News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Preparations for 70 MPH speed limit in Maryland

Started by mcmc, August 19, 2015, 03:31:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

mcmc

If I understand correctly, the law authorizing 70 MPH speed limits in Maryland allows the SHA to begin signing 70-MPH speed limits starting in October. Has the SHA started any studies or undertaken any planning to actually start signing 70-MPH speed limits when the law permits them to?


1995hoo

I haven't heard anything at all about it. I don't even recall the local media reporting when the governor signed the bill authorizing 70-mph limits.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: mcmc on August 19, 2015, 03:31:26 PM
If I understand correctly, the law authorizing 70 MPH speed limits in Baltimore allows the SHA to begin signing 70-MPH speed limits starting in October. Has the SHA started any studies or undertaken any planning to actually start signing 70-MPH speed limits when the law permits them to?

Not aware of any studies by SHA or by MdTA (I believe MdTA would need to study its own roads by its own engineering staff).

I have speculated in the past what segments of Maryland's freeway network might be considered for 70 MPH, and I will do so again:

(1) I-68 (West Virginia border to Md. 546 (Finzel))
(2) I-70 (Hancock to Md. 66 (Boonsboro))
(3) I-70 (Frederick to U.S. 29)
(4) I-95 (I-495 to the border between Howard County and Baltimore County)
(5) I-95 (Md. 43 to Md. 279, except between the Susquehanna River and Md. 222)
(6) I-83  (Shawan Road to the Pennsylvania border)
(7) I-270 (Montrose Road to Md. 121) [yes, this is posted 55 MPH, which is universally ignored, but because of congestion, variable speed limits might be needed here first]
(8) I-695 [Md. 695] (Md. 2 to Md. 151, except crossing the F. S. Key Bridge and at the toll plaza)
(9) U.S. 50 [I-595] (Md. 410 to Md. 450)
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

mattpedersen

I would add in:
US 340 - MM 3 - MM 12
US 13 / 50 bypass of Salisbury
I-97 - whole length
I-68 - WV Line to Exit 40, Exit 45 to Exit 82
I-895 - MM 5.5 to I-95 (south end)
I-81 - I-70 to WV line
Quote
I have speculated in the past what segments of Maryland's freeway network might be considered for 70 MPH, and I will do so again:

(1) I-68 (West Virginia border to Md. 546 (Finzel))
(2) I-70 (Hancock to Md. 66 (Boonsboro))
(3) I-70 (Frederick to U.S. 29)
(4) I-95 (I-495 to the border between Howard County and Baltimore County)
(5) I-95 (Md. 43 to Md. 279, except between the Susquehanna River and Md. 222)
(6) I-83  (Shawan Road to the Pennsylvania border)
(7) I-270 (Montrose Road to Md. 121) [yes, this is posted 55 MPH, which is universally ignored, but because of congestion, variable speed limits might be needed here first]
(8) I-695 [Md. 695] (Md. 2 to Md. 151, except crossing the F. S. Key Bridge and at the toll plaza)
(9) U.S. 50 [I-595] (Md. 410 to Md. 450)

bsmart

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 19, 2015, 11:53:26 PM
Quote from: mcmc on August 19, 2015, 03:31:26 PM
If I understand correctly, the law authorizing 70 MPH speed limits in Baltimore allows the SHA to begin signing 70-MPH speed limits starting in October. Has the SHA started any studies or undertaken any planning to actually start signing 70-MPH speed limits when the law permits them to?

Not aware of any studies by SHA or by MdTA (I believe MdTA would need to study its own roads by its own engineering staff).

I have speculated in the past what segments of Maryland's freeway network might be considered for 70 MPH, and I will do so again:

(1) I-68 (West Virginia border to Md. 546 (Finzel))
(2) I-70 (Hancock to Md. 66 (Boonsboro))
(3) I-70 (Frederick to U.S. 29)
(4) I-95 (I-495 to the border between Howard County and Baltimore County)
(5) I-95 (Md. 43 to Md. 279, except between the Susquehanna River and Md. 222)
(6) I-83  (Shawan Road to the Pennsylvania border)
(7) I-270 (Montrose Road to Md. 121) [yes, this is posted 55 MPH, which is universally ignored, but because of congestion, variable speed limits might be needed here first]
(8) I-695 [Md. 695] (Md. 2 to Md. 151, except crossing the F. S. Key Bridge and at the toll plaza)
(9) U.S. 50 [I-595] (Md. 410 to Md. 450)

I suspect that I-70 west of Exit 82 (Where it becomes 3 lanes where US 40 splits off) all the way to the PA state line could become 70 mph.  Right now it is 65 that whole way.

