- Welcome to AARoads Forum.
News:
Am able to again make updates to the Shield Gallery!
- Alex
Recent posts
#1
Southeast / Re: I-40 in North Carolina
Last post by ARMOURERERIC - Today at 03:13:24 AMGetting reports that Haw River is flooding at an all time record stage and that I-40/85, along with many local area highways are now closed due to flooding.
#2
Great Lakes and Ohio Valley / Re: Madison Area
Last post by JREwing78 - Today at 02:31:45 AMMost of the options seem geared towards turning the Stoughton Rd corridor into another downtown/multi-use higher-density pedestrian/biking mecca, which is why they clearly want to drop the speed limit to 35. The only reason Stoughton Rd is getting widened to 6 lanes and they left a 45 mph option on the table is that the other proposals would be laughed out of the room if that option wasn't there.
Clearly they don't want another freeway - and it doesn't need to be one. But the worst thing they could do is turn it into another plodding city street that can't move people around with cars or transit effectively. Particularly in the N/S direction, Madison has few efficient options to get around town, and WisDOT seems hell-bent on removing one.
I can understand the impulse to add crossings for bike/ped or vehicles across Stoughton Rd. They can do this without adding more access points TO Stoughton Rd (and more places for accidents). They can also certainly add bus connectivity - and with the available right-of-way BRT is the correct answer.
They also have room to add N/S mobility for bikes and peds - but is anyone in Madison asking to walk or bike along another busy city street, particularly one where traffic is tempted to drive it like a freeway.
So far, I'm not particularly impressed with any of their options. They seem determined to turn a corridor that's pretty clearly prioritized to move cars quickly with relatively few neighborhood impacts (the road was there first) into a stroad. It's neither fish nor fowl, not a great way to move cars or a very good corridor for high-density urbanization.
Clearly they don't want another freeway - and it doesn't need to be one. But the worst thing they could do is turn it into another plodding city street that can't move people around with cars or transit effectively. Particularly in the N/S direction, Madison has few efficient options to get around town, and WisDOT seems hell-bent on removing one.
I can understand the impulse to add crossings for bike/ped or vehicles across Stoughton Rd. They can do this without adding more access points TO Stoughton Rd (and more places for accidents). They can also certainly add bus connectivity - and with the available right-of-way BRT is the correct answer.
They also have room to add N/S mobility for bikes and peds - but is anyone in Madison asking to walk or bike along another busy city street, particularly one where traffic is tempted to drive it like a freeway.
So far, I'm not particularly impressed with any of their options. They seem determined to turn a corridor that's pretty clearly prioritized to move cars quickly with relatively few neighborhood impacts (the road was there first) into a stroad. It's neither fish nor fowl, not a great way to move cars or a very good corridor for high-density urbanization.
#3
Southeast / Re: Why is Florida So Gung Ho ...
Last post by Max Rockatansky - Today at 12:41:32 AMImagine
Posting about
Roundabouts
After midnight
I too
Think of roundabouts
After midnight
Make the voices
Stop
Posting about
Roundabouts
After midnight
I too
Think of roundabouts
After midnight
Make the voices
Stop
#4
Southeast / Re: Why is Florida So Gung Ho ...
Last post by Daniel Fiddler - Today at 12:36:23 AMJackson built one roundabout. But they built it in the dumbest of locations.
I don't mind roundabouts. I actually LIKE them. In appropriate places.
But where did they place this one? On Highland Avenue.
One of the busiest thoroughfares in the city.
Half the traffic has no clue how in the devil to use it. They stop when they should yield.
One night, someone plowed right into it not seeing it around 1 AM.
They should have constructed it in a subdivision. The entrance to my subdivision in front of North Park would have been a prime location for one.
Not where they put one though.
I don't mind roundabouts. I actually LIKE them. In appropriate places.
But where did they place this one? On Highland Avenue.
One of the busiest thoroughfares in the city.
Half the traffic has no clue how in the devil to use it. They stop when they should yield.
One night, someone plowed right into it not seeing it around 1 AM.
They should have constructed it in a subdivision. The entrance to my subdivision in front of North Park would have been a prime location for one.
Not where they put one though.
#5
Southeast / Re: I-69 in TN
Last post by Daniel Fiddler - Today at 12:30:57 AMQuote from: I-55 on May 30, 2025, 11:16:02 PMQuote from: Anthony_JK on May 30, 2025, 05:11:22 PMDon't think so. Memphis would raise hell, and you'd have I-69 through traffic wanting to access Memphis either using the I-40 bridge to I-55 in West Memphis, using city streets, or US 51 south to I-240. Can't just bypass a major city like that, even one as dysfunctional as Memphis is right now.
Memphis might raise hell but Nashville ignores most of the hell Memphis brings now. As significant as completing I-69 to Memphis may be, their problem is bridges. TDOT already plans to work on one of them. Combine that with the Crump interchange and Lamar Ave improvements, Memphis is getting about as much attention as it will get, especially with the problems that plague the other 3 big metros in the state. Shelby Co. is getting 8 projects in TDOT's 10-year plan, compared to about 20 in the Nashville area, 7 in Chattanooga, and 10 in Knoxville. That's as good as Memphis is going to get unless the feds step in with at least 90 percent funding.
I have no idea when the devil they will get around to the Memphis to Dyersburg segment if ever, although I will be temporarily content if they actually get the 8 mile gap completed near Troy. Not that I ever travel there, but still.
