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.
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.
Interstates have to cross state lines - ie not be intra-state.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
A lot of people assume that the route that has the greatest percentage of freeway is automatically the fastest.
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.
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.
Lowering the speed limit (as a whole*) raises safety.
*It's true in specific situations.
That U.S. routes (or Interstates) are federal highways.
That urban Interstate highways were not part of the original plan. They were slipped in at the last minute.
That freeways are free as in no cost to the user.
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
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!
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on July 14, 2018, 03:50:38 PM
That freeways are free as in no cost to the user.
And that tollways are double taxation.
That freeways and Interstates are safer than US or State routes.
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?
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".
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
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.
That there's a science called viatology. :ded: :pan:
Quote from: hbelkins on July 14, 2018, 07:35:46 PM
That there's a science called viatology. :ded: :pan:
Wasn't that from that crazy guy out by me (Central California) that made a bunch of videos on the road with a bunch of swearing?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 14, 2018, 06:51:44 PM
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.
What matters is per vehicle mile traveled.
Quote from: Brandon on July 14, 2018, 05:17:52 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on July 14, 2018, 03:50:38 PM
That freeways are free as in no cost to the user.
And that tollways are double taxation.
But remember, nobody, but NOBODY in Wisconsin nor Illinois will ever refer to an Illinois Tollway as a 'freeway'. It's a 'tollway'.
;-)
Mike
Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 09:39:54 AM
That urban Interstate highways were not part of the original plan. They were slipped in at the last minute.
Guess it depends on how you define "original plan". They certainly weren't what Eisenhower envisioned.
Quote from: 1 on July 14, 2018, 07:58:57 PM
What matters is per vehicle mile traveled.
Indeed. Freeways typically have 1/3 the fatality rate per 100 million VMT per year, compared to surface highways.
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2018, 09:02:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 09:39:54 AM
That urban Interstate highways were not part of the original plan. They were slipped in at the last minute.
Guess it depends on how you define "original plan". They certainly weren't what Eisenhower envisioned.
Interregional Highways in 1944, and the Yellow Book in 1955. Both had urban Interstates, and the first one had no input from Eisenhower and the second one was mainly developed by Congress and the Bureau of Public Roads.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 14, 2018, 07:55:16 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 14, 2018, 07:35:46 PM
That there's a science called viatology. :ded: :pan:
Wasn't that from that crazy guy out by me (Central California) that made a bunch of videos on the road with a bunch of swearing?
Yes.
I still haven't seen any of the uncensored ones. I hope somebody can find them.
You can't build your way out of congestion.
Quote from: jon daly on July 13, 2018, 08:59:27 PM
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.
Today, planners are more respectful to the environment and sprawl so if a new expressway is built it probably won't damage areas like I-95 did in the northeast etc.
CT was close to extending their CT-11 Expressway 8 miles and part of that plan was to have a greenway surrounding it so no sprawl would happen and limited exits would've also been required.
Myth: I-74 was proposed to go inside the I-465 loop.
(still waiting for someone to provide/name a document confirming there was a serious proposal).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 14, 2018, 09:55:11 PM
You can't build your way out of congestion.
Well, that old slogan is what could be called a 'false dichotomy'. True that you can't eliminate all congestion, but the right kind of building can create huge congestion improvements in selected areas.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 14, 2018, 07:35:46 PMThat there's a science called viatology. :ded: :pan:
It's called odology as via is latin... :-P
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 14, 2018, 09:55:11 PMYou can't build your way out of congestion.
A similar myth is new rail link gets decent loading and you have to stand = success = upgrade/build more; new road link gets decent loading and gets a bit snarled up at a light at peak times = failure = shouldn't build/built too attractive for traffic and should have been watered down some more.
A freeway with in Interstate number is better than other freeways that carry a US or State number.
Quote from: GaryV on July 15, 2018, 07:05:35 AM
A freeway with in Interstate number is better than other freeways that carry a US or State number.
What about unnumbered Freeways?
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 13, 2018, 05:38:04 PM
(2) An awful lot of people have the incorrect belief that the entire New Jersey Turnpike is part of I-95.
For the purposes of long-distance interstate travel, it might as well be. If you're traveling from DC to New York, you're doing the I-95 > I-295 (DE/NJ) > NJ Turnpike > I-95 (which joins the Turnpike).
What I don't understand is how one can hold that belief and properly navigate between the two points. At some point, you have to affirmatively LEAVE I-95 to get onto I-295 to cross the Delaware Memorial Bridge. If you think that I-95 is continuous onto the Turnpike, wouldn't you just continue on I-95 into Philly?
Quote from: GaryV on July 15, 2018, 07:05:35 AM
A freeway with in Interstate number is better than other freeways that carry a US or State number.
This one also has some grain of truth. Interstates at least have uniform standards so you can be reasonably sure of their quality or at least what features are present.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 15, 2018, 10:24:35 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 13, 2018, 05:38:04 PM
(2) An awful lot of people have the incorrect belief that the entire New Jersey Turnpike is part of I-95.
For the purposes of long-distance interstate travel, it might as well be. If you're traveling from DC to New York, you're doing the I-95 > I-295 (DE/NJ) > NJ Turnpike > I-95 (which joins the Turnpike).
What I don't understand is how one can hold that belief and properly navigate between the two points. At some point, you have to affirmatively LEAVE I-95 to get onto I-295 to cross the Delaware Memorial Bridge. If you think that I-95 is continuous onto the Turnpike, wouldn't you just continue on I-95 into Philly?
