Cichlidae posted:

On another note, I was looking through statewide crash statistics today. Something like 45% of CT's fatalities are linked to drunk driving, which is much higher than the national average. I looked a bit deeper. Only 6.4% of drunk drivers involved in fatal accidents have gotten DUIs before. I looked up DUI convictions. The average DUI arrest is for people over twice the legal limit. However, only about 30% of those arrested for DUI are actually found guilty, so they just get dumped out on the road again... and, presumably, go on to smash into trees and other motorists.

fishmech posted:

you'll get better luck avoiding the Hartford area entirely

Cichlidae posted:

Yup, we're making up for lost time. The reason for that little missing chunk from 2008-2014 is debated, but the general consensus seems to be its cause was the recession. The very fast growth since, rivaling what we saw in the 1990s, reflects an economy that's picking up steam once more.

quote:

You might wonder how it's possible for roads that are congested for several hours a day to take more traffic. Well, I've got two theories. The first one is the pessimistic one: the congestion spreads to off-peak hours as people adjust their commutes. If I had the time to look through the detailed hourly data, I could see if that's the case. The optimistic theory is a bit nicer: roads operate most efficiently at Level of Service E. A road at LOS F is moving fewer cars than one that is less congested. So if the demand goes down, paradoxically, you could end up with a higher throughput. Traffic engineering is weird.

Cichlidae posted:

That depends on whether the state has a vulnerable users bill. In some states (CT included), if a car hits a ped, it makes no difference whether the ped was in a crosswalk or not. In a state without one, if the light is green and a ped steps off the curb and gets creamed, what happens next depends on whether there's a marked crosswalk.

Regardless, I think there is a definite safety bonus to having those retroreflective white lines. With bars or stringers, you can see a pedestrian wearing black even in the dead of night because they stand out against the bright retroflective paint. So even though yeah, crosswalks at intersections don't serve a legal function here, I will still design every single one of them to meet the MUTCD requirements, even if it clashes with the aesthetic.

dupersaurus posted:

In serious, world-shaking news, everyone's favorite under-height bridge has got a make over with signals and a fancy electronic warning sign. We'll see how much good it does.

Is tying the over-height detector with the signal so that it triggers a red light something that can be done? The sensor is a couple hundred feet or so downstream from the intersection.

Jasper Tin Neck posted:

Me too. I particularly like the rendering where it bends smoothly with the road as if the vehicle was made of rubber.

Does anyone have an explanation for why 95% of the unrealistic inventions you see in Popular Science and its ilk seem to be either vehicles or weapons?

Hippie Hedgehog posted:

What kind of road surface will do this when it gets hot?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCzfTiIp97Y

GWBBQ posted:

I've been complaining about Stamford CT being an awful place to drive and walk (God help you if you want to ride a bike,) since drat near the beginning of this thread, and apparently I wasn't the only one thinking that. The city recently hired Josh Benson, who was largely responsible for the NYC projects to make the city more bike and pedestrian friendly. I'm excited to see what happens with not just him on board, but the kind of attitude the city has looking forward to hire someone like him.

kefkafloyd posted:

As of October 28th, All Electronic Tolling is active on the Masspike, and the tollbooth demolition is proceeding full steam ahead.

The center lanes at the Weston toll plaza were paved over on Monday and were open to traffic on Tuesday morning. Many plazas are mostly torn down already. They might actually beat the November 22nd goal for "phase one" where the booths are totally demolished and traffic is shifted onto temporary lanes while the interchanges are reconfigured. The presentations for those reconfigurations are up on MassDOT's AET website. Most of them are pretty sensible and straightforward, though 90/495 is kind of a hackjob until they can truly rebuild the interchange from the ground up.

sleepy.eyes posted:

When you are at a stoplight there are three options:

A) turn left
B) turn right
C) drive directly into the house in front of you

Why is it necessary to have a huge reflective sign with arrows pointing out that you only should choose A or B?

chmods please posted:

Wow, and I thought CT-15 was bad.

