|
Cichlidae posted:My approach to mass transit is that more is better. It's very hard to saturate rail lines, and more light rail means more direct trips and shorter headways. Even for construction of new rail corridors that spectacularly fail the is-it-better-than-a-bus test? Also what the hell do you guys have against unprotected left hand turn movements? It seems that every time a interchange is reworked and "improved" here the unprotected lefts are all eliminated.
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2009 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Yeah, from these three posts, it seems that Toronto's not really that good at planning. It's a little appalling to think that a municipality could be spending so much on improving its infrastructure, especially in expensive urban areas, but not do it properly. I'd be willing to bet, though, that it's not the engineers who are screwing things up. It's probably a powerful politician from whatever neighborhood who wants a tram line to himself. We all know the type, right? Actually, I'm referring to the rail-building binge Houston is about to embark on. I suspect pretty much all of the new rail infrastructure getting federal dollars fails this test. Interestingly enough, it's not the politicians leading the charge. In fact, many of them were opposed to rail expansion here (for the wrong reasons, in my opinion, but opposed nonetheless). The main push comes from the transit authority who really wants the drat trains despite the crippling of their capital and operating budgets they're going to sustain.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2009 14:19
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Aha, I have a revelation for you. That road is what roadgeeks call a Super 2. You see how, about a mile east of the link you posted, the road seems to stick to the north frontage road? That's pretty much a dead giveaway that it was planned to be twinned at some point, sticking a second 2-lane roadway below it and providing 2 lanes in each direction. The weird-looking interchange with 99 and the fact that most of the ramps are on the north side also belies its true nature. In fact, from the satellite photos, it looks like they're already twinning it at 99. The Westpark Tollway is already 2 lanes in each direction all the way from terminus to terminus. They may have left room on the far west end to expand to 3 or 4 lanes in the future, but it wont make much difference for people using it to get to SH6, BW8 or US59, as the ROW east of SH6 is fully consumed and "acquiring" additional ROW though there is a total non-starter, politically. All in all, the engineers did a pretty good job considering the mandate was build what you can in the existing ROW, or don't build anything at all. Question for you: Do you or Traffic Engineers in general worry that you are playing a key role in creating a better idiot? You point out that your design standards and safety mandates force you into doing things for the least common denominator - but does this not somewhat encourage the general public's utter incompetence behind the wheel, and justify to them their inattention? After all, if it's important, it's the engineer's job to point it out to you. SlapActionJackson fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Aug 18, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2009 23:08
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Hmm, the pavement markings weren't too visible in the aerials. Really, with that little ROW, they might've been better off just building a busway or a few rail lines. Actually, they tore up the rail to build the tollway. Which doesn't really bother me since passenger rail in that corridor makes no sense. The exisiting roadway could be converted to busway if Houston's suburbanites would ever deign to ride the bus. quote:
Ah yes, the practical engineer's credo: I did the best I could under the constraints dictated from on high.   I'm actually a bit surprised you guys don't hide more behind sovereign immunity, especially where there are laws on the books that specifically place the burden of safe operation on the motorist. For example, every state in the union has a basic speed law that says you must operate your vehicle at a speed that is safe and reasonable, regardless of the posted speed limit. So if you crash your car because you were going too fast, saying that you were at or below the posted limit isn't a defense to a speeding charge. To me, this would allow posing highway speed limits more in tune with reality and less geared toward what a 1955 perterbilt with 12 bald tires could safely do during a hurricane. I do have my own desires and peeves I'd like to see addressed, but as a user I also have the luxury of bitching about the things I don't like without having to integrate any solution into the laws, standards, and politics that makes you do what you do...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2009 00:41
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Whether or not the state would lose money in the suit, it doesn't look good for the DOT. I'm not sure about the legal precedents, either; "safe and reasonable" isn't a precise term. No, it's not, but the law is full of imprecise terms. That's why it often resorts to a hypothetical "reasonable person" standard to apply, which is explicitly NOT a least-common-denominator approach. And this shows the disconnect between the law and the underlying process. Almost all states now have per se speed limit laws. If the sign says 55, then it is per se unsafe and unreasonable to travel down that road at 56 according to the law. But you've set that limit based on the least able user - the majority can safely go faster, and in ideal conditions, they may be able to go much faster. The discrepancy may be small or inoffensive on low speed urban streets, but not so on many freeways, where the speed limit may be under posted by 20 or 30 MPH from a competent user's perspective. quote:If I drive the speed limit and hit a pothole, wrecking my tire, then the speed obviously wasn't safe for the situation: if I'd driven slower, I would have been able to avoid it or done less damage. All the same, I can call up the DOT and get them to reimburse me for repairs. I am not a lawyer, obviously, but that sort of thing seems to imply both admission of responsibility and flexibility of what's considered safe. You can call up the DOT and ask for repair money because this situation is more about the DOT's duty of care to maintain pothole-free roads. quote:After all, the family of a deceased driver could always sue the engineer himself for not performing due diligence in his design. If I forget to include a centerline on a busy road, wouldn't you agree that I'm partially at fault for head-on accidents that may occur there, regardless of whether the motorists were driving safely and reasonably? Honestly, no unless there were some other deficiency in the design that would lead a reasonable driver into oncoming traffic. E.g. if we're talking a straight 24' wide road, I would expect a reasonable driver to be able to keep to their half. If, however, the road were only 16' wide, then I could see some liability. My last peeve that has not been mentioned in this thread: Please spec 2' minimum of unobstructed shoulder (no rumble strips or reflectors!) on country roads for cyclists. It's enough to ride on while allowing people to pass us more easily - less danger for cyclists, less frustration for motorists.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2009 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
I'm pretty sure "any wheel combination possible" just means any wheel/tire configurations sold as OEM.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2009 17:40
|
|