Granted, the I-95 Gap is being corrected as we type, with the Delaware Expy/PA Turnpike interchange project
That being said, the current discontinuity of I-95 probably encourages the idea that Thru I-95 continues on the NJ Turnpike, instead of going thru Wilmington & Philadelphia. Sure, it is not signed that way, but practically speaking, it really is Thru I-95. The unnumbered portion should be signed as an (even)95 3DI, really
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 15, 2018, 11:20:32 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 15, 2018, 10:24:35 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 13, 2018, 05:38:04 PM
(2) An awful lot of people have the incorrect belief that the entire New Jersey Turnpike is part of I-95.
For the purposes of long-distance interstate travel, it might as well be. If you're traveling from DC to New York, you're doing the I-95 > I-295 (DE/NJ) > NJ Turnpike > I-95 (which joins the Turnpike).
What I don't understand is how one can hold that belief and properly navigate between the two points. At some point, you have to affirmatively LEAVE I-95 to get onto I-295 to cross the Delaware Memorial Bridge. If you think that I-95 is continuous onto the Turnpike, wouldn't you just continue on I-95 into Philly?
Granted, the I-95 Gap is being corrected as we type, with the Delaware Expy/PA Turnpike interchange project
That being said, the current discontinuity of I-95 probably encourages the idea that Thru I-95 continues on the NJ Turnpike, instead of going thru Wilmington & Philadelphia. Sure, it is not signed that way, but practically speaking, it really is Thru I-95. The unnumbered portion should be signed as an (even)95 3DI, really
I've long said that an easy fix for the I-95 gap would've been to just designate that entire I-295 > NJ Turnpike span as I-95. For practical navigational purposes, it basically already is.
Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 09:31:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2018, 09:02:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 09:39:54 AM
That urban Interstate highways were not part of the original plan. They were slipped in at the last minute.
Guess it depends on how you define "original plan". They certainly weren't what Eisenhower envisioned.
Interregional Highways in 1944, and the Yellow Book in 1955. Both had urban Interstates, and the first one had no input from Eisenhower and the second one was mainly developed by Congress and the Bureau of Public Roads.
Except the Interregional Highways proposal went nowhere, and the Yellow Book was
not in what
Eisenhower originally gave Congress, which can be argued as the "original plan". The Yellow Book was added to the plan (which was later passed) by Congress while Eisenhower was in the hospital and not in a position to do anything about it.
Quote from: GaryV on July 15, 2018, 07:05:35 AMA freeway with in Interstate number is better than other freeways that carry a US or State number.
And the flip of this - just because a freeway has a number (or name in the case of KY Parkways, etc) already doesn't mean that seeking an Interstate designation is an unnecessary and pointless waste of time and effort.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 15, 2018, 11:38:59 AMI've long said that an easy fix for the I-95 gap would've been to just designate that entire I-295 > NJ Turnpike span as I-95. For practical navigational purposes, it basically already is.
But, but, that will take it away from Philadelphia and major interstates absolutely must serve major cities directly - and the CBD if they can go via it rather than around it (even if its longer).
Of course, there's no absolutely about it - they rerouted I-70 out of Pittsburgh, after all and I-80 skirts Chicago. But at the same time, it is a dominant philosophy.
Quote from: vdeane on July 15, 2018, 11:44:45 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 09:31:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2018, 09:02:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 09:39:54 AM
That urban Interstate highways were not part of the original plan. They were slipped in at the last minute.
Guess it depends on how you define "original plan". They certainly weren't what Eisenhower envisioned.
Interregional Highways in 1944, and the Yellow Book in 1955. Both had urban Interstates, and the first one had no input from Eisenhower and the second one was mainly developed by Congress and the Bureau of Public Roads.
Except the Interregional Highways proposal went nowhere, and the Yellow Book was not in what Eisenhower originally gave Congress, which can be argued as the "original plan". The Yellow Book was added to the plan (which was later passed) by Congress while Eisenhower was in the hospital and not in a position to do anything about it.
Sounds like something copied from _Superhighway - Superhoax_, Helen Leavitt, 1970.
_Interregional Highways_, published by Public Roads Administration, 1943, was the 40,000 mile approved Interstate highway system that was carried forward to what was begun in 1956.
Eisenhower did not give any detailed Interstate highway plan (as in where specific routes were planned) to Congress at any time.
_Interregional Highways_ was updated to _General Location of National System of Interstate Highways_, 1955, the so-called "Yellow Book".
The "Yellow Book", which is posted on a private website, shows that the urban Interstates were planned then.
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/
Eisenhower is one of the major roads myths. His influence in the overall scheme of things Interstate between 1939 and 1956, was rather minor compared to all the other players in the BPR and in Congress.
Quote from: vdeane on July 15, 2018, 11:44:45 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 09:31:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2018, 09:02:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 09:39:54 AM
That urban Interstate highways were not part of the original plan. They were slipped in at the last minute.
Guess it depends on how you define "original plan". They certainly weren't what Eisenhower envisioned.
Interregional Highways in 1944, and the Yellow Book in 1955. Both had urban Interstates, and the first one had no input from Eisenhower and the second one was mainly developed by Congress and the Bureau of Public Roads.
Except the Interregional Highways proposal went nowhere, and the Yellow Book was not in what Eisenhower originally gave Congress, which can be argued as the "original plan". The Yellow Book was added to the plan (which was later passed) by Congress while Eisenhower was in the hospital and not in a position to do anything about it.
