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 go back in time once and influence a single decision...

Started by kurumi, February 09, 2017, 11:28:03 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

kurumi

... what would it be? Consider something feasible for the time -- changing an interchange design, location within a corridor, a route designation, etc. -- and you're a senior person who has some pull (and the benefit of future hindsight).

For example, having CT build 60 miles of I-95 as 12 lanes (10+2 HOV) in 1958 would be an unrealistic expansion of the existing proposal. But a different design for the 91/15/691/66 interchange would be fair (CT is looking at revising that anyway). Or do something in 1967 that would not require I-84/CT 8 to be replaced now. Or even something small like (in 1957) renumber CT 95 to something besides 49, so that in 1963, old 72 can return to its original 49 designation.

(Non-Connecticut examples are welcome)
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"


hotdogPi

Does it have to be road-related?

If it has to be road-related, I would veto/repeal NMSL as soon as it happened.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

froggie

^ You're showing your (lack of) age.  NMSL was necessary at the time given we were dealing with an oil embargo and vehicles generally get better gas mileage at those lower speeds.

hm insulators

We the people of South Pasadena will gladly let the Long Beach Freeway (now I-710) through our town.
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?

sparker

I'd first go back to about 1945 and incessantly lobby for the adoption of the 48,300-mile Interstate system in place of the 40K system that eventually became the original system of 1956 (with some tweaking, of course!).  And if that didn't work, I'd teleport myself to 1968 for the hearings about the batch of Interstate additions proposed in that year -- and try to maintain the original 4500-mile list rather than see it pared down to the 1500 miles that finally resulted.  As a substantial portion of the "aftermarket" Interstate additions since '68 have been deployed along corridors that were outlined either in the original larger system or the initial submitted list of additions 49 years ago, constructing them during that earlier timeframe would have largely avoided the ravages of inflation.  Yeah, I know that's more than one instance -- but the 2nd ('68) would occur as a sidetrip on the way back to 2017 reality!

cpzilliacus

Quote from: froggie on February 09, 2017, 11:36:07 AM
^ You're showing your (lack of) age.  NMSL was necessary at the time given we were dealing with an oil embargo and vehicles generally get better gas mileage at those lower speeds.

I remember the beginning of the NMSL quite well. I was licensed a year or two after it was imposed, and it was already then (1974) a failure - like Prohibition, it increased contempt for the law, and was widely ignored on freeways I drove on, in particular the Capital Beltway (even on the parts that had a 55 or 50 posted limit in Montgomery County before NMSL). The 55 MPH speed limit remains on the Capital Beltway today, and it still almost universally ignored when traffic conditions allow.

Maryland tried to increase compliance with heavy "saturation" speed limit enforcement, and with "rolling roadblocks," where two troopers in marked cars would drive adjacent to each other for many miles at the posted 55 MPH limit, causing traffic (desiring to drive faster) to queue up behind them. 

The MSP liked to enforce the 55 limit at a place on I-95 southbound at MD-212 in Prince George's County on Saturdays and Sundays, and it was in a place where their activities could be observed from an off-freeway location.  The state police had one trooper measuring speeds and calling out vehicle descriptions and measured speeds to  a "stopping team" about 1/4 mile further south that would wave the violators over.  Invariably, the troopers in the stopping team would quickly have five or ten vehicles stopped on the left shoulder, and one of them would radio back to the trooper doing the measuring to not call out any more until they could cite the ones already stopped (this was in the days when  monitoring MSP communications on analog VHF "low band" (between 39 and 40 mHz) was remarkably cheap and easy with a scanner). 

The "stopping team" approach to speed limit enforcement is no longer allowed by MSP because of the danger associated with  same.
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.

TEG24601

I actually have two...


Build the Bayshore Freeway in Seattle (currently the Mercer Mess)


Use Robert Moses' original routing for I-5 through Portland, which was several blocks inland, and was designed as either a sunken freeway, or as a cut and cover.
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

Brandon

Quote from: froggie on February 09, 2017, 11:36:07 AM
^ You're showing your (lack of) age.  NMSL was necessary at the time given we were dealing with an oil embargo and vehicles generally get better gas mileage at those lower speeds.

As proven later, the fuel savings was minuscule and not really statistically significant.  Most of the "better gas mileage" stuff was based on what legislators thought as opposed to any real numbers.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

Duke87

How's this for one: if I could go back in time and be a prominent figure in the New York State Constitutional Convention of 1938, I would argue profusely that Article X ought to be rewritten to forbid the creation of public corporations.

Reason: this would prevent all the absurdities and inefficiencies that arise from the state having a separate Thruway Authority, Bridge Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, etc. - instead all of these functions would have to be handled by NYSDOT because there would be no other legal structure under which the state could handle them.

If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Rothman

Quote from: Duke87 on February 09, 2017, 01:06:58 PM
How's this for one: if I could go back in time and be a prominent figure in the New York State Constitutional Convention of 1938, I would argue profusely that Article X ought to be rewritten to forbid the creation of public corporations.

Reason: this would prevent all the absurdities and inefficiencies that arise from the state having a separate Thruway Authority, Bridge Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, etc. - instead all of these functions would have to be handled by NYSDOT because there would be no other legal structure under which the state could handle them.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

PHLBOS

Quote from: Brandon on February 09, 2017, 01:06:03 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 09, 2017, 11:36:07 AM
^ You're showing your (lack of) age.  NMSL was necessary at the time given we were dealing with an oil embargo and vehicles generally get better gas mileage at those lower speeds.
As proven later, the fuel savings was minuscule and not really statistically significant.  Most of the "better gas mileage" stuff was based on what legislators thought as opposed to any real numbers.
The return/revival of overdrive transmissions (& additional gears) that rolled out a few years later also blunted the 55 Saves Fuel argument that existed back then.  Case & point: both my current vehicles (2007 Mustang & 2011 Crown Victoria) obtain their highest maximum fuel economy at an average speed range of 68-72 mph.

