News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

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

jeffandnicole

Quote from: 1 on February 09, 2017, 11:29:24 AM
...I would veto/repeal NMSL as soon as it happened.

He makes a good point though.  Even today, a lot of people still talk about speed limits being 55 mph. It's a magical mark that never had any significance whatsoever, except it required every state to reduce their limit by at least 5.

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.

If you look at the older cities - Boston, NYC, Philly, Pittsburgh, Chicago, etc, etc...there were jams on the ferries, leading to the bridges.  There were jams on the bridges, leading to bigger roadways, and roadways that became limited access roadways.

Interstates and modern highways were way, way behind all of that.

While freeways made it easier to live in the suburbs, suburban living was something that came with the car, not the freeway.

If you wanted to keep the urban form for the better, the decision you want to influence is the advent of the car, period.



vdeane

I'm tempted to go with preventing NMSL, but many of the worst offenders for low speed limits would probably still be that way even if NMSL never happened (NY had a similar law a couple years before that actually reduced the speed limit even further; it's still in effect in NYC; Ontario and Québec still have their versions as well).  Plus it was already mentioned.  Quite a few other good ones mentioned too (I especially like the 48k interstate system, which would have resulted in some corridors that I would have liked to see built, such as the rooftop highway (incidentally, that version of the proposal is VERY hard to find online; I found one earlier, but can't find it again; anyone got a link?)).  I guess I'll go with something completely different: prevent NY's 1970s switch to mile-based exit numbers from being halted.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Revive 755

Quote from: sparker on February 09, 2017, 11:59:08 AM
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!).

Since I'm limited to one choice here, I'm going to go in a similar vein, but go with a slightly larger system, perhaps a 55K system.  Based on the maps on http://www.roadfan.com/intreg.html, there are still routes in the 78,000 mile system that would be nice to have, but did not get adopted such as:

* Kansas City - Springfield - Little Rock - towards Baton Rouge
* An extension of today's I-39 that runs down through Jackson, TN, then continues on to Mobile
* What has mostly been built today in Illinois as I-88

Even with the shown 78,000 mile system, there are still missing links such as a corridor for today's Avenue of the Saints between St. Louis and the Twin Cities, western I-76, and a mostly complete I-24 to at least today's I-57.  So even though some of the mileage shown could be cut - particularly out west - I think it would have been better to start with a larger system.

EDIT:  I am also thinking that it would have been better to go with a bigger early system rather than a larger later expansion so more of the corridors could have been built using more direct routes than some of the curvy routes later required by the EIS process.

TheHighwayMan3561

Preventing the decommissioning of US 61 in central and northern Minnesota.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

froggie

Quote from: MNHighwayManHaving two MN-62s. Pick one to keep and one to renumber, I don't care which.

Local familiarity aside, I've always seen Fulda-Windom as a potential MN 17.

Quote from: jeffandnicoleWhile freeways made it easier to live in the suburbs, suburban living was something that came with the car, not the freeway.

Suburban living began with the streetcars.  The car helped, but it didn't really take off en masse until the freeway.  After that point, decades of policies that promoted the car to the exclusion of all else didn't help things.

Quote from: vdeane(I especially like the 48k interstate system, which would have resulted in some corridors that I would have liked to see built, such as the rooftop highway (incidentally, that version of the proposal is VERY hard to find online; I found one earlier, but can't find it again; anyone got a link?))

As Revive already noted, there's a copy of the map on roadfan.  I thought I had one on my site, but guess I didn't upload it.  Also, if you do a deep enough web searching, you may be able to find a PDF of the original 1944 Interregional Highways report which shows maps of the 48K and 78K systems.  I found it several years ago, but have no memory of where I found it.

MNHighwayMan

Quote from: froggie on February 09, 2017, 09:49:57 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayManHaving two MN-62s. Pick one to keep and one to renumber, I don't care which.

Local familiarity aside, I've always seen Fulda-Windom as a potential MN 17.