The plan with which Eisenhower was familiar was predicated on the latest iteration of Thomas MacDonald's original 1943-44 network (about 37K miles), expanded after WWII and the 1950 census figures -- but basically following the original outline. Not a lot of details within that plan regarding how the system would circumnavigate urban areas; Eisenhower was apparently under the impression that the network would follow the Autobahn mode and simply skirt the urban areas (at least where topologically possible). But while the original plan was conceived as a large-scale "farm-to-market" network with long uninterrupted rural segments -- which had been long-considered ideal within a Congress dominated by rural interests, the postwar reality was that Congressional power had shifted more toward cities and suburbs -- and those representatives wanted their interests served by the nascent network. So starting in the late '40's additional urban mileage was increasingly "penciled in" to the ever-evolving system schematic. Also note at that time there was no USDOT (that didn't come about until 1967); planning was embedded within the Commerce Department, which tended to respond to entreaties from commercial interests in most regards; the Interstate system was one of those. Commercial interests echoed the desire to let the system serve the city cores (those interests wanted efficient points of egress); the combination of Congressional pressure and Commerce Department interests
did result in several versions of the "Yellow Book".
Eisenhower was certainly
not a micromanager; like the general he once was, he preferred to delegate the details to his subordinates and function as a highly visible "cheerleader" for the concept; actual planning was left to others. When the final authorizing legislation came up for a vote in 1956, Eisenhower was indeed indisposed with a heart condition and "out of the loop", so to speak. To make certain the vote went their way (i.e., getting the system and its funding scheme approved), the variation of the "Yellow Book" that showed the full complement of intercity/interregional corridors
plus the maximum amount of urban beltways, inner loops, spurs, etc. was distributed to Congress just prior to the vote. Of course, it looked like pretty much every district got a piece of the system, with highly populated areas featuring multiple congressional districts getting more than their share. And thus the vote went the way of the administration and the Commerce Dept., they had their funded system -- but with all those added urban servers, which brought the system out to 41K aggregate miles versus just under 40K prior to the additions. When Eisenhower received the news of the approval, he was happy -- but at the time, he was more happy to be alive than concerned about the details. The lore goes (and this is from several published sources) that on one of his many post-heart-attack "maintenance" trips to Walter Reed Hospital he wanted to make a side trip to Fort Meade to visit an old Army colleague; at that time, the initial grading was being done for the I-495 Beltway, and the motorcade crossed the construction zone, which was square in a commercial/housing zone near College Park. Eisenhower asked what the construction was for, and one of his aides answered that it was the new Interstate beltway around D.C. Not having expected to see Interstate construction in a populated area, Eisenhower was apparently apoplectic about what he had just seen; upon returning to the White House he demanded to see a detailed Interstate plan (which he hadn't done until that point). The latest "Yellow Book" was set on his desk -- and accounts said that he became increasingly agitated every time he saw the inserts with the urban facilities displayed. Eventually, one of the Commerce undersecretaries was summoned; the explanation was that the system wouldn't have gotten through Congress absent the additional urban mileage. After this assessment was reinforced by others within the administration, Eisenhower calmed down a bit -- he certainly wasn't happy about the turn of events, but he grudgingly accepted the political realities of the situation; at that point construction had begun on the system, including a segment of I-70 bypassing his childhood home in Abilene, KS (apparently this initial segment had been deliberately selected to honor the President; he found time to attend the ribbon-cutting in early 1960, his last full year in office). So while the Interstate system did exceed his original "brief", it certainly does not lessen the attribution to efforts -- at least in the realm of P.R. -- by he and his administration to get the ball rolling in the first place.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 14, 2018, 10:08:40 PM
Quote from: jon daly on July 13, 2018, 08:59:27 PM
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.
Today, planners are more respectful to the environment and sprawl so if a new expressway is built it probably won't damage areas like I-95 did in the northeast etc.
CT was close to extending their CT-11 Expressway 8 miles and part of that plan was to have a greenway surrounding it so no sprawl would happen and limited exits would've also been required.
Thanks. I've heard people argue that I-84 ripped apart a neighborhood in Hartford, but I read some links I found on this board and it mentioned that there was already a rift between residential neighborhoods thanks to Royal Typewriter, other factories, and a railroad. Now, Robert Moses may've been quoted in that paper, but the negative effects of the interstates on Hartford may be exaggerated. I'm wont to blame Constitution Plaza for some of the cities ills.
Quote from: sparker on July 15, 2018, 03:18:34 PM
The plan with which Eisenhower was familiar was predicated on the latest iteration of Thomas MacDonald's original 1943-44 network (about 37K miles), expanded after WWII and the 1950 census figures -- but basically following the original outline. Not a lot of details within that plan regarding how the system would circumnavigate urban areas
I have a copy of the Interstate highway system foundational planning study document: _Interregional Highways_, published by Public Roads Administration, 1943. These were the highways that were later renamed Interstate highways.
_Interregional Highways_ was the foundation of _General Location of National System of Interstate Highways_ (the "Yellow Book").
_Interregional Highways_ made it clear that all the highways should have limited-access right-of-way, and full grade separation in the urban areas, with possible at-grade intersections on lightly traveled rural sections. Mixed traffic of cars, trucks and buses would be handled. Rural highways with more than projected 3,000 AADT should be 4-lane divided. _Interregional Highways_ had a couple hundred pages of text, plus a series of maps and diagrams.
