Myths/misconceptions/untrue things about road-related things

Started by index, July 13, 2018, 02:36:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

index

There's some that nearly everyone has heard at one point or another, especially ones that make literally no sense when you think about it for three and a half femtoseconds, such as "one out of five miles of the Interstate system have to be straight for planes to land", or that "it can be seen clearly from space because it's so large".


Have you heard any particularly outlandish (or not that outlandish) (and possibly uncommon) myths/misconceptions/untrue facts? Or possibly just wildly untrue things you've heard from other people, that aren't necessarily widely spread myths.
I love my 2010 Ford Explorer.



Counties traveled


roadman

A commonly held - but untrue - belief about the Interstate system is that Eisenhower got the idea for it when riding the German Autobahns in the waning days of World War II.

In fact, Eisenhower's vision for the Interstate system originated well before the end of World War II, when in 1919 he was second-in-command of a regiment that completed a cross-country convoy from Washington DC to San Francisco - the journey is chronicled in the book American Road.  His vision was bolstered and honed with completion of early controlled-access roads like the Merritt Parkway and the Pennsylvania Turnpike.  Although recognizing the military benefits of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (the official title for the Interstate system), Eisenhower was always careful to emphasize the benefit of the system to civilian travel and economic growth.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

english si

Interstates have to cross state lines - ie not be intra-state.

Mergingtraffic

#3
1) A woman I knew thought I-495's in all states were the same road although she wasn't sure how they were connected.  I-495 goes from MA to NYC to DC.  That's a crazy ass road she said. Eye roll.


2) building a new expressway/freeway will result in the same damage that happened when they were built in the 1950s.

3) Tearing up a current freeway will result in a throwback to a magical time to when there was less traffic just like it was back in the day.  Then I tell them the horrors of US-1 before I-95 was built to say it wasn't magical and traffic was worse.
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

Beltway

The Washington comPost article around 2000 about the D.C. freeway system, claimed that if completed according to 1970s plans that it would have consumed 100 square miles of parkland and required moving over 200,000 residents.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

formulanone

Let's get one thing straight: you can land aircraft on an interstate, but there's a high probability that the airplane can't be used again, and a 100% percent chance of traffic disruption.

1995hoo

(1) "States have to get federal approval to change speed limits." (I still occasionally see articles claiming this when a state plans to raise the speed limit above 55 on a given stretch of road.)

(2) An awful lot of people have the incorrect belief that the entire New Jersey Turnpike is part of I-95.
"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.

bing101

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 13, 2018, 04:20:46 PM
1) A woman I knew thought I-495's in all states were the same road although she wasn't sure how they were connected.  I-495 goes from MA to NYC to DC.  That's a crazy ass road she said. Eye roll.


2) building a new expressway/freeway will result in the same damage that happened when they were built in the 1950s.

3) Tearing up a current freeway will result in a throwback to a magical time to when there was less traffic just like it was back in the day.  Then I tell them the horrors of US-1 before I-95 was built to say it wasn't magical and traffic was worse.

Number 3 in your statement is true especially in San Francisco. There's been talks that if freeways are torn off especially the Old CA-480 then more Bay Area residents will get off their cars for Public transportation. However there's been more traffic in the Bay Area in the three decades after Loma Prieta took place. Also that argument did not anticipate that Old China Basin now known as AT&T Park and Mission Bay has been gentrified in the past two decades.

bing101

i-238 was going to connect to I-380 in South San Francisco/San Bruno Area note that was on the Southern Crossing. Note that statement has been listed as uncertain for decades due to another talk over another Southern Crossing from Candlestick park to Alameda Island.


webny99

A lot of people assume that the route that has the greatest percentage of freeway is automatically the fastest.

jon daly

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 13, 2018, 04:20:46 PM
2) building a new expressway/freeway will result in the same damage that happened when they were built in the 1950s.


Could you expand on this one? From a macro view you could argue that the interstate system and other limited-access highways caused a bunch of different problems from pollution, homogenization of the US, urban decay and sprawl, a decline in importance for rail, et cetera. I've seen such arguments from paleoconservatives as well as some folks on the left. But I get the felling that's not the type of damage you are referring to.

sparker

Designating a route/corridor as a future Interstate automatically results in a significant funding stream for that purpose.

Not since '73 for construction (save the Howard-Kramer-related projects or funding transfers from deleted corridors), and not for several years even for maintenance purposes.  All it does is draw attention to the corridor; whether that translates into $$ depends upon the whims of any number of parties, from Congress down to local MPO's and private interest groups.  In strapped states, the prospects are doubtful at best. 

 

Bickendan

Lowering the speed limit (as a whole*) raises safety.

*It's true in specific situations.

briantroutman

That U.S. routes (or Interstates) are federal highways.

Beltway

That urban Interstate highways were not part of the original plan.  They were slipped in at the last minute.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

CNGL-Leudimin

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.

bing101

US-66 West end was supposed to be near the CA-1 @ I-10 interchange in Santa Monica.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_66_in_California

Here is one article that showed that Santa Monica blvd was the location of the west end of US-66.

link mod - let's try for desktop friendly, it will be kicked to mobile link unless otherwise requested by the user  --sso

ilpt4u

Quote from: formulanone on July 13, 2018, 05:33:50 PM
Let's get one thing straight: you can land aircraft on an interstate, but there's a high probability that the airplane can't be used again, and a 100% percent chance of traffic disruption.
I thought a plane landed on IL's I-180 one time, and no one noticed...let alone traffic disruption!

Brandon

"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

Max Rockatansky

That freeways and Interstates are safer than US or State routes. 

hotdogPi

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 14, 2018, 05:28:47 PM
That freeways and Interstates are safer than US or State routes.

Are you sure that's not true?
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.

Brandon

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 14, 2018, 05:28:47 PM
That freeways and Interstates are safer than US or State routes. 

Um, freeways are statistically safer than 2 or 4-lane undivided roads. Most crashes happen at intersections. The myth is that "freeways are more dangerous due to the speeds involved".
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

ilpt4u

Quote from: Brandon on July 14, 2018, 05:39:21 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 14, 2018, 05:28:47 PM
That freeways and Interstates are safer than US or State routes. 

Um, freeways are statistically safer than 2 or 4-lane undivided roads. Most crashes happen at intersections. The myth is that "freeways are more dangerous due to the speeds involved".
Had to pull up the data for a friend, cause he claimed Interstates were more unsafe than rural 2 lane roads, due to the higher speeds. The data is clear that Interstates/Freeways are the safest form of auto roadways to travel

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: ilpt4u on July 14, 2018, 06:45:37 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 14, 2018, 05:39:21 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 14, 2018, 05:28:47 PM
That freeways and Interstates are safer than US or State routes. 

Um, freeways are statistically safer than 2 or 4-lane undivided roads. Most crashes happen at intersections. The myth is that "freeways are more dangerous due to the speeds involved".
Had to pull up the data for a friend, cause he claimed Interstates were more unsafe than rural 2 lane roads, due to the higher speeds. The data is clear that Interstates/Freeways are the safest form of auto roadways to travel

CA 99 near me has something like 60 plus fatalities a year per 100 miles which way higher than any surface route in the immediate area.  Granted the volume a freeway like CA 99 sees it isn't any wonder that it would have more wrecks and fatalities with the sheer traffic count alone. .  With the volume a freeway sees compared to most surface equivalents odds are you'll likely have more wrecks and fatalities.  I'm sure if you mathed fatalities per volume surface routes will edge wat higher than a freeway.  I'd venture a guess that per mileage freeways would almost always have more accidents and surface routes would take the edge on traffic volume. 


hbelkins



Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.



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.