As far as I-270 south of Clarksburg - I don't see that happening.  They aren't going to jump a section that they have not even allowed 65 on to go to 70 (Although yes I agree that 70 is closer to the speed along there when it isn't 30 due to traffic)

I would add US 340 west of Frederick up til Knoxville (where it narrows for the bridge approach) which is now 65

1995hoo

I just sent a question to Dr. Gridlock at the Washington Post to ask whether he's heard anything. He usually responds within a few hours, so I'll follow up sometime after 2:00 unless he replies before noon.

I agree with "bsmart" that it seems extremely unlikely they'd post 70-mph limits on I-270. It's the usual weird scenario that the part of the road that's wider and better has the lower speed limit due to a perception that "congestion" makes a higher limit "unsafe," and I certainly think if the current limit is not 65 they won't even consider the idea of raising it. I've long thought Maryland ought to consider split speed limits on the quad-carraigeway portion of I-270, though–55 mph in the "local" lanes due to the two-lane design and the frequent merges and diverges on both the left and right, and 65 or 70 mph in the "express" lanes due to there being more lanes and the only exits or entrances being via slip ramps to and from the "local" lanes.

I have long thought US-15 from some point north of the Frederick area up to the Pennsylvania state line could be posted at 60 or 65, but I suspect Maryland law may prohibit anything above 55 on a road with at-grade intersections. I have not looked up the statutes to verify this. Even if Maryland law allowed 70 on there, I don't think it would be a good option due in part to the somewhat hillier and twistier section near Thurmont.

I highly doubt I-895 will receive any 70-mph speed limits. It's still 55 now, isn't it? Been a few years since I've used the old tunnel.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

froggie

My read on the Maryland statutes (Section 21—801.1, BTW) is it allows non-Interstate freeways to be raised up to 70 MPH just like the Interstates can, subject to an "engineering and traffic investigation" as provided in Section 21-802.  So the freeway part of 15 through Frederick could theoretically go to 70 MPH if a study recommended it, but farther north where the at-grade intersections are could go no higher than 55 per state law.

On a somewhat related note, Maryland state law defines an "expressway" as what most of us call a freeway.

Henry

Quote from: mattpedersen on August 20, 2015, 01:46:32 AM
I would add in:
US 340 - MM 3 - MM 12
US 13 / 50 bypass of Salisbury
I-97 - whole length
I-68 - WV Line to Exit 40, Exit 45 to Exit 82
I-895 - MM 5.5 to I-95 (south end)
I-81 - I-70 to WV line
Quote
I have speculated in the past what segments of Maryland's freeway network might be considered for 70 MPH, and I will do so again:

(1) I-68 (West Virginia border to Md. 546 (Finzel))
(2) I-70 (Hancock to Md. 66 (Boonsboro))
(3) I-70 (Frederick to U.S. 29)
(4) I-95 (I-495 to the border between Howard County and Baltimore County)
(5) I-95 (Md. 43 to Md. 279, except between the Susquehanna River and Md. 222)
(6) I-83  (Shawan Road to the Pennsylvania border)
(7) I-270 (Montrose Road to Md. 121) [yes, this is posted 55 MPH, which is universally ignored, but because of congestion, variable speed limits might be needed here first]
(8) I-695 [Md. 695] (Md. 2 to Md. 151, except crossing the F. S. Key Bridge and at the toll plaza)
(9) U.S. 50 [I-595] (Md. 410 to Md. 450)
I-795 (at least north of Owings Mills) should be doable as well. Ditto on MD 100 and the ICC/I-370.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

1995hoo

Quote from: froggie on August 20, 2015, 11:34:29 AM
My read on the Maryland statutes (Section 21—801.1, BTW) is it allows non-Interstate freeways to be raised up to 70 MPH just like the Interstates can, subject to an "engineering and traffic investigation" as provided in Section 21-802.  So the freeway part of 15 through Frederick could theoretically go to 70 MPH if a study recommended it, but farther north where the at-grade intersections are could go no higher than 55 per state law.