_Interregional Highways_ had conceptual schematics of generally how the urban freeways would be laid out, for a small city, medium city, and large city. The small city would have the interregional highway pass nearby with major arterial thoroughfares connecting the city to the new highway, from each direction. The medium city with one interregional highway had it passing through the heart of the city, and there was a partial beltway bypass of the city. The large city had a full radial spoke system of urban freeways passing through the heart of the city with a downtown freeway loop, and there was a full beltway bypass of the city. In all cases, the urban interregional highways had frequent interchange spacing of about one mile distance.
_Interregional Highways_
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89090507336;view=1up;seq=94
The urban area conceptual schematics are on Page 72, and the supporting text is in adjacent pages.
Of course the conceptual schematics for urban service were laid out early; trying to coordinate a national network with local needs would always require some attention to what local networks would look like. But all the configurations were simply templates for how an "Interstate" system might be configured -- actual application to actual cities wasn't evident until the postwar years. My point is that Eisenhower approached the system as purely interregional -- the expanded "farm-to-market" system originally conceived in the 1930's, partially as a Depression-era public-works measure. It wasn't until MacDonald and his associates, under the auspices of the Public Roads Administration (the forerunner of BPR and later FHWA), did their wartime study that added defense/evacuation criteria to the mix. The text of the study makes it clear that planning of urban or near-urban sections of the system would have to be accomplished in coordination with local planning entities; during WWII this was certainly not a national priority. However, after the war it was found -- anecdotally and from the data derived from the 1950 Census -- that urban areas in general had significantly grown in both population and physical size over the previous decade (wartime industry being responsible for much of that). But postwar years decidedly did not show a measurable reverse move back to more rural areas; conversely, much of the previously semi-rural territory near cities had begun to be dominated by housing and supporting businesses. It was at that point -- and amplified when Congressional redistricting occurred prior to the 1952 elections, giving more seats to urban-based representatives, that serious attention began to be paid to the planned Interstate network's relationships with cities. Cities deemed "small" and not requiring any Interstate treatment save a trunk bypass were now considered mid-size; often, they petitioned for a 2nd freeway loop to either serve their downtown area or configure the trunk through downtown with an arc bypass. And the larger metropolitan areas, particularly the "sun belt" cities that were seeing consistent population influx even in the postwar years, started looking seriously at full beltways and connecting loops, driven by the perceived need for intra-regional commercial egress. That is where the templates formulated back in the early '40's came into play -- "massaged" to fit local topographical variations, the various methodologies outlined in that paper were eventually committed to paper via the urban inserts in the iterations of the "Yellow Book".
Scott is spot-on with one particular assessment -- that Eisenhower himself didn't have much to do with the actual planning and deployment of the system; his propensity for delegation of details functionally isolated him from the transactions that were happening between Congress, local/state planners, and the then-BPR, embedded in the Commerce Department. Details were handled (as per historic and usual practice) at the administrative level; the "political" top tier of the process, including the president himself, simply were periodically updated as to the progress of the entire system. To Eisenhower, the system remained an interregional/inter-city undertaking; the minutiae of localized detail were handled administratively and effectively "out of sight" of both the public eye and the White House. Shepherding the overall system -- and particularly its funding mechanism -- through the legislative maze occupied Eisenhower and his immediate subordinates; the matter of lower-mileage loops and spurs in urban areas just didn't make it to the top level until after the primary 1956 battle had been won.
A few:
Building more lanes automatically means traffic relief forever.
That using parking or thru lanes for transit and bicycling is a net loss in transportation capacity.
Suburban life is not necessarily the end-all be-all, especially for younger Americans.
Quote from: Bruce on July 15, 2018, 07:36:16 PM
A few:
Building more lanes automatically means traffic relief forever.
That using parking or thru lanes for transit and bicycling is a net loss in transportation capacity.
Suburban life is not necessarily the end-all be-all, especially for younger Americans.
Bruce -- are you sure the word "
not" in your last line is really what you wanted to say? Phrased that way, it indicates (since the thread specifies misconceptions and myths) that suburban life actually
is a universal aspiration (not your usual position on such things!).
Most major cities already had extensive urban freeway system planning underway even before the 1943 Interregional Highways system. I have Richmond, D.C. and Baltimore extensively documented on my websites. Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Houston, just to cite a few of the many others.
It was a logical matter to include some of these routes in the Interstate system when that was developed.
I recently got a copy thru Amazon of "Superhighway - Superhoax", by Helen Leavitt, 1970. Good for a laugh!
"From Sea to Shining Sea: we are strangling in a concrete straitjacket that pollutes the environment and makes driving a nightmare."
Quote from: sparker on July 15, 2018, 07:44:22 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 15, 2018, 07:36:16 PM
A few:
Building more lanes automatically means traffic relief forever.
That using parking or thru lanes for transit and bicycling is a net loss in transportation capacity.
Suburban life is not necessarily the end-all be-all, especially for younger Americans.
Bruce -- are you sure the word "not" in your last line is really what you wanted to say? Phrased that way, it indicates (since the thread specifies misconceptions and myths) that suburban life actually is a universal aspiration (not your usual position on such things!).
I no English good. Must be the heat.
Quote from: Beltway on July 15, 2018, 02:53:20 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 15, 2018, 11:44:45 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 09:31:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2018, 09:02:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 09:39:54 AM
That urban Interstate highways were not part of the original plan. They were slipped in at the last minute.
