AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 on: Today at 02:54:20 AM 
Started by Anthony_JK - Last post by Anthony_JK
Since it has been a good while, allow me to do another update on the Connector design study/SEIS process progress.

Last week, the CSS Committees had their first meetings in three months, where LADOTD and the consulting team Lafayette Connector Partners (LCP) gave an update on the status of developing the revised Supplemental EIS alternatives.

A more detailed analysis of the meetings can be found at my Connector blog:


The most significant news that came out of the meetings was the presentation of a major revision to the planned interchange with Kaliste Saloom Road from what was approved in the 2003 Record of Decision.

The original concept, as shown below (from presentation materials now posted at the Lafayette Connector website), used a 3-level fully directional interchange (required due to the need to cross over the BNSF/UP railroad line that parallels US 90/Evangeline Thruway/Future I-49 South). The highest flyover ramp would have been 45 feet above ground level. In addition, an access road would have been built parallel to Kaliste Saloom as a means of connecting KS with Hugh Wallis Road, which runs parallel to the railroad and US 90.

The problem was that the original concept did not take into account the construction of the WoodSprings Suites hotel on Hugh Wallis Road, which cut into the ROW for the access road and the ramp from southbound Connector/southbound Evangeline Thruway to southbound Kaliste Saloom. In addition, the access road connection to KS would take some property from the Episcopal School of Acadiana, which had expanded its campus. Also, many in the community asked whether the traffic counts justified such a high-powered interchange design.

So, as part of the current process, LADOTD and LCP worked on some alternative designs; and the following is what they settled on. Kind of hard to describe it, so maybe call it a 2-level SPUI-T interchange?

The left turn movements now cross each other at-grade (controlled by traffic signals), and the ramp movements are much closer to the original Kaliste Saloom Road ROW. Also, the connection of the access road from KS to HW via what looks like a RIRO setup avoids the hotel property and the ESA access road, with less impacts to driveway access.

Note also how the southbound frontage road is also revised to run in front of the Acadiana Dodge dealership, rather than behind it as was originally proposed.

There was other news involving the design modifications that made it to the Tier III analysis, but that is covered in my blog post.

Bottom line is that possibly by next month they will introduce the 2 finalist End-to-End alternatives that will be studied in the Supplemental EIS (with the original 2003 ROD Selected Alternative included as a control for comparison purposes).

 on: Today at 02:04:31 AM 
Started by I-39 - Last post by johndoe780
Here are the proposed concepts



I personally like it.

Separate EB 290 with dedicated lanes towards WB 88 and SB 294? YEP I likey.

 on: Today at 01:50:52 AM 
Started by jakeroot - Last post by jakeroot
lol Seattle. 

I don't remember that being too much of a problem when I lived on campus.  Fortunately, there's rarely traffic coming out of the E1 parking lot most of the time, and most of the lights in the area are police overridden during events.

I've gone through the intersection on many occasions (mostly just farting around). It never occurred to me how bad the left turn overlap was until I finally had an oncoming car that was also turning left. Hence this post only now.

 on: Today at 01:48:13 AM 
Started by jakeroot - Last post by jakeroot
In Seattle yesterday, I noticed that the left turns from NE 44 St/Walla Walla Road onto Montlake Blvd conflict with each other.

I'm normally all for permissive left turns, but they don't work when the left turns overlap (except when there's a wide median, and left turns happen behind you).

Here's an illustration of the intersection with the problems:


The easy fix here, in order to maintain the double left movement, would be to pull back the stop lines and repaint the guide lines. The double left has to remain due to the lack of storage space between Montlake and NE 25 Ave.

I don't like the way the guide lines are painted.  It can easily be pulled away from the conflicting movement without moving the stop line.

That's kind of what I was getting at with "repaint the guide lines". Right now, they, basically, encourage conflict. Pulling back the stop lines would make it even better.

But can the cat tracks and/or stop line be adjusted and still accommodate the turning movements of the appropriate design vehicle (say, a semi)?

Seems like a situation where split phasing would be better.

I suspect the new design would still be able to accommodate large vehicles. If anything, the less sharp left turn would be better for trucks.

Split phase would be better, yes. But it seems like an obvious cheap fix, and I'm sure there's a better way to go about improving this intersection.

