HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #961  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 6:58 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,710
So then traffic backs up because cars cant turn and everyone will complain about that. There's always something to complain about, no matter how you look at a situation. I'm playing the Devil's advocate for you guys here!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #962  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 7:10 PM
steveosnyder steveosnyder is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: YWG
Posts: 1,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
See the engineer's logic here? By designing the roadway for the speed limit + X%, the city removes liability.
This right here is false. Many cities have designed streets to the exact speed that they intend the limit to be and get insured the exact same way as cities that do this practice. To say that the City is liable for designing and posting the speed limit at equal values is false and has been thrown out of court based on those exact same standards.

If anything it should be the exact opposite. Letting people drive safely at 70 on a street that has multi-family housing fronting it is the exact opposite of safe. Should the City escape liability if they build a street for safe operation at 70, but put up a sign that says 60 fully knowing that most people will travel at the speed they feel safe (which is actually closer to the design speed)? Just to add -- this is the exact situation on Taylor, a street that when I drive down I quite often speed.

Last edited by steveosnyder; Dec 11, 2014 at 7:16 PM. Reason: added specific example
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #963  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 7:11 PM
steveosnyder steveosnyder is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: YWG
Posts: 1,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
When the design speed and posted speed of a roadway are the same, say 100 km/h, somebody driving 100 km/h is going to constantly be right on the edge of unsafe driving conditions. For example, you're driving along a wide sweeping curve doing 100, you're trying to maintain your position on the road. But you're constantly in that uncomfortable feeling of your vehicle flying off the roadway. One bump in the road or hand slip on the wheel, and you're done.
Using highway geometries and highway design thinking isn't comperable here. This is an urban intersection that has housing all around it. To compare this is silly for a multitude of reasons.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #964  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 7:22 PM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 10,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simplicity View Post
But why? Vehicles back then also ensured total carnage should somebody be in an accident, but we've managed to engineer beyond and around that. The idea that small margins for error create a certain moral hazard is only really true in theory.
True in sound economic theory. I'm sure you've encountered this passage :

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Landsburg
If you find it hard to believe that people drive less carefully when their cars are safer, consider the proposition that people drive more carefully when their cars are more dangerous. This is, of course, just another way of saying the same thing, but somehow people find it easier to believe. If the seat belts were removed from your car, wouldn’t you be more cautious in driving? Carrying this observation to the extreme, Armen Alchian of the University of California at Los Angeles has suggested a way to bring about a major reduction in the accident rate: Require every car to have a spear mounted on the steering wheel, pointing directly at the driver’s heart. Alchian confidently predicts that we would see a lot less tailgating.

And not only is it true in theory, it's true in practise in every part of the world that hasn't given traffic engineers a license to kill for the last 70 years. That's most of the world.

I wouldn't take traffic engineers at their word on this. They have one job--moving cars. They have no concept of every thing else that goes into a city. It's the same reason we listen to doctors but don't give them free reign over our society--health is important but so is freedom and a ton of other shit. If we let them have their way, we'd be swaddled in uv protective bubble wrap and forced at gunpoint to exercise and eat oats.

Traffic engineers have had their way. Traffic fatalities are down, but accidents are flat. People are still driving like idiots and getting into accidents only cars and roads are safer.

Incidentally, pedestrian deaths are up. Not to mention we're saddled with a bunch of really shitty environments that are dangerous, unhealthy, and expensive.


I'm surprised at you people who call yourselves small government types but don't see a problem with the city spending more than it needs to on an underpass that will hit an intersection immediately on either side. Waverley isn't a major route any more, since the city removed its connection to the perimeter and it's never going to be expanded north of Taylor. Something like the existing Pembina underpass, but with better (actual) pedestrian and cycling accommodation is all this calls for.

Or, it'll be awesome when people blast through this underpass at 80 and plow into pedestrians or other vehicles at the abrupt intersection at Taylor. If I lived nearby on the Taylor side I'd complain about it for that reason alone. Also, I'd probably ignore that I live next to noisy-ass train tracks and complain about how it would be noisier than a smaller underpass.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #965  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 7:24 PM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 10,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
the city removes liability.
What liability?
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #966  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 7:32 PM
steveosnyder steveosnyder is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: YWG
Posts: 1,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
What liability?
Exactly... More often than not the person driving who kills someone isn't even liable when they did the driving.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...261620951.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #967  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 7:33 PM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 10,472
For the record, I actually support building this underpass--just at a smaller scale--even though I hate everything south and west of it and think the best solution for traffic problems in SW Winnipeg is a week of solid carpet bombing.

I couldn't disagree more, though, with people who say this should have been built 20 years ago.