Guess it depends on how you define "original plan". They certainly weren't what Eisenhower envisioned.
Interregional Highways in 1944, and the Yellow Book in 1955. Both had urban Interstates, and the first one had no input from Eisenhower and the second one was mainly developed by Congress and the Bureau of Public Roads.
Except the Interregional Highways proposal went nowhere, and the Yellow Book was not in what Eisenhower originally gave Congress, which can be argued as the "original plan". The Yellow Book was added to the plan (which was later passed) by Congress while Eisenhower was in the hospital and not in a position to do anything about it.
Sounds like something copied from _Superhighway - Superhoax_, Helen Leavitt, 1970.
_Interregional Highways_, published by Public Roads Administration, 1943, was the 40,000 mile approved Interstate highway system that was carried forward to what was begun in 1956.
Eisenhower did not give any detailed Interstate highway plan (as in where specific routes were planned) to Congress at any time.
_Interregional Highways_ was updated to _General Location of National System of Interstate Highways_, 1955, the so-called "Yellow Book".
The "Yellow Book", which is posted on a private website, shows that the urban Interstates were planned then.
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/
Eisenhower is one of the major roads myths. His influence in the overall scheme of things Interstate between 1939 and 1956, was rather minor compared to all the other players in the BPR and in Congress.
Are you daring to contradict Dan McNichols's The Roads That Built America (https://www.amazon.com/Roads-That-Built-America-Incredible/dp/1402734689/ref=sr_1_1/135-4743875-3429629?ie=UTF8&qid=1531703128&sr=8-1&keywords=the+roads+that+built+america&dpID=51NGR2PRJ1L&preST=_SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch) (aka the Roadgeek Bible)?
OK, maybe I've overselling it, but this book really was my very first exposure to the interstate system outside of what I was able to see on a state map of New York, so I hold it in extremely high regard.
Quote from: jon daly on July 15, 2018, 03:34:13 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 14, 2018, 10:08:40 PM
Quote from: jon daly on July 13, 2018, 08:59:27 PM
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.
Today, planners are more respectful to the environment and sprawl so if a new expressway is built it probably won't damage areas like I-95 did in the northeast etc.
CT was close to extending their CT-11 Expressway 8 miles and part of that plan was to have a greenway surrounding it so no sprawl would happen and limited exits would've also been required.
Thanks. I've heard people argue that I-84 ripped apart a neighborhood in Hartford, but I read some links I found on this board and it mentioned that there was already a rift between residential neighborhoods thanks to Royal Typewriter, other factories, and a railroad. Now, Robert Moses may've been quoted in that paper, but the negative effects of the interstates on Hartford may be exaggerated. I'm wont to blame Constitution Plaza for some of the cities ills.
I believe that I-91 was worse. They cut everybody off from the riverfront and displaced apartments and businesses there. Took a larger chunk of land than you might think.
Quote from: vdeane on July 15, 2018, 09:17:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 15, 2018, 02:53:20 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 15, 2018, 11:44:45 AM
Except the Interregional Highways proposal went nowhere, and the Yellow Book was not in what Eisenhower originally gave Congress, which can be argued as the "original plan". The Yellow Book was added to the plan (which was later passed) by Congress while Eisenhower was in the hospital and not in a position to do anything about it.
Sounds like something copied from _Superhighway - Superhoax_, Helen Leavitt, 1970.
_Interregional Highways_, published by Public Roads Administration, 1943, was the 40,000 mile approved Interstate highway system that was carried forward to what was begun in 1956.
Eisenhower did not give any detailed Interstate highway plan (as in where specific routes were planned) to Congress at any time.
_Interregional Highways_ was updated to _General Location of National System of Interstate Highways_, 1955, the so-called "Yellow Book".
The "Yellow Book", which is posted on a private website, shows that the urban Interstates were planned then.
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/
Eisenhower is one of the major roads myths. His influence in the overall scheme of things Interstate between 1939 and 1956, was rather minor compared to all the other players in the BPR and in Congress.
Are you daring to contradict Dan McNichols's The Roads That Built America (https://www.amazon.com/Roads-That-Built-America-Incredible/dp/1402734689/ref=sr_1_1/135-4743875-3429629?ie=UTF8&qid=1531703128&sr=8-1&keywords=the+roads+that+built+america&dpID=51NGR2PRJ1L&preST=_SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch) (aka the Roadgeek Bible)?
OK, maybe I've overselling it, but this book really was my very first exposure to the interstate system outside of what I was able to see on a state map of New York, so I hold it in extremely high regard.
If he teaches something contrary to what I summarized, yes. You can see what was in the 1943 plan and in the 1955 plan, the links have been posted upthread. I know of no document about the Interstate system that "Eisenhower originally gave Congress" at least not in the detail of specifying where routes would go.
I've heard someone say that the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway are the same thing. "I've never heard of a state with more than one toll road", she said to me when I tried to disabuse her of this notion.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 15, 2018, 09:27:35 PM
Quote from: jon daly on July 15, 2018, 03:34:13 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 14, 2018, 10:08:40 PM
Quote from: jon daly on July 13, 2018, 08:59:27 PM
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.
Today, planners are more respectful to the environment and sprawl so if a new expressway is built it probably won't damage areas like I-95 did in the northeast etc.
CT was close to extending their CT-11 Expressway 8 miles and part of that plan was to have a greenway surrounding it so no sprawl would happen and limited exits would've also been required.
