News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

If you could bring back one traditional highway practice, what would it be?

Started by Alex, January 10, 2014, 04:45:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

What would you restore as a norm in highway design?

Cutout shields
31 (27%)
Colored shields
8 (7%)
Button Copy signs
9 (7.8%)
Trusses as a bridge standard
1 (0.9%)
Reasonable and Prudent and other pre-1973 Speed Limits
40 (34.8%)
Concrete as the surface for most new roads and highways
16 (13.9%)
Other (state in your post)
10 (8.7%)

Total Members Voted: 115

PHLBOS

Quote from: Steve on January 16, 2014, 12:36:35 AMI think each state should designate one or more roads - current or former state highways - and sign them with "throwback" shields of any kind. Florida can sign US 1 with red shields, NJ can sign Skyline Drive 203, etc.
Isn't such already practiced in some areas?

GPS does NOT equal GOD


sammi

I think it would be so much better if they signed 66 with a HISTORIC (or even OLD) banner, or even just with brown instead of black.

agentsteel53

Quote from: 31E on January 14, 2014, 09:36:17 PMExpanding the general concept to straight and left would be a help to many drivers.

at the very least, California needs to bring back permissive left turn on green ball.  99% of intersections with a discrete green left arrow phase have a corresponding red left arrow during green ball.  I can think of plenty of times I could have safely made the left turn because there was clearly no one coming for half a mile, but was prohibited from doing so.

I've noticed that other states are a lot better at not forbidding left turn on green ball.  California seems to be the outlier.  then again we're the state with Prop 65, which requires warning labels that furniture might kill you if you eat it.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Henry

Here's my vote in this order:

1. Button Copy signs
2. Cutout shields
3. Concrete as the surface for most new roads and highways
4. Reasonable and Prudent and other pre-1973 Speed Limits
5. Colored shields
6. Trusses as a bridge standard

Other things I would like to see restored are the use of mercury vapor in new streetlights, which unfortunately was outlawed in the US in 2008, as well as the flashing WALK (or walking pedestrian) signal.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

kendancy66

I voted for button copy.  I like that the letters glow at night, and that they stand out more on the non reflective background.  Also I have noticed in California, that the reflective sheeting layers on the newer signs starts peeling off the signs right away, and makes the signs look awful.

bugo


bugo

Quote from: hbelkins on January 10, 2014, 07:22:38 PM
As for concrete pavement and trusses as bridge standards, we live in an era where prudent use of tax dollars is essential. Concrete is a more expensive initial investment. As for truss bridges, only if they are the most cost-efficient design. Many times they aren't and it would be a waste of money to build a truss bridge isn't necessary.

Then why do highway departments spend so much money on fancy concrete bridges?  The new I-44 in Tulsa has all these snazzy bridges that were obviously a "waste of money" but they still build them like that.

Brian556

Quote from Bugo:
Quote
Then why do highway departments spend so much money on fancy concrete bridges?  The new I-44 in Tulsa has all these snazzy bridges that were obviously a "waste of money" but they still build them like that.

Like the Spur 366 Trinity River Bridge in Dallas.
https://maps.google.com/?ll=32.779388,-96.823743&spn=0.000018,0.012456&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=32.779388,-96.823743&panoid=XHoQop8RIqSFEfmM1qtpHQ&cbp=12,44.83,,0,0

All that above-deck structure is purely decorative and unnecessary.

froggie

"decorative and unnecessary" is in the eye of the beholder.  Quite often, public stakeholders (and the public in general) have demanded better aesthetics instead of a "dull, gray, bland" bridge.  It's quite plausible to consider that, without adding on these "unnecessary" aesthetics, such projects would have not had enough public support to be completed.

Henry

Quote from: froggie on January 17, 2014, 07:28:21 AM
"decorative and unnecessary" is in the eye of the beholder.  Quite often, public stakeholders (and the public in general) have demanded better aesthetics instead of a "dull, gray, bland" bridge.  It's quite plausible to consider that, without adding on these "unnecessary" aesthetics, such projects would have not had enough public support to be completed.

However, not all bridges are gray. The most common colors, IIRC, are brown and green, the latter of which use at least two shades.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

1995hoo

Quote from: Henry on January 17, 2014, 11:35:23 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 17, 2014, 07:28:21 AM
"decorative and unnecessary" is in the eye of the beholder.  Quite often, public stakeholders (and the public in general) have demanded better aesthetics instead of a "dull, gray, bland" bridge.  It's quite plausible to consider that, without adding on these "unnecessary" aesthetics, such projects would have not had enough public support to be completed.