On a somewhat related note, Maryland state law defines an "expressway" as what most of us call a freeway.


Interesting, thanks. I don't think 70 mph is an appropriate speed limit through Frederick, especially not with that new interchange project set to begin north of town. I wonder whether, if it didn't have the provision you mention regarding non-Interstates, it would have been reason to consider posting I-595 to allow for the higher speed limit on there, or whether the "secret" number would have been considered sufficient. Obviously that's now more of a hypothetical question. I just find it interesting.




Quote from: Henry on August 20, 2015, 11:36:11 AM
....

I-795 (at least north of Owings Mills) should be doable as well. Ditto on MD 100 and the ICC/I-370.

They won't post 70 on either the ICC or I-370. There was enough kicking and screaming about whether to post 60 mph on the ICC. I also suspect they would determine that the curves on the segment west of the tunnel are too sharp for trucks to have a 70-mph limit.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

1995hoo

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 20, 2015, 11:11:32 AM
I just sent a question to Dr. Gridlock at the Washington Post to ask whether he's heard anything. He usually responds within a few hours, so I'll follow up sometime after 2:00 unless he replies before noon.

....

He replied that no decisions have been made yet.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: bsmart on August 20, 2015, 10:01:47 AM
As far as I-270 south of Clarksburg - I don't see that happening.  They aren't going to jump a section that they have not even allowed 65 on to go to 70 (Although yes I agree that 70 is closer to the speed along there when it isn't 30 due to traffic)

I think the design speed for I-270 from the "split" north to Md. 121 is 70 MPH or higher. 

Curiously, the only part of I-270 in Montgomery County that has  a posted 65 MPH limit is north of Md. 121 (Clarksburg, Exit 18), which is the part of the freeway that remains mostly unmodified from its pre-Interstate design.  That's a relic of the days when the posted limit could only be above 55 MPH was in rural areas. 

But I get the impression that the 85th percentile speed on 270 is greater than 65, and maybe greater than 70 (and it is mostly unenforced).  Certainly the "Express" lanes (the main roadway) could be posted at least 65 MPH.

Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 20, 2015, 11:11:32 AM
I highly doubt I-895 will receive any 70-mph speed limits. It's still 55 now, isn't it? Been a few years since I've used the old tunnel.

I-895 is now posted 65 MPH south of its partial interchange with Md. 295 (Baltimore-Washington Parkway).   In spite of its old design (and a very sharp exit ramp from the southbound side to the Inner Loop of I-695), it works out O.K., perhaps because traffic volumes are so low.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

noelbotevera

Adding in:
I-81 whole length
US 15 between I-70 and VA State Line
US 11 north of Hagerstown to the PA State Line
I-70 between MM 37 and MM 35


bsmart

Quote from: noelbotevera on August 20, 2015, 06:58:50 PM
Adding in:
I-81 whole length
US 15 between I-70 and VA State Line


No way beyond the split from US 340.  It is undivided road and has a history of head on collisions

jeffandnicole

Quote from: noelbotevera on August 20, 2015, 06:58:50 PM
Adding in:
I-81 whole length
US 15 between I-70 and VA State Line
US 11 north of Hagerstown to the PA State Line
I-70 between MM 37 and MM 35



They wouldn't post a 70 mph limit for just 2 or 3 miles.

1995hoo

#15
Quote from: bsmart on August 20, 2015, 08:58:57 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 20, 2015, 06:58:50 PM
Adding in:
I-81 whole length
US 15 between I-70 and VA State Line


No way beyond the split from US 340.  It is undivided road and has a history of head on collisions

Plus a roundabout. I have a friend whose father and two siblings brother were killed on that road, so I'm somewhat biased, but I cannot imagine them raising the speed limit on Route 15.


(Edited because I had the facts wrong–her father and brother died in the crash, but neither of her sisters were in the car. The person who caused the crash, and was at fault, was driving a Cadillac Escalade at 108 mph and swerving in and out of traffic. She was also killed. It was two days after Christmas, too.)
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

74/171FAN

#16
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 20, 2015, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: bsmart on August 20, 2015, 08:58:57 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 20, 2015, 06:58:50 PM
Adding in:
I-81 whole length
US 15 between I-70 and VA State Line


No way beyond the split from US 340.  It is undivided road and has a history of head on collisions

Plus a roundabout. I have a friend whose father and two siblings were killed on that road, so I'm somewhat biased, but I cannot imagine them raising the speed limit on Route 15.