Thanks. I've heard people argue that I-84 ripped apart a neighborhood in Hartford, but I read some links I found on this board and it mentioned that there was already a rift between residential neighborhoods thanks to Royal Typewriter, other factories, and a railroad. Now, Robert Moses may've been quoted in that paper, but the negative effects of the interstates on Hartford may be exaggerated. I'm wont to blame Constitution Plaza for some of the cities ills.
I believe that I-91 was worse. They cut everybody off from the riverfront and displaced apartments and businesses there. Took a larger chunk of land than you might think.
Wasn't part of that due to Constitution Plaza? IIRC, that displaced the East Side. I-91 also separates the South Meadows and the North Meadows from the rest of Hartford. I don't know much of the history of the South Meadows or the North. However, I remember going to a concert years ago at the ampitheater in the North Meadows and it looked like that part of Hartford was separated from the North End by a huge railyard that may've predated I-91.
Regarding damage caused by new expressways back in the day, I considered my current commute route. I mainly know the surface streets in Stonington, Conn. and East Providence, R.I.. I-95 cut inland in Stonington and didn't seem to cause any damage. In fact, it encouraged some development inland such as the Mystic Aquarium and Old Mystick Village.
The situation was different in East Providence. I see some streets that were cut in half by I-195.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 14, 2018, 10:08:40 PM
Quote from: jon daly on July 13, 2018, 08:59:27 PM
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.
Today, planners are more respectful to the environment and sprawl so if a new expressway is built it probably won't damage areas like I-95 did in the northeast etc.
CT was close to extending their CT-11 Expressway 8 miles and part of that plan was to have a greenway surrounding it so no sprawl would happen and limited exits would've also been required.
What about noise pollution? Growing up in greater Hartford, I noticed that a lot of wooden and concrete sound barriers were installed in the 1980s on suburban portions of I-91 & I-84. But I'm not sure if the nearby residential developments predated or came after freeway construction.
The development predated the barriers, which were installed when the HOV lanes were built, at least on I-91 north of Hartford.
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.
This just happened up the road from me. I think the only reason it didn't turn out well is because the pilot veered into the median and ended up in oncoming traffic
Edit to add link to the story:
https://fox2now.com/2018/07/11/small-plane-crash-lands-on-i-55-near-lincoln-illinois/
Quote from: english si on July 13, 2018, 04:03:34 PM
Interstates have to cross state lines - ie not be intra-state.
Yup, I-72 in Illinois proves that wrong.
Quote from: Paulinator66 on July 17, 2018, 04:52:21 PM
Quote from: english si on July 13, 2018, 04:03:34 PM
Interstates have to cross state lines - ie not be intra-state.
Yup, I-72 in Illinois proves that wrong.
I-72 enters Missouri, but barely. 4, 16, 37, 97, and others truly are intrastate, though.
Quote from: jon daly on July 16, 2018, 12:06:31 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 15, 2018, 09:27:35 PM
Quote from: jon daly on July 15, 2018, 03:34:13 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 14, 2018, 10:08:40 PM
Quote from: jon daly on July 13, 2018, 08:59:27 PM
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.
Today, planners are more respectful to the environment and sprawl so if a new expressway is built it probably won't damage areas like I-95 did in the northeast etc.
CT was close to extending their CT-11 Expressway 8 miles and part of that plan was to have a greenway surrounding it so no sprawl would happen and limited exits would've also been required.
Thanks. I've heard people argue that I-84 ripped apart a neighborhood in Hartford, but I read some links I found on this board and it mentioned that there was already a rift between residential neighborhoods thanks to Royal Typewriter, other factories, and a railroad. Now, Robert Moses may've been quoted in that paper, but the negative effects of the interstates on Hartford may be exaggerated. I'm wont to blame Constitution Plaza for some of the cities ills.
I believe that I-91 was worse. They cut everybody off from the riverfront and displaced apartments and businesses there. Took a larger chunk of land than you might think.
Wasn't part of that due to Constitution Plaza? IIRC, that displaced the East Side. I-91 also separates the South Meadows and the North Meadows from the rest of Hartford. I don't know much of the history of the South Meadows or the North. However, I remember going to a concert years ago at the ampitheater in the North Meadows and it looked like that part of Hartford was separated from the North End by a huge railyard that may've predated I-91.
The rail yard is on NECR/CSOR RoW. Formerly NYNHH, then Penn Central then Conrail. It owns the spur immediately abutting I-91, not the tracks that run SW towards Union Station. Those are ConnDOT-owned as well as the rest of the New Haven-Springfield Line.
Thanks, Robbie. How old is it?
CA-60 Pomona Freeway is not on a former segment of US-60.
US-60's former Los Angeles alignment is on where I-10 San Bernardino Freeway is today.
Sacramento is the largest city without a 3di is a misconception.
However Sacramento previously had a 3di as I-880 now resigned as I-80.
I-305 is unsigned as is on the West end of US-50.
Quote from: bing101 on July 18, 2018, 12:22:33 PM
CA-60 Pomona Freeway is not on a former segment of US-60.
US-60's former Los Angeles alignment is on where I-10 San Bernardino Freeway is today.