I had that same thought too, because I went and looked up what that 62's CR/LR number was - it's 16, so one could say "close enough" and call it MN-17.

Or it could become MN-31, which is available and is half of 62 :)

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 09, 2017, 09:22:13 PM
Preventing the decommissioning of US 61 in central and northern Minnesota.

This is a good choice too, even though it would mean one of my favorite Minnesota highway oddities would never have existed: MN-361 (and its strange partner MN-324).

bandit957

Might as well face it, pooing is cool

Max Rockatansky

I'd go back to the 1964 renumbering in California and find a way to make sure that US 99, US 299, and even US 60 had a future after the construction of the Interstates.  Really California giving to the boot to most of the US Routes had a huge negative effect on the west coast in it being a supplemental grid to the Interstate system.  While I'm at it all the gapped routes that really would have no chance of ever being connected would receive different route designations.

Scott5114

I'd prevent the Clearview interim approval from being issued. At least until multiple studies could be furnished proving it was unquestionably more legible than FHWA Series in every potential application. Had no IA been approved at the time it was in real life, then Meeker & Associates would likely continue improving the typeface. An IA could be issued later on, at the point that it was an indisputable improvement, and you wouldn't have this debacle of states blowing money on Clearview licenses and then having the IA revoked out from under them.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

kkt

I would have had the interstates keep the same numbers as the US routes they replaced, just a different color shield.  When new numbers were needed, keep them in the US route grid.

Maybe allow super 2's to be interstates in low-traffic rural areas, as long as ROW was reserved for their evenual expension.

gonealookin

Going back to my Bay Area days, I would have added the full four additional lanes to the Caldecott Tunnel back in the early 1960s.  Ouch, the hours I wasted due to that 4/2 configuration (and the labor and expense that was involved in reversing the center bore).  By the time they started construction on the fourth bore I had left the area.

TheHighwayMan3561

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 09, 2017, 09:55:11 PM
This is a good choice too, even though it would mean one of my favorite Minnesota highway oddities would never have existed: MN-361 (and its strange partner MN-324).

Under my plan, it still would have: I had no problem with relocating 61 onto I-35 and giving old 61 back to the counties (and 361 would still have been needed to meet that CR 1 requirement), just that I wouldn't have dropped 61 between Duluth and Wyoming in 1990 after it had been tied entirely to I-35 since 1977.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

Anthony_JK

Quote from: froggie on February 09, 2017, 09:49:57 PM

As Revive already noted, there's a copy of the map on roadfan.  I thought I had one on my site, but guess I didn't upload it.  Also, if you do a deep enough web searching, you may be able to find a PDF of the original 1944 Interregional Highways report which shows maps of the 48K and 78K systems.  I found it several years ago, but have no memory of where I found it.


Here's a copy of an image of the 78K system, also from roadfan.com.

CNGL-Leudimin

I would have changed a designation in the 1956 plan. I would have numbered the Galveston-Dallas route I-41, and left I-45 free for a more of a cross-country route. In this scenario I see the Alexandria to Shreveport route being approved as I-45 even if it was a single state route due to potential expansion, as it was confirmed by the later extension to Kansas City (although it still has a gap in Arkansas). Getting I-29 renumbered to I-45 to complete the Gulf of Mexico to Canada route would be harder, but not impossible.

On a second choice I would have rejected CA's application for I-238.
Supporter of the construction of several running gags, including I-366 with a speed limit of 85 mph (137 km/h) and the Hypotenuse.

Please note that I may mention "invalid" FM channels, i.e. ending in an even number or down to 87.5. These are valid in Europe.

dgolub

Build I-495 as a tunnel under Manhattan connecting the Long Island Expressway (I-495) to what's now NJ 495 so that people actually have a sane way of getting between Long Island and New Jersey.  Also, it would probably take some traffic off the streets of Manhattan.

On a somewhat less significant scale, let Long Island keep the state routes that got decommissioned, especially NY 27A.  There's no good reason why Montauk Highway shouldn't have a single route number until Southampton.