Back to the topic at hand: I would've stopped MA Gov. Sargent's 1970 moratorium on all highway construction projects inside of Route 128, which would've allowed the construction of I-95 in its original form, the Inner Belt (I-695) as well as the twin connectors to Salem.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Rothman

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 09, 2017, 01:23:43 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 09, 2017, 01:06:03 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 09, 2017, 11:36:07 AM
^ You're showing your (lack of) age.  NMSL was necessary at the time given we were dealing with an oil embargo and vehicles generally get better gas mileage at those lower speeds.
As proven later, the fuel savings was minuscule and not really statistically significant.  Most of the "better gas mileage" stuff was based on what legislators thought as opposed to any real numbers.
The return/revival of overdrive transmissions (& additional gears) that rolled out a few years later also blunted the 55 Saves Fuel argument that existed back then.  Case & point: both my current vehicles (2007 Mustang & 2011 Crown Victoria) obtain their highest maximum fuel economy at an average speed range of 68-72 mph.

Back to the topic at hand: I would've stopped MA Gov. Sargent's 1970 moratorium on all highway construction projects inside of Route 128, which would've allowed the construction of I-95 in its original form, the Inner Belt (I-695) as well as the twin connectors to Salem.
And Bostonians would have assassinated you.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Rothman

Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2017, 01:12:08 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 09, 2017, 01:06:58 PM
How's this for one: if I could go back in time and be a prominent figure in the New York State Constitutional Convention of 1938, I would argue profusely that Article X ought to be rewritten to forbid the creation of public corporations.

Reason: this would prevent all the absurdities and inefficiencies that arise from the state having a separate Thruway Authority, Bridge Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, etc. - instead all of these functions would have to be handled by NYSDOT because there would be no other legal structure under which the state could handle them.


Come to think of it, there wouldn't have been a Robert Moses. Wonder how toll facilities would have evolved in NY, then, if at all.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

JCinSummerfield

I would change the decision to abandon I-92 in Michigan.  The I-94 loop around Lake Michigan is absurd.

corco

I would have lobbied to ban the development of urban freeways in (pick a city) except in situations where they were obviously necessary for industry, banning the use of passenger cars on those roadways.

That would have completely changed the urban form for the better.

PHLBOS

Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2017, 01:29:08 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 09, 2017, 01:23:43 PMBack to the topic at hand: I would've stopped MA Gov. Sargent's 1970 moratorium on all highway construction projects inside of Route 128, which would've allowed the construction of I-95 in its original form, the Inner Belt (I-695) as well as the twin connectors to Salem.
And Bostonians would have assassinated you.
Let me remind you that I'm originally from the Greater Boston area.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

hbelkins

Complete the Bluegrass Parkway between US 60 and the interstate system.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Brandon

Quote from: corco on February 09, 2017, 01:59:24 PM
I would have lobbied to ban the development of urban freeways in (pick a city) except in situations where they were obviously necessary for industry, banning the use of passenger cars on those roadways.

That would have completely changed the urban form for the better.

I'm not totally sold on that.  If anything, businesses would've bailed the urban cores as well, leaving the core pretty empty.  Suburbanization started well before freeways were constructed, and would've continued even without them.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

jakeroot

Instead of dumping them altogether, I would have modernised the streetcar systems. "Streetcar" doesn't seem to have quite the same "poor person" connotation as "bus", and they carry a lot more people (plus they're more fun -- you can't hang off the side of a bus! (never mind that modern streetcars don't allow this)).

Certainly light rail systems which run on exclusive ROW are preferable to regional streetcar systems (which often share ROW with cars), but streetcars are a great affordable middle-ground between bus and light rail (affordability of a BRT, capacity of light rail). Plus, if we had the same track layout as we did before most cities ripped out their streetcars, most cities would have hundreds of miles of streetcar systems. I bet there'd be a lot less desire for a drivers licence if streetcars still plastered our streets like they used to.

Ian

I would've prevented the state-name on the interstate shields from ever being taken off.

Similarly, I would've tried keeping cut-out US and state route shields around, instead of them all being the boring square signs we see today (sans California).
UMaine graduate, former PennDOT employee, new SoCal resident.
Youtube l Flickr

Rothman

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 09, 2017, 02:06:44 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2017, 01:29:08 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 09, 2017, 01:23:43 PMBack to the topic at hand: I would've stopped MA Gov. Sargent's 1970 moratorium on all highway construction projects inside of Route 128, which would've allowed the construction of I-95 in its original form, the Inner Belt (I-695) as well as the twin connectors to Salem.
And Bostonians would have assassinated you.
Let me remind you that I'm originally from the Greater Boston area.
Yep.  You seen the footage of Sargent trying to get the opponents under control?  They were totally ravenous.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

noelbotevera

I would've stopped several P3s and New Urbanists from happening. If I couldn't, then I could at least try to do that 78k mile Interstate system...

nexus73

Quote from: Ian on February 09, 2017, 06:10:33 PM
I would've prevented the state-name on the interstate shields from ever being taken off.

Similarly, I would've tried keeping cut-out US and state route shields around, instead of them all being the boring square signs we see today (sans California).

I'll second that emotion!

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

KEVIN_224

One of two things for Connecticut:

1- I-84 had been completely built between greater Hartford to Providence (and lessen the traffic on I-95 in New London County)

2- Building the northwest quadrant of the Hartford beltway...from "The Stack" on I-84 in Farmington up to I-91 in Windsor.

MNHighwayMan

Having two MN-62s. Pick one to keep and one to renumber, I don't care which.



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.