AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 1 
 on: Today at 02:47:48 PM 
Started by jbnv - Last post by formulanone
Need to catch up from this weekend...

Here's an I-405 shield from northbound I-710:


A couple of Ontario 405 shields near Niagara Falls:


CR 405 in Jim Wells County, Texas:

 2 
 on: Today at 02:42:45 PM 
Started by RobbieL2415 - Last post by epzik8
Sounds acceptable

 3 
 on: Today at 02:41:54 PM 
Started by Sub-Urbanite - Last post by NE2
I-2 ends at I-69E.

 4 
 on: Today at 01:39:26 PM 
Started by Revive 755 - Last post by Brandon
If a truck is going from Wyoming to KC/STL/etc, I-80 to NE-2 to I-29 is the fastest way, even with all the traffic through Lincoln. So, any uptick would revolve around other means.

Now, a trucker won't take I-70 through western Colorado unless absolutely necessary, so the only issue would be: I-70 west to I-25 north to I-80 west, or I-70 west, to I-29 north to NE-2 west to I-80 west. Eliminate Lincoln, and that becomes the better way through.

Nebraska's stretch (and Iowa's) of I-80 are overloaded. Forget traffic counts, drive the road sometime. The problem isn't volume, it's the truck traffic. I-80 is a crucial shipping lane for points east and points west along the middle of the country. And from Joliet, IL west (aside from cities), it's two-lanes each way until just east of Sacramento.

Sure, the Nevada, Utah, Wyoming stretches are less congested, up until the I-80/I-76 split in Big Spring, Nebraska, the traffic chokes the road.

Sykotyk

Much agreed.  It is the truck traffic that chokes these roads (even I-55 between Joliet and the Illinois suburbs of Saint Louis for that matter).  The third lane that NDOR put in between Lincoln and Omaha makes a lot of difference.  One can actually get around slower (read: speed limited) truck traffic.  On the two-lane stretches, it can be a real bear until the trucks finally vacate the left lane.

80 only gets three lanes (or more) through Iowa City, Des Moines, Council Bluffs to Lincoln, and in Salt Lake west of here.  East, it's also two-lanes from Lake Station to Toledo, then from Youngstown to somewhere in New Jersey.

 5 
 on: Today at 01:25:06 PM 
Started by Sub-Urbanite - Last post by 1
Random I-11 musing: How many other 2di's don't intersect any other 2di's?

Not that this is a permanent condition, but it is (in theory) an interesting bit of trivia.

I-2, I-97

That should be it.

(I-99 reaches I-86.)

 6 
 on: Today at 01:23:47 PM 
Started by bugo - Last post by mvak36
IMHO, the only way I-440 should be decommissioned is if I-430 is extended North & East over to current terminus of AR-440, making that whole beltway I-430. For now I think the roads should stay signed as is. It can be pretty disruptive to businesses when a highway route number is changed.

Future I-57 should still have its Southern terminus at I-40 in North Little Rock as currently planned. Diverting it off the final 6.5 miles just to eat up I-440 doesn't make much sense. What would that final 6.5 miles of the highway down to I-40 be called? I would be against extending I-30 North a few miles past I-40. So we would end up with yet another 3di from either I-40 or I-47.

Once I-57 is signed I think AR-440 should be re-signed as I-440 up to the I-57 interchange. That's going to be the most logical, least disruptive change.
Least confusing too. I just assumed that was what they were going to do, but you never know I guess.

 7 
 on: Today at 01:23:34 PM 
Started by Sub-Urbanite - Last post by Sub-Urbanite
Random I-11 musing: How many other 2di's don't intersect any other 2di's?

Not that this is a permanent condition, but it is (in theory) an interesting bit of trivia.

 8 
 on: Today at 01:20:47 PM 
Started by SD Mapman - Last post by mvak36
It should be the second one. I drove it a few weeks back. I don't know why it's signed like that. there haven't been any changes in MO and KS that I know of.

Wouldn't a change like that have to be approved by AASHTO? Speaking of, I think they had their meeting yesterday so I guess we'll see if there is any applications for that change.

 9 
 on: Today at 01:20:06 PM 
Started by RobbieL2415 - Last post by US71
drivers are ALWAYS supposed to yield to pedestrians in the road
True.
Huh?  Show me the law or statute that states this is the case.

What if they are on the road illegally (such as crossing an Interstate highway)?

 10 
 on: Today at 01:19:38 PM 
Started by cpzilliacus - Last post by Beltway
It was validated enough to where VDOT used it in their draft 2011 Reevaluation of the previous CBA 9/Third Crossing project.

The I-564 Extension and the Craney Island Connector.

Not a "Draft 2011 Reevaluation of the previous CBA 9", just of 2 of the 5 segments (those I listed above) of CBA 9.

I would like to see the figures without the Craney Island Connector.


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.