I think ethanman has a better chance of getting VA 28 to be 85 ;-).  Besides US 15 has to have a minimum of 15K AADT south of the US 340 split anyway so its definitely not feasible.  Idk if it is even 55 north of Point of Rocks since VA has lowered it to 45 north of Leesburg.

UPDATE: After finally driving the entire section of US 15 in MD, I can confirm that it is 55 from MD 28 in Point of Rocks to US 340.
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 20, 2015, 09:36:48 PM
Plus a roundabout. I have a friend whose father and two siblings were killed on that road, so I'm somewhat biased, but I cannot imagine them raising the speed limit on Route 15.

Not going to happen. 

That road would need to be converted to a four lane divided (which would not match up well with the bridge over the Potomac River at Point of Rocks and along U.S. 15 in Loudoun County, Va.).

The land is there (and in state ownership) for a four lane divided highway, but I do not think the state is the least bit interested in widening it, because: it would have to include an all new bridge over the Potomac (not cheap); and the replacement of the roundabouts (as stated above) with grade-separated interchanges; and replacement of three at-grade intersections with overpasses without access or diamond interchanges; and agreement by Virginia to widen their part of U.S. 15 at least to Leesburg.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: bsmart on August 20, 2015, 10:01:47 AM
I suspect that I-70 west of Exit 82 (Where it becomes 3 lanes where US 40 splits off) all the way to the PA state line could become 70 mph.  Right now it is 65 that whole way.

I am not so enthused about raising the speed limit on I-70 between Md. 66 (Boonsboro, Exit 35) and the half-interchange at U.S. 40 Alternate (Braddock Heights, Exit 49).

The grades there are (by Maryland standards) pretty long and steep, and the eastbound side descents (especially between the crest of the Blue Ridge [South Mountain], the rest area and down to Md. 17 (Myersville, Exit 42)) should probably not have a limit higher than 65.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: noelbotevera on August 20, 2015, 06:58:50 PM
US 11 north of Hagerstown to the PA State Line

That section of U.S. 11 is effectively a residential street most of the way (except where the road ducks under the runways at Hagerstown Airport), and two lanes undivided.

Not likely that a traffic engineer would agree to a 70 MPH limit on such a road.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

1995hoo

In general, I expect Maryland will be rather sparing in their posting of 70-mph speed limits, at least early on. Let's remember they were one of the last states to post 65 when the NMSL was loosened to allow that (though, in fairness, part of that was due to Gov. Schaefer's nonsensical intransigence on that issue).
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

froggie

Quote from: cpzilliacusThe land is there (and in state ownership) for a four lane divided highway, but I do not think the state is the least bit interested in widening it, because: it would have to include an all new bridge over the Potomac (not cheap); and the replacement of the roundabouts (as stated above) with grade-separated interchanges; and replacement of three at-grade intersections with overpasses without access or diamond interchanges; and agreement by Virginia to widen their part of U.S. 15 at least to Leesburg.

- The land is there for the most part, but not all the way to the river...they're a few parcels short at MD 28.
- Widening 15 would not require replacing the roundabouts/intersections with interchanges.  Expanding them, yes, but not replacing them.  The interchanges would only be needed if the desire is for a speed limit higher than 55.
- Depending on the condition of the existing Point of Rocks Bridge, a parallel bridge could carry 2 lanes with the existing bridge carrying the other two lanes.  That would cut the cost down vice a new 4-lane bridge
- Except for the river bridge approach, there is no need for Maryland to have an agreement with Virginia in order to widen Maryland's section.  Would it create a bottleneck?  Sure...but no different than the bottleneck that already exists.  In my experience, the issues along 15 between the Potomac and 340 are more safety-driven than capacity-driven (pun intended).

Rothman

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2015, 07:26:36 AM
In general, I expect Maryland will be rather sparing in their posting of 70-mph speed limits, at least early on. Let's remember they were one of the last states to post 65 when the NMSL was loosened to allow that (though, in fairness, part of that was due to Gov. Schaefer's nonsensical intransigence on that issue).