Turdsdown Tom posted:

oh my loving god please don't tell me people trying to continue onto Creeping Hemlock Dr enter the 40B onramp....and then cross-over the 40B off-ramp to get to the residential area. this might be the worst thing I've ever seen in this thread. it definitely has got to be up there. that's mindblowing.

kefkafloyd posted:

No, it hasn't been built because the Parkway has to be frozen in time to "preserve its historic character."

I'm being facetious, but only a little.

EoRaptor posted:

Armco!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FXfClBq5MQ

Baronjutter posted:

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/07/us-transportation-funding-is-not-created-equal/534327/
Interesting little map on how states pay for roads.

FantasticExtrusion posted:

I am back

And I am irate, I said NO PICKLES OR ONIONS

This happens DAILY. I use that ramp once a day. Just not merging. You will see people behind them merging. It is very confusing. Moving on, I got insecure about it. Like really, is it me? Who is wrong here? I don't think it's me. It has been before, but not now

Eclogite posted:

Instead of spending thousands of dollars on a single bollard, why not buy 1-2 ton flat-faced boulders for a few hundred dollars each from a local quarry and cement them to the ground? Simple, quick, much cheaper, and aesthetically pleasing.

Entropist posted:

They'll get the message when you squeeze your bike in in front of them anyway, give them an angry look, point at the bike sign, and take all the time you need to get going when the light turns green.

Taxis in Amsterdam ignore bike boxes too, I'm speaking from experience here...

Baronjutter posted:

The most terrifying thing american highways seem to have are insanely dangerous on-ramps. Like instead of having a nice acceleration lane and a merge you've got maybe 50' of lane to some how safely get up to freeway speeds from a stop and merge in, while american drivers also seem to see letting people merge as a sign of weakness or something and will actively close gaps to stop you from changing lanes.

Hippie Hedgehog posted:

School buses are great, but for a three mile trip, biking is a very reasonable mode of transportation.

fishmech" posted:

FISHMANPET posted:

Most intersections are some variations on this: https://twitter.com/fishmanpet/status/1105976430683410433
The streets are clear of snow because of plowing and the relentless pounding of car tires, and the crosswalks are clear because people keep them shoveled, but the path to the drain is blocked by the ice in the gutter. My thought is that if the drain was in the center of the street, which is generally much clearer than the gutter, that water would run their and drain away.

Relatedly, I'm currently researching if I can use something like a battery operated hammer drill to break up ice

Peanut President posted:

You guys keep saying that as if drivers are rational entities who will drive safely. IDK what it's like in europe but that is decidedly not the loving case in the us.

Jonnty posted:

Is this purely aimed at US drivers - do you really not have roads where you're unlikely to want to go at the speed limit all (or even some of) the time?

quote:

Purchased 30 acres of land and built a house several years back in central Florida, had a driveway installed that cuts across the center of my property allowing me to exit on either of two main roads.

I now have traffic using my driveway as a shortcut between the two roads up to and including 18 wheelers and other large vehicles since using my driveway cuts off nearly half an hour of travel time between two cities.

I installed pillars and gates on both ends of the driveway and marked it private property but the gates were torn down and the pillars knocked over.

I have contacted the county about it and they sent out a guy from code compliance who looked around for a few minutes and left.

i have now received a notice about not keeping the roadway to state standards and that the county will be out to perform maintenance bringing the roadway up to standards, ie. widening it and repaving which i will be personally responsible for paying for.

Ive told them if they want it to be a public road then fine buy me out and ill move elsewhere but they refuse to do so.

As of right now i have removed half the driveway past my house and put up signs and markers stating dead end road and now the county is threatening to have me arrested for destruction of public property.



before anyone asks, no, there are no easements on this property anywhere near the area the driveway goes through and no easements in any form that travel in that direction on the property, closest thing is a power company easement along the southern edge of the land.