laws always leaves me wondering what the hell I'm supposed to do at unusual signals. They're very common in some places. New York has several at isolated signals on parkways. They are also outlawed in the latest MUTCD, so hopefully you won't see any new installations, and their current locations will be removed before too long. They may be effective, but I'm sure there are liability and seizure concerns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 18:11
|
|
|
The most common place I've seen them is Maryland's eastern shore, where fog is problematic, especially in spring. You can definitely tell a red light from much farther away with them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 19:33
|
|
|
Illinois certainly has those all over. Freaked me out the first time too, I overestimated a yellow and ended up stopped about 5 feet over the line, so seeing a strobe flash made me think I was going to be seeing a ticket in the mail in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:They're very common in some places. New York has several at isolated signals on parkways. They are also outlawed in the latest MUTCD, so hopefully you won't see any new installations, and their current locations will be removed before too long. They may be effective, but I'm sure there are liability and seizure concerns. These are all over Maine too. Most of them are at the end of exit ramps from the Turnpike
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
They have a number of them in Virginia Beach, mostly at semi-rural intersections which have seen too many fatal accidents from people running redlights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 23:54
|
|
|
I didn't realize they were so widespread. If that's the case, I'm surprised that the NCUTCD managed to prohibit them. For anyone who's interested in the Busway (or has ever worked on a dead-end project), I've got three more strikes against it that all popped up today. * A good part of the Busway goes through West Hartford. In their State of the Town report this week, they mentioned killing the Busway as their #2 priority townwide. * We got the final submission of the Busway plans last year, and sent in our comments. The revisions came back to me today in the "final submission" package (this is like the third one), with some of my simplest comments answered with "will be revised in next submission." * In the latest revision of the signal plan, there is a little block for 2030 projected volumes. The Busway volume used to be 36 buses per direction in the peak hour, but now it's only 15. At that rate, each bus will have to carry well over 100 passengers in order to compensate for a single lane of traffic on I-84.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 01:09
|
|
|
There's also one in Phoenix, at the south end of SR143 (SR143, while awesomely convenient for me, is a bit of an abomination - I know I keep mentioning it here a lot). The south end of 143 simply ends in a stoplight and turns back into 48th Street. However, the intersection and light comes immediately after the overpass over I10. The overpass is high enough and the light is close enough to it that you can't really see the light until you're drat near at the top of the overpass, and if someone is still trying to do average Phoenix-area freeway speeds at that point (65-85MPH) there is precious little braking room. Of course, there is a sign at the top of the overpass, visible for quite some distance, that has "SIGNAL AHEAD" on it with warning lights, and a line above that that lights up "RED" when the light is red.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 01:42
|
|
|
Chicladae, We have one of those strobing red lights at the end of I-291 in Springfield, where it meets the Mass Pike / turns into Burnett Road.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 15:41
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:Chicladae, Ah, right up the road! The solution, I think, is to use an advance "STOP AHEAD WHEN FLASHING" sign like we do here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 18:12
|
|
|
Does the "Speed Checked by Radar" sign mean anything? I assume that it's checked by radar everywhere. Is it just put up when people complain about speeding on their road?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Does the "Speed Checked by Radar" sign mean anything? I assume that it's checked by radar everywhere. Is it just put up when people complain about speeding on their road? There may be some obscure legal reason for it, but mostly it's just to reinforce the speed limit sign. My department doesn't like installing them anymore because it just causes clutter and doesn't really tell the motorist anything he doesn't already know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Does the "Speed Checked by Radar" sign mean anything? I assume that it's checked by radar everywhere. Is it just put up when people complain about speeding on their road? There were some studies done a million years ago when radar was new technology, and it did slow people down. I suspect it doesn't anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:There may be some obscure legal reason for it, but mostly it's just to reinforce the speed limit sign. My department doesn't like installing them anymore because it just causes clutter and doesn't really tell the motorist anything he doesn't already know. In Maryland you can only be ticketed for speeding if the sign says "checked by radar". It's printed directly on nearly every speed limit sign now, though. Similar rules are in place for photo tickets. In a few of the more rural places they say "checked by aircraft" or some other aerial method. This may be apocryphal but a friend also said he once saw a "checked by watercraft" on a lakeside stretch of road.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 02:52
|
|
|
Roflex posted:In Maryland you can only be ticketed for speeding if the sign says "checked by radar". It's printed directly on nearly every speed limit sign now, though. Similar rules are in place for photo tickets. All of Virginia is subject to be checked by aircraft, they have signs at every major road entering the state saying so. And they do actually have aircraft that check. On all the interstates there's sometimes a set of white lines that go across the road at something like 300 foot intervals. They time you between them and if you're speeding they'll radio to a squad car down below who races to catch up to you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 03:01