Wasn't it Maryland who posted those idiotic STILL! banners over their 55 mph speed limit signs?
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

1995hoo

#23
Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2015, 08:49:41 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 21, 2015, 07:26:36 AM
In general, I expect Maryland will be rather sparing in their posting of 70-mph speed limits, at least early on. Let's remember they were one of the last states to post 65 when the NMSL was loosened to allow that (though, in fairness, part of that was due to Gov. Schaefer's nonsensical intransigence on that issue).

Wasn't it Maryland who posted those idiotic STILL! banners over their 55 mph speed limit signs?

Yes, indeed. The ones I always found particularly absurd were on the Beltway in Montgomery County just after you crossed in from Virginia. Those "STILL!" banners were there during the Schaefer years, i.e., before Maryland had any 65-mph limits anywhere and before the repeal of the NMSL. This made the banners on the Beltway doubly stupid because even if Maryland law had permitted 65-mph speed limits at that time, no such limit would have been posted on the Beltway due to the NMSL prohibiting such in "urban areas." (Of course, nowadays the only 65-mph limit on the Beltway is in Virginia, but that's a separate issue because Maryland could post whatever they wish.)

So the "STILL!" on the Beltway was meaningless unless you interpreted the "Speed Limit 55" sign as being like those weird New York "State Speed Limit 55" signs, i.e. "55 unless otherwise posted." I know I don't interpret speed limit signs that way, including the Maryland signs I'm discussing–I interpret them as meaning "Speed Limit XX on this road, in this location and continuing until you see a sign prescribing a different limit." (Unless, of course, a sign says something like "city-wide speed limit XX unless otherwise posted," but that's not what these signs said.)




Regarding froggie's comments, I think cpzilliacus was addressing noelbotevera's suggestion that Route 15 could be posted at 70 mph and listing what would have to occur before Maryland authorities would even consider the change. Replacing the roundabout would indeed be necessary under current Maryland law in that scenario (as froggie noted, of course). I think cpzilliacus was agreeing with my comment that they're not going to raise the speed limit on that segment and that his comment about widening the road was made in that context, not as a general comment on widening it.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2015, 08:46:11 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacusThe land is there (and in state ownership) for a four lane divided highway, but I do not think the state is the least bit interested in widening it, because: it would have to include an all new bridge over the Potomac (not cheap); and the replacement of the roundabouts (as stated above) with grade-separated interchanges; and replacement of three at-grade intersections with overpasses without access or diamond interchanges; and agreement by Virginia to widen their part of U.S. 15 at least to Leesburg.

Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2015, 08:46:11 AM
- The land is there for the most part, but not all the way to the river...they're a few parcels short at MD 28.

I have not checked the parcel maps, but I do recall when that section of U.S. 15 was built in the late 1960's (replaced an older routing via present-day Md. 85 and Md. 28), and I remember fences and the like that were built all along there, which would seem to be wide enough for four lanes.

Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2015, 08:46:11 AM
- Widening 15 would not require replacing the roundabouts/intersections with interchanges.  Expanding them, yes, but not replacing them.  The interchanges would only be needed if the desire is for a speed limit higher than 55.

I was responding to the idea that this part of U.S. 15 could be posted 70 MPH (IMO clearly unreasonable to raise the limit unless all of that is done).

Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2015, 08:46:11 AM
- Depending on the condition of the existing Point of Rocks Bridge, a parallel bridge could carry 2 lanes with the existing bridge carrying the other two lanes.  That would cut the cost down vice a new 4-lane bridge

Agreed.  Though based on what I saw during the floods of winter 1996, the existing bridge may be too low for extreme events of that kind (it was very nearly swept-away then, though admittedly it did survive Hurricane Agnes).

Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2015, 08:46:11 AM
- Except for the river bridge approach, there is no need for Maryland to have an agreement with Virginia in order to widen Maryland's section.  Would it create a bottleneck?  Sure...but no different than the bottleneck that already exists.  In my experience, the issues along 15 between the Potomac and 340 are more safety-driven than capacity-driven (pun intended).

I get back to the suggestion to raise the limit to 70 MPH.  To have a 70 MPH freeway come to an abrupt end at the Virginia end of the bridge seems pretty unwise - though I doubt that Loudoun County wants to upgrade U.S. 15 from the river  to Leesburg to a freeway or even an expressway.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.



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.