However, not all bridges are gray. The most common colors, IIRC, are brown and green, the latter of which use at least two shades.

Heh. Then, of course, you have the ones near Joe Robbie Stadium.

I have to say the people who built Maryland's Intercounty Connector did a pretty nice job of making the overpasses look decent. Interestingly, their sign assemblies and toll gantries have a nicer look to them as well. The sign assemblies are of what I'd call a brown tubular design instead of the more-common metal trusses. It gives the road more of a parkway feel because the gantries have less of what I'd call an "industrial" look to them.
"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.

hbelkins

Quote from: froggie on January 17, 2014, 07:28:21 AM
"decorative and unnecessary" is in the eye of the beholder.  Quite often, public stakeholders (and the public in general) have demanded better aesthetics instead of a "dull, gray, bland" bridge.  It's quite plausible to consider that, without adding on these "unnecessary" aesthetics, such projects would have not had enough public support to be completed.

We had that happen recently. We replaced a bridge on a county road that was seriously substandard, had a three-ton weight limit, and was the only way in and out of that community. The bridge was a one-lane truss bridge and members of the community did not want to see their "blue bridge" taken away, even though fire trucks and even some standard commercial vehicles (like the telephone company repair truck) were too heavy for the bridge. The community got a standard concrete bridge, but forms were used when the barrier walls were poured to provide a decorative stone effect. This was deemed a suitable compromise.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

dlainhart

Concrete pavement
Button copy - if we're talking about non-reflective backgrounds (because non-reflective backgrounds mean easier-to-read signs and less hazardous night glare)
and of course
Quote from: NE2 on January 10, 2014, 05:46:50 PM
Engine cranks. Sundown towns.

Ned Weasel

Quote from: froggie on January 17, 2014, 07:28:21 AM
"decorative and unnecessary" is in the eye of the beholder.  Quite often, public stakeholders (and the public in general) have demanded better aesthetics instead of a "dull, gray, bland" bridge.  It's quite plausible to consider that, without adding on these "unnecessary" aesthetics, such projects would have not had enough public support to be completed.

I tend to appreciate the idea of infrastructure as art, but I also feel that a certain ethic is lacking with regards to the way designed objects are perceived.  The utilitarian aesthetic of bridges, overpasses, retaining walls, light fixtures, etc., that prevailed for decades in the 20th century, has largely been supplanted by an urge to "beautify" anything deemed "harsh," "brutal," or "ugly" by the puritanical voices that decry the visual effects of an advanced machine age.  Our culture has lost sight of the idea that "less is more," and in so doing, it has lost the ability to see the beauty of functional materials in raw unconcealment.

I think decorative elements of infrastructure are appropriate when they honor the technological nature of the infrastructure at hand and provide a sense of optimism for an advanced future, as is sometimes achieved with geometric form, texture, and landscaping*, but devices such as pseudo-historic streetlamps and overly ornamented overpass railings** tend to convey an image that robs automobile infrastructure of its symbolic role in hyper-mobility.  Perhaps the essential task here is to discern between the tasteful and the rococo.

* https://maps.google.com/?ll=37.67949,-97.243139&spn=0.003374,0.005284&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=37.67949,-97.24303&panoid=Da6pjbmtwF-qYz3JlVe7ww&cbp=12,88.08,,0,-7.49

** https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.083022,-94.565785&spn=0.009361,0.021136&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.083075,-94.565873&panoid=zjTkV7jxo-gabBQOHdf11A&cbp=12,300.24,,0,-8.68
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

agentsteel53

I am very surprised that people are more in favor of aesthetics than the only choice presented which could provide meaningful change: the return to reasonable speed limits.

as much as I love button copy and cutouts... I'd be okay with Arial Black stretched to 50% as the default signing choice, if only I didn't have to watch my speed to the detriment of watching my road safety.