For the reasons I provided above that Waverley is no longer a major route, this project doesn't risk inducing demand. At the north end Waverley is limited by running into some rinky-dink streets with 50km/h speed limits. At the south end, it turns into a residential street, or something. I don't care what happens to it down there, all that matters is that it goes nowhere. A small underpass will solve existing traffic problems without exacerbating them down the line. That's exactly the right call. Engineering redundancies into the underpass is just that--redundant.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #968  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 7:36 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cobourg, ON/Mesa, AZ
Posts: 3,554
The engineers are simply designing to a standard, which includes a safety factor. This is considered good design. Would anyone here ride on an aircraft that was designed as cheaply as possible?

It is transportation infrastructure. There are standards to follow and the city is being responsible in following them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #969  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 7:38 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cobourg, ON/Mesa, AZ
Posts: 3,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
I couldn't disagree more, though, with people who say this should have been built 20 years ago.
That is because it doesn't affect you personally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #970  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 7:39 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
i wouldn't take traffic engineers at their word on this. They have one job--moving cars. They have no concept of every thing else that goes into a city.
Quoted for truth
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #971  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 7:41 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
That is because it doesn't affect you personally.
They didn't build it 20 years ago for a very good reason. At the time everyone thought CN and CP were going to merge and create just one main line. That's why the city didn't move on rail grade separations for quite a few years through the 90s. It was a prudent step... could you imagine if the city had built an underpass only to have the tracks abandoned 3 years later?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #972  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 7:43 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cobourg, ON/Mesa, AZ
Posts: 3,554
Haha, they didn't build because of a rumour?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #973  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 7:54 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
Haha, they didn't build because of a rumour?
They were known to be having formal merger negotiations at the time, so it wasn't exactly a flimsy rumour. There was a lot of industry consolidation going on in the mid/late 90s.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #974  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 8:04 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveosnyder View Post
Using highway geometries and highway design thinking isn't comperable here. This is an urban intersection that has housing all around it. To compare this is silly for a multitude of reasons.
Youre' talking Waverley? I already said I agree a super freeway isn't good for this location. I'm talking general terms. Designing the Perimeter to 100 km/h design and posted speed is bad engineering.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #975  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 8:04 PM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 10,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
The engineers are simply designing to a standard, which includes a safety factor. This is considered good design. Would anyone here ride on an aircraft that was designed as cheaply as possible?

The point you're missing is the exact point you're making. Would I fly on a shitty plane? Nope. Would I speed through a small underpass? Nope.



In any case, as to flying on "an aircraft that was designed as cheaply as possible", yes I would. Almost every aircraft is designed as cheaply as possible. Airplanes are made by big companies who are good at calculating risk. As such they calculate the risk bad design poses into their costs. If a company takes on a massive expense because they've made a design mistake, like the DC-10's cargo doors, then it's not the most cheaply designed. We all ride on aircraft designed as cheaply as possible. That doesn't mean they're designed poorly.

Anyhow, that's not remotely comparable to this underpass. Nobody is saying Fat Tony should build the underpass or that it should be made deliberately dangerous. And like we've pointed out, the city has no liability here in any realistic scenario.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #976  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 8:06 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,710
Holy Christ. Engineers have a legal obligation to design whatever it is they are designing to the laws, codes and standards as provided by the local governing agencies. The engineers who have produced said codes, etc have done so based on experience.

An engineer is not stupid. They understand exactly what they're doing and what their job is. A roadway engineer designing a highway has one goal, to move vehicles. The fact and debate whether said highway is not needed, etc, etc is completely irrelevant at that point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #977  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 8:26 PM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,057
Classic! The same people arguing for building this underpass to the bare, unsafe minimums of 100 year old underpasses are the exact same people arguing in another thread to make the Perimeter safer. "Can you believe that there is no proper median on the south Perimeter? People making left turns onto gravel roads - unfathomable in the 21st century! No proper MERGE lanes, just yield right onto the Perimeter... Wow, this was outdated the day it was built in the 1960s".

I mean, this is Waverley we're talking about. Not Osborne through the Village. Love Steveos email to the councillor lol - Taxable land?? Yeah, if only they would make those lanes a bit narrower, the City could sell that extra few feet of right-of-way to the developers lining up to build high-value, taxable development on that school yard and the car washes parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #978  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 8:30 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cobourg, ON/Mesa, AZ
Posts: 3,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Holy Christ. Engineers have a legal obligation to design whatever it is they are designing to the laws, codes and standards as provided by the local governing agencies. The engineers who have produced said codes, etc have done so based on experience.

An engineer is not stupid. They understand exactly what they're doing and what their job is. A roadway engineer designing a highway has one goal, to move vehicles. The fact and debate whether said highway is not needed, etc, etc is completely irrelevant at that point.
This.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #979  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 8:34 PM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 10,472
I'll repeat my previous statement:

"Nobody is saying Fat Tony should build the underpass"


Now you morons can dance off with your strawman.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #980  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2014, 8:35 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cobourg, ON/Mesa, AZ
Posts: 3,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
...or that it should be made deliberately dangerous.
Yes, that is exactly what you are saying. Make it barely safe enough to travel through at the speed limit. Sorry, but things are not done that way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:45 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.