|
|
|
Frinkahedron posted:All of Virginia is subject to be checked by aircraft, they have signs at every major road entering the state saying so. OHP does this on the Turnpike a lot, but they also have the marker lines intermittently on all the Interstates so I assume they use it all over. From their perspective it seems like a good system, looking down it can't be hard to pick out a car moving notably faster than the rest of traffic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2011 16:39
|
|
|
Would you have designed the overpass with less flames? http://www.news4jax.com/news/26581124/detail.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 01:19
|
|
|
grover posted:Would you have designed the overpass with less flames? I'll bet the zoning board demanded to see recognition of flames as part of the local heritage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
grover posted:Would you have designed the overpass with less flames? We had a couple bridges in RI suffer that fate at various times. The first was when a jet fuel tanker cracked open, and the car behind it had a dragging muffler that ignited the fuel. It burned enough to melt the bridge into a drooping U shape. The second was on I-95 in Cranston around 2006. A fuel tanker hit a bridge pier and caught on fire. The flames covered the center of the overpass, and the smoke completely obscured the freeway under the overpass, as well as the overpass itself. Ambulances and fire trucks blocked the left lanes, but people kept driving under (and over) the bridge, albeit slowly, through the smoke and flames. Drivers are very dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 03:23
|
|
|
Don't forget March 23 2003 in Bridgeport after some dumbass cut off a tanker and he rolled over. drat impressive that they got a temporary bridge up and carrying traffic in only 3 days
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Don't forget March 23 2003 in Bridgeport after some dumbass cut off a tanker and he rolled over. drat impressive that they got a temporary bridge up and carrying traffic in only 3 days That was pure luck; the temporary bridge was already on-site for a different part of the project. If that had happened a year earlier or later, it would've sent everyone down Route 1.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
Had an eyewitness report that the burning bridge above has disappeared entirely; presumably removed lest it collapse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 16:11
|
|
|
grover posted:Would you have designed the overpass with less flames? Now all I can see are substandard curbs. e: the directional signing attached to the freeway looks a little too small for standard as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:Now all I can see are substandard curbs. e: the directional signing attached to the freeway looks a little too small for standard as well. Way too small. We'd use 6'-wide extruded aluminum signs, minimum. Curbing's not such a big deal if there's not much runoff. This is in Florida, though!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 18:15
|
|
|
Where does the funding come from rebuilding after a disaster like this? Insurance?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 18:17
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:Where does the funding come from rebuilding after a disaster like this? Insurance?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
grover posted:Government self-insures itself. Two cars were involved, the tanker truck and a pickup. It's not clear from the article what happened to cause the wreck, but unless the at-fault driver had one HELL of an insurance clause, there's another bridge that won't be replaced or a road that won't be repaved because of this. Is the at-fault driver subject to legal action to recover property damages?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:Is the at-fault driver subject to legal action to recover property damages?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 19:02
|
|
|
grover posted:Chances are pretty good he doesn't have a few million dollars to pay for the damages out of pocket. Gonna have trouble working if off, too, considering both drivers died. Clearly debtor's prison needs a cemetery ward 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 19:13
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:Is the at-fault driver subject to legal action to recover property damages? Do you remember that sign support here in CT that got knocked down by a dump truck a couple years ago? The company that owns the truck is technically liable for the sign support's replacement, but they don't have to pay up until it has been replaced and the final cost determined. Since we don't have the spare cash to replace it, that may not happen for years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Do you remember that sign support here in CT that got knocked down by a dump truck a couple years ago? The company that owns the truck is technically liable for the sign support's replacement, but they don't have to pay up until it has been replaced and the final cost determined. Since we don't have the spare cash to replace it, that may not happen for years. Can't you bill them for estimated costs and then adjust it later like our small biz's workers comp insurance bill?  unrelated traffic light fail: http://failblog.org/2011/02/02/epic-fail-video-traffic-light-fail/
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Do you remember that sign support here in CT that got knocked down by a dump truck a couple years ago? The company that owns the truck is technically liable for the sign support's replacement, but they don't have to pay up until it has been replaced and the final cost determined. Since we don't have the spare cash to replace it, that may not happen for years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
GWBBQ posted:There was only one? If I reported every sign I saw knocked over, you guys would have my number blocked. It's going to be a mess after the snow melts and toppled signs are visible again. This one was an overhead sign on I-84 in Vernon. We'd just put it up, brand new, a few months beforehand. The dump truck was rolling down the shoulder and forgot to put its bed down. Bam. It was actually suspended in the air; the sign held up, and the support itself is fine. The foundation, though, cracked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2011 03:28
|
|