And Memphis is shrinking while Nashville, Knoxville, and Chattanooga are growing. Nashville very rapidly. Sure, Memphis deserves slightly more attention, although as much as I hate to say this living in Jackson, Tennessee does need to focus on Middle and East Tennessee more due to its growth.
Many of the Interstates being considered or constructed are not crucial, some not even needed. There are exceptions to the rule however. Personally, south of Memphis, I'd rather have seen them build I-69 from Houston to Texarkana rather than to Shreveport, El Dorado, Clarksdale, and finally Memphis. Much cheaper, and the planned route doesn't serve much population, while Texas is BOOMING! Fastest states growing right now, by percentage, are (1) Texas, (2) Florida, (3) Tennessee, (4) North Carolina, (5) Georgia, and (6) South Carolina. Not sure beyond that, although I do know those are the top 6. Tennessee's growth has been mostly middle and east though. No one wants to live in Memphis due to its high violent crime. Only city in West Tennessee growing substantially that I know of is Jackson.
#6
Southeast / Re: Interstate 87 (NC-VA)
Last post by Daniel Fiddler - Today at 12:17:58 AMI have wondered two things about this road personally...
1. Why I-87? It's mostly east - west, and does not connect to I-87 in New York, nor do I know of any plans to in the future. It would be very costly if not downright impossible to upgrade the four lane the tunnels across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge - Tunnel, and I don't think US 13 is access controlled expressway for that two or three miles (partially maybe, but not fully), so that would be expensive as well. And I am not sure how they will construct a bridge or tunnel to connect Lewes, DE with Cape May, NJ either. I'd think I-46 or I-48 more appropriate.
2. When will they designate the remainder of US 64 between Raleigh and Williamston as I-87? It's already access controlled expressway, and could be designated I-87 unless parts of it do not meet EIHS standards.
1. Why I-87? It's mostly east - west, and does not connect to I-87 in New York, nor do I know of any plans to in the future. It would be very costly if not downright impossible to upgrade the four lane the tunnels across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge - Tunnel, and I don't think US 13 is access controlled expressway for that two or three miles (partially maybe, but not fully), so that would be expensive as well. And I am not sure how they will construct a bridge or tunnel to connect Lewes, DE with Cape May, NJ either. I'd think I-46 or I-48 more appropriate.
2. When will they designate the remainder of US 64 between Raleigh and Williamston as I-87? It's already access controlled expressway, and could be designated I-87 unless parts of it do not meet EIHS standards.
#7
Bridges / 7 Engineers Suspended After Br...
Last post by Lyon Wonder - July 06, 2025, 11:54:38 PMGranted, this bridge looks like it's only intended for pedestrian foot and bicycle traffic.
7 engineers in India were suspended when the completed bridge included a 90-dgree turn, something completely unacceptable for vehicle traffic but still acceptable for pedestrian foot traffic. I assume the main objection to the 90 turn is the difficultly for people on bicycles to cross the bridge.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/7-engineers-suspended-after-2-3-million-bridge-includes-bizarre-90-degree-turn/
Ironically, this overpass would have been perfectly acceptable had it been built a century earlier.
It wasn't unheard of in that era for bridges to have approaches with very sharp angles.
And I'm talking about bridges for automobile traffic, not just pedestrians.
A late 19th century "high" bridge across the Mississippi River at Winona, MN built in the 1890s had a western approach with a couple of 90 degree angles.
I imagine it was a nightmare for early automobiles to drive on and was replaced by a more modern bridge with a straight approach in the early 1940s.
https://www.bridgehunter.com/bridge/79399
7 engineers in India were suspended when the completed bridge included a 90-dgree turn, something completely unacceptable for vehicle traffic but still acceptable for pedestrian foot traffic. I assume the main objection to the 90 turn is the difficultly for people on bicycles to cross the bridge.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/7-engineers-suspended-after-2-3-million-bridge-includes-bizarre-90-degree-turn/
Ironically, this overpass would have been perfectly acceptable had it been built a century earlier.
It wasn't unheard of in that era for bridges to have approaches with very sharp angles.
And I'm talking about bridges for automobile traffic, not just pedestrians.
A late 19th century "high" bridge across the Mississippi River at Winona, MN built in the 1890s had a western approach with a couple of 90 degree angles.
I imagine it was a nightmare for early automobiles to drive on and was replaced by a more modern bridge with a straight approach in the early 1940s.
https://www.bridgehunter.com/bridge/79399
#8
Southeast / Re: Complete NC 540 Project
Last post by Bobby5280 - July 06, 2025, 11:50:11 PMGiven the I-335 and I-344 oddities we now have in Oklahoma City it seems like the old even-odd rules for 3-digit Interstate route designations don't matter anymore. Hell, in the future we might see more 3-digit routes doing the "I-238" thing -use a 3-digit designation that has no relation to a parent 2-digit route.
#9
Suggestions and Questions / Re: Profile Avatars
Last post by oscar - July 06, 2025, 11:34:26 PMThat, and the same image hosted on my www.alaskaroads.com server, exceeds the forum's size limits for avatars not hosted on the aaroads server. If Alex can't find my old avatar on the aaroads server, then I'll have to shrink the avatar on my server from 80x80 to 65x65.
#10
Southeast / Re: Complete NC 540 Project
Last post by Daniel Fiddler - July 06, 2025, 11:32:47 PMI would think they will rename it to I-640 or something. 540 doesn't make sense for a complete beltway, that usually commands an even digit.