Both
partially correct; the portion of CA 60/Pomona Freeway east of Mira Loma (SE of Ontario) to the I-215/CA 91 interchange in Riverside
was originally US 60; the signage changed to CA 60 in the spring of 1968 (I was attending UCR at the time and remembered seeing the sign crews doing their job near Rubidoux, west of Riverside). And until the 1964 renumbering, US 60 was signed, along with US 70 and US 99, along the I-10/San Bernardino Freeway from the US 101 "split" east of downtown L.A. out to the Holt Avenue exit in Pomona, where US 60 diverged to go its separate path through Pomona and Ontario en route to Riverside. The Pomona Freeway segment in L.A. County, pre-renumbering, was slated to be US 60; of course the renumbering effort, which included deletion of several U.S. routes in CA, shifted this to state highway designation. When opened in 1967, the original section of the Pomona Freeway from the ELA interchange to I-605 was the first to carry CA 60 signage; when extended to Hacienda Heights early in 1968, that signage was extended. When the US 60 signage in Riverside County was replaced by CA 60 shields in early '68, the state highway, rather than follow the former US 60 route multiplexed with CA 71 from 5th Street in Pomona NW to I-10, continued west on Brea Canyon Road through Diamond Bar to Colima Road, where it turned west to Hacienda Heights, jogging north there about a quarter-mile to the end of the Pomona Freeway. This surface route was replaced one piece at a time as the Pomona Freeway's construction advanced further east; that construction had reached Euclid Ave. (CA 83) in south Ontario by early 1971, and connected to the former US 60 route in Mira Loma some 2 years later, effectively completing the corridor (although there were some remaining grade crossings between Mira Loma and Rubidoux on the original US 60 4-lane expressway; those were eliminated by interchanges and freeway widening by 1977.
Quote from: bing101 on July 18, 2018, 12:25:48 PM
Sacramento is the largest city without a 3di is a misconception.
I've never seen or heard anyone mention that, either by believing it or debunking it. Probably because Phoenix is larger.
Quote from: 1 on July 17, 2018, 04:53:51 PM
I-72 enters Missouri, but barely. 4, 16, 37, 97, and others truly are intrastate, though.
You for got I-2! :D
Canada and Mexico don't actually use our MUTCD.
Quote from: bing101 on July 18, 2018, 12:25:48 PM
Sacramento is the largest city without a 3di is a misconception.
On the flip side, there's many Roadgeek Misconceptions: That anyone besides those in the hobby, in the direct career fields, or those involved with those related agencies...will actually care about...
- Hidden route designations / transportation agency doesn't bother to sign something
- Whether a sign is 100% MUTCD-compliant, ugly, or uses the wrong font
- Whether a route number is "out of the grid"
- Who pays for the route maintenance (it's always perceived to be the taxpayer).
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 19, 2018, 03:10:10 PM
Canada and Mexico don't actually use our MUTCD.
There are people who think they do?
Quote from: formulanone on July 19, 2018, 03:30:40 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 18, 2018, 12:25:48 PM
Sacramento is the largest city without a 3di is a misconception.
On the flip side, there's many Roadgeek Misconceptions: That anyone besides those in the hobby, in the direct career fields, or those involved with those related agencies...will actually care about...
- Hidden route designations / transportation agency doesn't bother to sign something
- Whether a sign is 100% MUTCD-compliant, ugly, or uses the wrong font
- Whether a route number is "out of the grid"
- Who pays for the route maintenance (it's always perceived to be the taxpayer).
Heh. I don't care about most of those things. What interests me is the historical evolution of roads; especially those near me.
I'm not sure if that makes me an outlier here, but this is only one of a number of interests I have. My wife thinks I'm not focused enough, but I'm working on a way to grandly unify or intersect my interest in roads, oil, sports, history, music et cetera.
I-238 should be renumbered as I-380 or CA-380 due to the Southern Crossing gap talks. It gets discussed sometimes but is never confirmed.
Given how old the Southern Crossing discussion is, I doubt it will ever happen.
That interstate routes, and particularly US routes, are "federal routes." :pan: Only a viatologist would believe such nonsense.
Quote from: formulanone on July 19, 2018, 03:30:40 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 18, 2018, 12:25:48 PM
Sacramento is the largest city without a 3di is a misconception.
On the flip side, there's many Roadgeek Misconceptions: That anyone besides those in the hobby, in the direct career fields, or those involved with those related agencies...will actually care about...
- Hidden route designations / transportation agency doesn't bother to sign something
- Whether a sign is 100% MUTCD-compliant, ugly, or uses the wrong font
- Whether a route number is "out of the grid"
- Who pays for the route maintenance (it's always perceived to be the taxpayer).
Add to that:
–It is wrong to use "expressway" to refer to what people in California call a "freeway." (Some roadgeeks can get quite upset about that.)
I've made a point of using "freeway" instead of "expressway" ever since I discovered the latter is, by definition, a slightly different type of road.
Not what I'd call a "misconception", though. It's not like I go around correcting people who say "expressway" (which is everyone around here).
Quote from: webny99 on July 20, 2018, 05:27:37 PM
I've made a point of using "freeway" instead of " "expressway" ever since I discovered the latter is, by definition, a slightly different type of road.
Not what I'd call a "misconception", though. It's not like I go around correcting people who say "expressway" (which is everyone around here).
He's implying the exact opposite.
Quote from: 1 on July 20, 2018, 05:28:15 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 20, 2018, 05:27:37 PM
I've made a point of using "freeway" instead of " "expressway" ever since I discovered the latter is, by definition, a slightly different type of road.
