Recent posts

#21

Off-Topic / Re: My idea for US currency re...

Last post by Scott5114 - Today at 08:13:00 PM

My proposal is simpler:

Coins: 5c, 25c, $1
Bills: $2, $5, $20, $100

I'm starting to think some of you haven't actually worked with cash before. 95¢ being three quarters and four nickels would be an unmitigated pain in the ass. Remember, rolls contain either 40 or 50 pieces; if you get rid of the dime that means you could blow through a whole roll of nickels in ten transactions. (Meaning you have to close the window while you get another roll of nickels from somewhere. Meaning customers start being a dick to you.)

The days where we ran out of dimes at work were always miserable.

#22

Northeast / Re: US 202 Sinkhole Around Kin...

Last post by 74/171FAN - Today at 08:11:27 PM

(For US 202 and PA 29)  PennDOT - District 6 News: Sinkhole Repair Continues on U.S. 202 North (Dekalb Pike) in King of Prussia

A comprehensive sinkhole remediation project for U.S. 202 (Dekalb Pike), and for Route 29 (Morehall Road) in East Whiteland Township, Chester County, is scheduled to be advertised for construction this summer.

#23

Northeast / Re: Pennsylvania

Last post by 74/171FAN - Today at 08:06:27 PM

PennDOT - District 4 News: PennDOT/BPD-I Set to Begin I-80 Nescopeck Creek Bridges Construction in Luzerne County

#24

Off-Topic / Re: New Oklahoma City Skyscrap...

Last post by Scott5114 - Today at 08:05:25 PM

Not going to happen for the simple reason that OKC-area banks are notoriously risk-averse (there are virtually no five-over-ones in the OKC area because the banks consider it a risky, unproven venture despite them existing in practically every other US city). Non-OKC area banks generally don't like to invest in OKC-area projects because formulas used to calculate ROI elsewhere in the country don't return realistic results due to OKC's low density. (This is also why many national chains don't have locations in OKC.)

#25

Off-Topic / Re: Technology Random Access T...

Last post by MikeTheActuary - Today at 07:30:31 PM

I don't know when you went to school, but I was never allowed to use a calculator in math class until I had a scientific one for trig in high school. This was the mid to late 80s.

From my school experience in the mid-late 80's: calculators were forbidden in Algebra I and Geometry.  In Algebra II, we had a few tests/quizzes where we did a few questions without calculators ("just so you remember how to do math without them"), before we were allowed to break them out for the rest of the test.

I think my Trig class was one of the first ones where we didn't have to learn how to use trig tables; we were just expected to use scientific calculators.  (I was, of course, a smart-ass and brought a slide rule to my final exam.)

#26

Great Lakes and Ohio Valley / Re: Illinois notes

Last post by Rick Powell - Today at 07:13:31 PM

https://maps.app.goo.gl/uAD2mhbY7zLPuhFR9?g_st=ic

That is the one in question for the Marion-57/24 split segment. Might be able to squeeze it in under. Pretty sure that is a BNSF-owned line, but don't quote me on that

Looks like room to spare to add a 12' lane and 12' inside shoulder, and maybe widen the outside shoulder a little, if everything is widened to the inside.

#27

Great Lakes and Ohio Valley / Re: Illinois notes

Last post by ilpt4u - Today at 07:08:21 PM

https://maps.app.goo.gl/uAD2mhbY7zLPuhFR9?g_st=ic

That is the one in question for the Marion-57/24 split segment. Might be able to squeeze it in under. Pretty sure that is a BNSF-owned line, but don't quote me on that

#28

Mountain West / Re: Arizona

Last post by Pink Jazz - Today at 06:48:38 PM

Now that Clearview (E-Modified Alternate) is now part of the 2023 MUTCD, I wonder if we can see ADOT re-adopt it. I think the reason why ADOT stopped using it was due to some uncertainty over its future, but now that it is part of the MUTCD, I wonder if ADOT might start using it again.

#29

General Highway Talk / Re: Streets That Seemed Misspe...

Last post by Rothman - Today at 06:45:13 PM

This has become one of my favorite street names:

#30

Pacific Southwest / Re: Route 1/Rice Avenue in Oxn...

Last post by pderocco - Today at 06:40:40 PM

I was just looking at this in Google Earth, and I can't help wondering if it wouldn't be easier and cheaper to raise the railroad tracks over Rice Ave. It looks like there's room to temporarily move the tracks over, so they're right next to 5th St, then build a half-mile or so incline on each side of Rice Ave, a short bridge over Rice, route the trains over that, and tear up the temporary track. They wouldn't have to touch the road at all, or acquire any property.

Assuming the railroad is still active (meaning trains still run on it, not just that there are tracks sitting there) land would need to be acquired, even if temporarily to construct the shoofly.  Railroads also don't like creating running grades where they don't exist currently, especially for a situation like this where a freight train could be longer than the up-and-over which would create a slingshot effect for the train as it passes through. 
Lastly, FRA-recognized rail corridors generally take primacy over any crossing roadways (because they were there first) so whatever railroad it is would likely make Caltrans deal with the roadway instead of the RR modifying the tracks, i.e. Caltrans would need to get an encroachment permit to do work in the RR ROW as opposed to the RR needing to get one from Caltrans, since the RR technically controls the crossing. 

Good points. But the land between the tracks and the road certainly isn't private property. It either belongs to the railroad already, Oxnard, or the state along 34, so I wouldn't think using it would be expensive, especially since it would be temporary.

I'm curious what this "slingshot effect" is. If a train is longer than a rise and equal fall in the elevation, I would think it would take some energy to start going over, but once the head is over, it would be more or less neutral (a mechanical siphon) until the tail starts to go over, at which point it would get back most of the energy it put in at the beginning. Is that bit at the end the "slingshot effect"? I think the grades would be about 1%, but don't trains experience that effect frequently in hilly areas?

Also, I'm not sure the railroad was first in this case. The 1904 USGS maps show a road where Rice Ave is now, and the rail line, but no road along the rail line. When I look at the various maps of the area I've downloaded from Rumsey and other places, I see the rail line existing in 1901, but not in 1897. Before that, the coast railroad connected to LA only along what's now route 126.

That said, I'm just thinking outside the box. It looks like building a half-cloverleaf there could be quite expensive, especially given the width of the road, and the rail bridge and its approaches could be a lot cheaper to build. The railroad might be induced to cooperate by giving it a cut of the difference.