AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 1 
 on: Today at 02:45:02 AM 
Started by NE2 - Last post by ilpt4u
It makes it even better, knowing there is an actual IL Route 6 over in Peoria...its the Northeastward continuation of the I-474 Peoria bypass, North and East of I-74 back towards the IL River

 2 
 on: Today at 02:41:11 AM 
Started by Sub-Urbanite - Last post by sparker
As a former PDX resident, the notion that the 5/405 downtown "loop" can and will collectively disperse traffic from all four directions -- with only 2 lanes per travel direction -- was and is absurd to the nth degree!  If the longer routes extending from the routes (5 [x2], 84, and 26 -- even though west 30 is contributory, it has relatively lesser effect on the overall flow) effectively divide the loop into overlapping halves, each half (regardless of whether it's on a N-S or E-W axis) can be expected to host traffic from both the through route and the entering outer extension; 3 lanes for the outer and inner loops (not considering the connections west of Marquam and east of Fremont bridges) would be the minimum required to effect continuous flow.

But that's not what this group (and others of its ilk) want -- as they consider all traffic modes to be part of a fungible continuum, their goal is to render metro driving so onerous that mass abandonment of the automotive mode occurs as a natural progression.  However, if I-5 in the north half remains as is with the likely resultant increase in congestion in short order, the "overflow" traffic will simply move to parallel streets -- N. Interstate, MLK, and even local arterials (to the consternation of neighborhood residents).

The prevailing public response to efforts to curb urban driving (and/or driving in general!) has decidedly not been an attitudinal sea change to "Gosh -- since I can't make good time between point A and point B, I'm just going to give up my car and take public transit -- even though I can't "trip-chain" anymore and now I have to get up at 5 in the morning to catch all the necessary buses/LR/trolleys to make it to work at 8!"  Nah -- they're going to grit their teeth and do what's necessary to maintain a personal mode as close to their accustomed methodology.  While some folks assume (w/o much besides low "n" anecdotal evidence as backing) that we're shooting headlong into a postconsumer/postcapitalist modality, the plain truth is that folks require the movement flexibility that the individual-automotive mode provides -- the willingness to accept extremely bounded rationality is limited to a relatively few parties; the ranks of those, despite the "throw enough shit out there and someone will believe it" mentality of some activists (ironically mirroring in their own way the efforts of the current national administration), isn't increasing outside small circles of those same activists (the old adage of "preaching to the choir" applies here as well).       

I hear the clarion cry of "sustainability" ready to pounce on my previous assertations.  But the reality is that within the overall realm of our current democracy and its various components, elevating a reductionist agenda to the position of being the sole methodology considered to achieve sustainability is not only politically but logistically infeasible; taking things away from folks -- particularly their flexibility regarding freedom of living choices -- is hardly an acceptable or even realistic course of action.  Rather than engage in a wholesale condemnation of those who make the choice to function within a commercial/consumer atmosphere -- and attempt to limit their ability to do so -- the more rational -- and (small "d") democratic choice would be to make their current modus operandi compatible with those goals of sustainability -- which, of course, will mean hard corporate choices (eliminating fossil fuels in favor of biofuels and/or electricity would go far toward that) that may mean some severe "blips" for Wall Street. 

Essentially, this argument is simple -- turn populist energy toward technical changes to effect sustainability -- and whatever structural modifications are necessary to achieve those -- rather than attempting to change basic human nature and/or create a new "homus urbanus communitarius" species.  And to all those activists out there -- please resist the temptation to look at yourself in the mirror each morning and think "....if everyone were like me, all would be right with the world!" -- and don't elevate methodology to ideology.   Perhaps I'm just your basic utilitarian -- always looking for ways to get things done without banging my head against too many walls; but I learned long ago that eschewing ideology in favor of effectuality was invariably the way to go!  Change the environment in which people operate; don't try to change people in a wholesale manner.   

 3 
 on: Today at 02:16:28 AM 
Started by Roadgeekteen - Last post by jakeroot
Many roads that cross the state line from Texas to Louisiana.

TX        LA
70/75 - 55

Texas should probably lower speed limits in east Texas to match.

Why wouldn't Louisiana just raise their speed limits to match Texas or get close to it?  Slower isn't necessarily better, just look at how states like Oregon operate.

I think the easy answer is, most states don't post two-lane roads at 70 or 75, therefore Texas is an outlier, and should change to be more in-line. However, I think Texas has it right, so I would agree that other states should follow them, rather than the other way around.

 4 
 on: Today at 02:14:06 AM 
Started by bandit957 - Last post by jakeroot
What's next?

Any of us reusing someone else's Q-Tips ??

What do Q- Tips do?

Clean ears, among other things.

Well, if it is cleaned it is fine to use.

If it's clean, it doesn't count as used. Therefore you're not "reusing" it.

Well someone still used it.

But how would you know?

 5 
 on: Today at 01:44:14 AM 
Started by SteveG1988 - Last post by jp the roadgeek
Another one that nobody has mentioned yet is Quiet Riot's (Come) On Feel the Noize (1983), a cover of a song that was originally released by in 1973 by the British act Slade.

Mike

Quiet Riot had a thing for covering Slade.  Mama Weer all Crazee Now was also a Slade song.

 6 
 on: Today at 01:42:51 AM 
Started by bandit957 - Last post by freebrickproductions
What's next?

Any of us reusing someone else's Q-Tips ??

What do Q- Tips do?

Clean ears, among other things.

Well, if it is cleaned it is fine to use.

If it's clean, it doesn't count as used. Therefore you're not "reusing" it.
Well someone still used it.
Who cleans a used Q-tip?

How would one clean a used Q-tip?

Why would one clean a used Q-tip?

 :confused:

 7 
 on: Today at 01:36:38 AM 
Started by Roadgeekteen - Last post by wxfree
Dallas North Tollway has numbers as high as 174,000.

 8 
 on: Today at 01:30:29 AM 
Started by SteveG1988 - Last post by mgk920
Another one that nobody has mentioned yet is Quiet Riot's (Come) On Feel the Noize (1983), a cover of a song that was originally released by in 1973 by the British act Slade.

Mike

 9 
 on: Today at 01:24:00 AM 
Started by ZLoth - Last post by CtrlAltDel
I don't think I have a radio. Well, there's one in my car, but it doesn't work.

 10 
 on: Today at 01:13:42 AM 
Started by Sub-Urbanite - Last post by Duke87
What good is it when the downtown streets and connectors are clogged up and can't handle that throughput? It's an overflowing sink that you're plugging more pipes into.

This statement is directly contradictory to the original assertion that the widening would not fix congestion.

If capacity on streets downtown were the singular limiting factor in the freeway's utility, adding lanes to it would make it less congested because you would have more space for the same number of vehicles. More vehicles wouldn't use the road because they'd have nowhere to go once off of it / be unable to get to it on the return trip.

If lanes are added to a freeway and getting used by additional traffic, somewhere there must be available capacity for those vehicles once they get off the freeway because we know they're successfully completing their trips.


Now it may well be the case that downtown streets cannot really handle more traffic (I'm not familiar enough with Portland to know whether that is the case or not). But, who says the traffic is going downtown? Those extra lanes are useful for people going from Tigard to Vancouver. Or from Montavilla to St John's.

Even if we accept the analogy that downtown is an overflowing sink (flawed, IMO), adding another pipe doesn't necessarily mean dumping more water into it. It can also mean helping drain water out of it so it stops overflowing.


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.