PHLBOS

Quote from: Rothman on February 09, 2017, 06:13:55 PMYou seen the footage of Sargent trying to get the opponents under control?  They were totally ravenous.
Yes I have seen the footage (such was shown on a documentary covering the Big Dig).  It still doesn't make what happened completely right.  BTW, Sargent was shown the door when he ran for his 1974 re-election bid. 

Had proponents of the highway projects banded together in a similar fashion that the opponents did; the overall outcome might have been different.

Worth noting: from a traffic standpoint, the region is still paying the consequences of those no-build decisions that were made over 45 years ago.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 09, 2017, 08:08:31 PMIf you look at the older cities - Boston, NYC, Philly, Pittsburgh, Chicago, etc, etc...there were jams on the ferries, leading to the bridges.  There were jams on the bridges, leading to bigger roadways, and roadways that became limited access roadways.
Worth noting (& my older brother read up on this): Boston was already dealing with traffic problems before the Central Artery/Dewey Square-South Station Tunnel came on the scene.  Had the highway not been built; I don't think one would've had the business development along the corridor that largely followed.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Henry

That's easy for me: I would build the I-494 Crosstown Expressway, but not the Lake Shore Drive upgrade (I-694).
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

epzik8

I would go to the mid-1960s and try to secure full funding and resources to get Maryland Route 23 built past Jarrettsville, and all the way to the Westminster area. The segment of MD-23 I'm talking about was ultimately built as a seven-mile connector between Hickory and Jarrettsville called East-West Highway. Mike Pruett of MDRoads says East-West Highway was envisioned as a partial outer beltway for Baltimore called the Piedmont Expressway that would have provided a direct route between Carroll and Harford counties. Route 23's crossings over Phillips Mill and Morse roads on the Forest Hill-Jarrettsville stretch (west of Route 24) are evidence of this.
From the land of red, white, yellow and black.
____________________________

My clinched highways: http://tm.teresco.org/user/?u=epzik8
My clinched counties: http://mob-rule.com/user-gifs/USA/epzik8.gif

Max Rockatansky

Here's one for Florida.  Go back to the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 and the post disaster aftermath that led to the acquisition of the Overseas Railroad which later became US 1.  Instead of abandoning the improvement projects to State Road 4a like the Veterans Key Bridge which would have been next to the railroad, instead create a fully functional four-lane divided expressway all the way to Key West using the Overseas Railroad bridges and new highway bridges next to them.  If you look at the Lower Keys especially 4a ran next to the railroad from Sugarloaf Key to Little Torch Key on separate bridges (although they would need to be replaced since most were wooden) for a surprising distance. 

Buck87

I would go back and have the Findlay, Ohio to Columbus corridor included in the original interstate system (with it lining up with and taking over what is now OH 315 between I-270 and I-70)

kkt

Dear Caltrans circa 1990:

Renovate the east span of the Bay Bridge, don't replace it.  Replacing it will take a quarter of a century and $7 billion, not 3/4 billion as projected.

You're welcome,

future KKT


MikeTheActuary

I would negate whatever decision it was that conceived of the notion of mainline interstates going from urban center to urban center.

Instead have the long-distance freeways run outside the urban areas, with relatively few interchanges, and rely on spurs and loops to connect cities with the new mainline highways.

Rothman

Thought of a couple:

1)  Allow direct connections between toll roads and free highways from the get-go.  No more Breezewood or NJT to Philadelphia nuttiness.

2)  Follow through with original I-95 plan in NJ to avoid decades of the stupid gap.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

1995hoo

One that comes to mind for perhaps 25 to 30 years ago: Get all states that have toll facilities onboard for a single national ETC system. Perhaps take it one step further and involve Canada and maybe Mexico as well.
"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.

Darkchylde

I'd go back before the decommissioning of it and have US 66 written into law along its corridor, like I-69 (and its branches) and I-99 are now.



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.