(I'll bet most of you have not driven at 110mph during rush hour.  seriously, go drive the autobahn and we'll see where your priorities lie!)
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

J N Winkler

Quote from: stridentweasel on January 19, 2014, 03:09:44 PMI tend to appreciate the idea of infrastructure as art, but I also feel that a certain ethic is lacking with regards to the way designed objects are perceived.  The utilitarian aesthetic of bridges, overpasses, retaining walls, light fixtures, etc., that prevailed for decades in the 20th century, has largely been supplanted by an urge to "beautify" anything deemed "harsh," "brutal," or "ugly" by the puritanical voices that decry the visual effects of an advanced machine age.  Our culture has lost sight of the idea that "less is more," and in so doing, it has lost the ability to see the beauty of functional materials in raw unconcealment.

For decades the dominant thinking about highway aesthetics (which received far less attention in the US during the boom years of Interstate construction than it did elsewhere, especially in Europe) was that if the alignment were well-chosen, most of the aesthetic faults associated with highways would either not emerge at all or would be easy to solve through inconspicuous treatments such as slope rounding, carefully sited landscaping, etc.  This is the philosophy you see expressed in books such as Tunnard and Pushkarev's Man-made America and Hans Lorenz' Trassierung und Gestaltung von Strassen und Autobahnen, and it is one in which it is considered far more important to get right the basic shapes of things such as bridges, so that they look attractive when presented in (to borrow your terminology) "raw unconcealment."

Context-sensitive design is a modern animal and, to my mind, is a completely different thing altogether.  I consider it a product of the post-NEPA culture of environmental appraisal, where multiple stakeholders effectively have a veto over a project--not in the direct sense that they can force an EIS to recommend against its being built, but rather by discouraging other parties from funding it in preference to dozens of other projects which are seen as equally deserving of the money.  The aesthetic treatments that typically develop within a CSD context are surface-only, and often rely on mass-production methods (e.g. concrete formliners which simulate the appearance of hand-laid natural stone, or color-wash treatments which rely on repeating patterns that can be clearly shown on a construction plan sheet).  These types of treatments are particularly useful for recruiting support from local partners such as cities because, as public art, they signal a given city's willingness to provide the cultural and environmental amenities that are necessary to attract commerce and inward investment--the convention trade, white-collar businesses seeking to relocate, etc.  In cases where a city is actually in charge of a project to improve state-owned infrastructure (as has been the case with the various Kellogg contracts in Wichita), the city typically includes these features on its own accord.

QuoteI think decorative elements of infrastructure are appropriate when they honor the technological nature of the infrastructure at hand and provide a sense of optimism for an advanced future, as is sometimes achieved with geometric form, texture, and landscaping*, but devices such as pseudo-historic streetlamps and overly ornamented overpass railings** tend to convey an image that robs automobile infrastructure of its symbolic role in hyper-mobility.  Perhaps the essential task here is to discern between the tasteful and the rococo.

** https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.083022,-94.565785&spn=0.009361,0.021136&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.083075,-94.565873&panoid=zjTkV7jxo-gabBQOHdf11A&cbp=12,300.24,,0,-8.68

While I see your point, it sounds to me like you are trying to sketch out an objective criterion for what is essentially a value judgment, and the very example you cite (one of the overpasses on Bruce Watkins Drive) illustrates some of the problems with such an approach.  Looking at the overpass in question, what strikes me is not the excess of ornamentation so much as the retro-futurism--it is the highway design equivalent of steampunk, if you will.  The use of what appears to be hand-laid limestone on the bridge supports is a deliberate reference to the vernacular tradition of rough-cut limestone buildings in the Kansas River valley.  Decorative fixtures and railings on the bridge recall similar provision on 1920's and 1930's parkways in the vicinities of New York and Washington, DC, where the purpose was generally to stay within a pleasure-park aesthetic through the use of natural-looking materials at near-human scale and an architectonic approach toward ornamentation.   In short, the bridge is part of an attempt to recall the parkway design approach of that period, without accepting its technological constraints (part of what steampunk is all about).  This is not surprising since Watkins Drive was intended to be--in fact, was virtually ordered by a federal judge to be--a parkway.  Yes, you can say that it is overblown, and that it has too many historicist references in too small a volume of space, and so is a manipulative pastiche.  I wouldn't disagree with any of these judgments, but I would also note that it fits right in with nearby Country Club Plaza with its fake Giralda and reconstructed, dressed-up, faked-down neo-Moorish architecture.  In general much the same observation applies to a lot of steampunk, which you can reject as not according with your own tastes or accept fully on its own terms.