After studying the area, I think banning left turns might better (coming from the E1 parking lot). There's an entrance onto Montlake on the otherside of the parking lot. This left turn is basically a duplicate of that movement.

 on: Today at 01:32:22 AM 
Started by NE2 - Last post by jcn
I've observed that a number of the old sodium light towers along I-70 and I-95 have disappeared over the past 10 years and have been replaced with LED street lamps with exceptionally long arms. Curiously enough, I've also observed that none of the major interchanges on I-83 ever had high mast lighting that I recall seeing, and they are also receiving new LED street lamps with the same long arms.

I have not yet seen an installation that completely replaced the high mast lighting with street lamps.

That is true.  Every exit on I-95 between the beltways used to have high mast lights, and those lights were mercury vapor as well.

At Exit 89, the new low level lighting is LED as well.  The new high mast lights at Exit 93 are sodium though.

 on: Today at 01:18:32 AM 
Started by bugo - Last post by bugo
It would be easy to realign 71B but this is AHTD we're talking about and they won't bother rerouting it, they will simply remove the signs along the decommissioned stretch. Their signing practices get worse and worse with time. I think it is completely unacceptable for a business route to not meet its parent route at each end. There are several places in Arkansas where this happens.

 on: Today at 12:46:27 AM 
Started by bugo - Last post by NE2
It would be easy enough to realign US 71B onto US 62 (and 94 and 102).

 on: Today at 12:39:23 AM 
Started by J Route Z - Last post by JJBers
I'm not joking, there's two Texaco's right down the same road, about 2 miles apart in Kennesaw, GA

 on: Today at 12:23:23 AM 
Started by bugo - Last post by bugo

From what I gather, AR 112 between I-49 and the US 71 freeway spur on the south side of Fayetteville is being decommissioned. AR 16 is being rerouted to follow S Razorback Road from the W 15th Street/S Razorback Road intersection south along what was AR 112 to meet the US 71 freeway. I'm certain it won't be signed, but this extends the I-49/AR 16 overlap and gives AR 16 an out of the way routing. AR 112S is going to be AR 16S and will dead end at Garland Avenue (now former AR 112) and will have a hanging end. Sadly, AR 112 will no longer run under Razorback Stadium.

The same document states that a SPUI will be built at I-49 and US 71/AR 12 (Walnut Street) between Bentonville and Rogers and that US 71B will be decommissioned from Bentonville to Rogers along the AR 12/Walnut stretch. It's not clear, but apparently US 71B will end at the intersection of 8th and Walnut in Rogers and will not reconnect with US 71. US 71B in Bentonville between the AR 12 junction and I-49/US 71/AR 549 (Future I-49) will apparently be left alone. US 71 will have a gap in the route.

 on: Today at 12:12:01 AM 
Started by webny99 - Last post by Beltway
A driver is guilty of "Left lane hogging" if he enters or remains in the left lane of a free flowing highway when it is safe to move into a lane further to the right under one or more of the following circumstances:
1) more than two non-emergency vehicles not engaged in a speed or maneuvering contest have passed him on the right
2) Another driver has requested that he move right by flashing headlights or giving an audible tone
3) 5 or more other vehicles have arrayed themselves behind him
None of this applies in heavy traffic or when use of the left lane is required in order to take a left exit, make a left turn, or in order to comply with some other law.
That highly depends on the respective state traffic laws.  In some states it is illegal to pass on the right.  In some states it is illegal to use the headlights or horn in that manner in a nonemergency situation.
In which states is it illegal to pass on the right?  In some states it's illegal to pass on the shoulder, but I don't think there's any state where someone can't pass as long as there's 2 thru lanes in the same direction.
I gave a definition. I didn't state that the actions of other drivers had to be legal. I didn't state that "Left Lane Hogging" was illegal (It is in California, and the definition is close to what I have defined). I just defined the term as it is and ought to be used.
Then that is just your opinion.  Anyone can have an opinion on any side of an issue.  A good starting point IMHO is with the coded laws of the respective state as to what has been debated by the general assembly and passed into law.
Just a couple of quotes from the CVC should strengthen my position:
California Vehicle code

All that does is cite what one state does.  There are 50 states.

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.