Edit:  Returning to the surface treatments associated with CSD, there is also one very pragmatic justification for them.  Research has shown that vandals are much less likely to target public spaces that appear to be cared for.  Surface treatments reduce the risk of vandalism by defining the highway as a curated space, thus making it less attractive to mischief-makers.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

bugo


realjd

Since when are concrete road surfaces going away? They're still using it here in Florida. The newly widened stretch of I95 between SR519 and SR528 is concrete. On the I95 project, they switched back to asphalt when the cost of oil went back down but it's still used elsewhere.

Doesn't CA use concrete for most of its urban freeways?

mgk920

Quote from: realjd on January 20, 2014, 07:36:44 AM
Since when are concrete road surfaces going away? They're still using it here in Florida. The newly widened stretch of I95 between SR519 and SR528 is concrete. On the I95 project, they switched back to asphalt when the cost of oil went back down but it's still used elsewhere.

Doesn't CA use concrete for most of its urban freeways?

Concrete is S.O.P. here in Wisconsin for major highway paving.  Even County 'A' between US 151 and WI 26 in the Beaver Dam area was concrete paved within the past few years (I'm expecting it to be a reroute for WI 26 in the near-term future, though) and is far and away the best two-lane rural road that I've ever driven on.

Lesser highways in Wisconsin normally do get asphalt, though.

Mike

hm insulators

Quote from: realjd on January 20, 2014, 07:36:44 AM
Since when are concrete road surfaces going away? They're still using it here in Florida. The newly widened stretch of I95 between SR519 and SR528 is concrete. On the I95 project, they switched back to asphalt when the cost of oil went back down but it's still used elsewhere.

Doesn't CA use concrete for most of its urban freeways?

You bet. Drive around LA or San Diego or the Bay Area and the freeways are primarily concrete (often chewed-up concrete but that's another issue).
Remember: If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.

I'd rather be a child of the road than a son of a ditch.


At what age do you tell a highway that it's been adopted?

1995hoo

I'm wondering what you folks prefer about concrete road surfaces. I've generally preferred asphalt because, when maintained correctly, it's usually smoother and quieter, whereas on many concrete roads I find the seams a lot more noticeable to the point where your car makes what I've always thought of as a "clopping noise."
"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.

J N Winkler

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 21, 2014, 03:10:38 PMI'm wondering what you folks prefer about concrete road surfaces. I've generally preferred asphalt because, when maintained correctly, it's usually smoother and quieter, whereas on many concrete roads I find the seams a lot more noticeable to the point where your car makes what I've always thought of as a "clopping noise."

Joint noise is one disadvantage of concrete (though less pronounced with modern dowelled joints), but there are many countervailing advantages:

*  Greater resistance to rutting, which means you don't usually have to worry about hydroplaning on concrete

*  Higher albedo, which facilitates night driving and allows longitudinal joints to be used as lane markers when striping is worn or faded

*  Better conformity to as-designed geometry, which in turn further reduces the likelihood of hydroplaning (even freshly laid asphalt tends to wet unevenly on either side of a construction joint)
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

ctsignguy

I voted for cutouts.......my second choice would be colored shields as long as colors were logical rection or other factors that did not impinge upon ease of use for motorists (and to an earlier post, US 1 was red in many parts of the country....Florida, Connecticut, and a red Mass US 1 was recently on the 'Bay).

your choices for US cutouts are below:

A.   

B.   

C. 

D. 

E. 

F. 
http://s166.photobucket.com/albums/u102/ctsignguy/<br /><br />Maintaining an interest in Fine Highway Signs since 1958....

froggie

QuoteI'm wondering what you folks prefer about concrete road surfaces. I've generally preferred asphalt because, when maintained correctly, it's usually smoother and quieter, whereas on many concrete roads I find the seams a lot more noticeable to the point where your car makes what I've always thought of as a "clopping noise."

Besides what Mr. Winkler mentioned, there's another big advantage concrete has over asphalt:  durability.  Asphalt wears down much faster than concrete does.  A well-built concrete road will go 25-30 years before needing anything above basic maintenance, and the pavement itself will often last much longer than that.  Whereas even the best-built asphalt road will usually need a mill-and-overlay by year 15, if not sooner (definitely sooner if there's a lot of weather changes or heavy traffic or even moderate truck traffic).

Because of MnDOT's preference for concrete for freeway construction/reconstruction (and even on non-freeways), Minnesota has done a lot of research into concrete pavement, including noise abatement.  Some of the newer rebuilt sections of I-35W in Minneapolis and Richfield are pretty darn quiet.



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.