Not what I'd call a "misconception", though. It's not like I go around correcting people who say "expressway" (which is everyone around here).
He's implying the exact opposite.
Formulanone's list was of misconceptions
possessed by roadgeeks, not
about them.
In adding to that list, he's implying that some roadgeeks actually believe "expressway" cannot be used to refer to freeways.
That's a misconception, because it
can be used that way.
Am I understanding correctly?
Quote from: webny99 on July 20, 2018, 05:35:33 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 20, 2018, 05:28:15 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 20, 2018, 05:27:37 PM
I've made a point of using "freeway" instead of " "expressway" ever since I discovered the latter is, by definition, a slightly different type of road.
Not what I'd call a "misconception", though. It's not like I go around correcting people who say "expressway" (which is everyone around here).
He's implying the exact opposite.
Formulanone's list was of misconceptions possessed by roadgeeks, not about them.
In adding to that list, he's implying that some roadgeeks actually believe "expressway" cannot be used to refer to freeways.
That's a misconception, because it can be used that way.
Am I understanding correctly?
Maybe I misinterpreted your previous post.
Quote from: webny99 on July 20, 2018, 05:35:33 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 20, 2018, 05:28:15 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 20, 2018, 05:27:37 PM
I've made a point of using "freeway" instead of " "expressway" ever since I discovered the latter is, by definition, a slightly different type of road.
Not what I'd call a "misconception", though. It's not like I go around correcting people who say "expressway" (which is everyone around here).
He's implying the exact opposite.
Formulanone's list was of misconceptions possessed by roadgeeks, not about them.
In adding to that list, he's implying that some roadgeeks actually believe "expressway" cannot be used to refer to freeways.
That's a misconception, because it can be used that way.
Am I understanding correctly?
The way I understand it, no. Expressways can include some at-grade intersections, while freeways cannot. Access to freeways is fully controlled, whereas expressway access is partially controlled or limited (i.e. some intersections are allowed, but driveways and the like are not). The misconception is that the word "expressway" means the same thing as "freeway".
Quote from: 1 on July 20, 2018, 05:36:42 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 20, 2018, 05:35:33 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 20, 2018, 05:28:15 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 20, 2018, 05:27:37 PM
I've made a point of using "freeway" instead of " "expressway" ever since I discovered the latter is, by definition, a slightly different type of road.
Not what I'd call a "misconception", though. It's not like I go around correcting people who say "expressway" (which is everyone around here).
He's implying the exact opposite.
Formulanone's list was of misconceptions possessed by roadgeeks, not about them.
In adding to that list, he's implying that some roadgeeks actually believe "expressway" cannot be used to refer to freeways.
That's a misconception, because it can be used that way.
Am I understanding correctly?
Maybe I misinterpreted your previous post.
It's equally likely that I misinterpreted formulanone's post. I'm not sure.
1995hoo's post looks to me like a false statement worded as a true one.
My position on that issue: I try to use "freeway", even though there's nothing wrong with using "expressway" in the same context. If I thought there
was something wrong with using "expressway", then I'd be one of the roadgeeks holding the misconception 1995hoo describes.
Quote from: US 89 on July 20, 2018, 07:22:39 PM
Expressways can include some at-grade intersections, while freeways cannot. Access to freeways is fully controlled, whereas expressway access is partially controlled or limited (i.e. some intersections are allowed, but driveways and the like are not). The misconception is that the word "expressway" means the same thing as "freeway".
Now you've got me doubting my previous conclusions! :-D
The way I see it, a freeway is a type of expressway. Therefore, it's OK (although not necessarily desireable) to call a freeway an expressway - it is, after all, an expressway with certain additional characteristics.
"Expressways" may have a traffic light, missing grade separations, contain turn pockets, or even driveway access...though not always.
"Freeways" should generally have only grade separations (i.e. ramps, overpasses, flyovers) except (possibly) at its termini.
"Highway" can be any length of road.
All of these probably have an exceptions in the field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road
Vasco road should have been signed as CA-84.
Do not link to mobile sites, the phone will do the work --sso
Quote from: bing101 on July 20, 2018, 09:46:20 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road
Vasco road should have been signed as CA-84.
Don't link to mobile Wikipedia.
Quote from: US 89 on July 20, 2018, 07:22:39 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 20, 2018, 05:35:33 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 20, 2018, 05:28:15 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 20, 2018, 05:27:37 PM
I've made a point of using "freeway" instead of " "expressway" ever since I discovered the latter is, by definition, a slightly different type of road.
Not what I'd call a "misconception", though. It's not like I go around correcting people who say "expressway" (which is everyone around here).
He's implying the exact opposite.
Formulanone's list was of misconceptions possessed by roadgeeks, not about them.
In adding to that list, he's implying that some roadgeeks actually believe "expressway" cannot be used to refer to freeways.
That's a misconception, because it can be used that way.
Am I understanding correctly?
The way I understand it, no. Expressways can include some at-grade intersections, while freeways cannot. Access to freeways is fully controlled, whereas expressway access is partially controlled or limited (i.e. some intersections are allowed, but driveways and the like are not). The misconception is that the word "expressway" means the same thing as "freeway".
This discussion, as well as further posts in this thread, is sort of making the point I was trying to make. Take note of the emphasized comments below.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 20, 2018, 05:22:59 PM
Quote from: formulanone on July 19, 2018, 03:30:40 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 18, 2018, 12:25:48 PM
Sacramento is the largest city without a 3di is a misconception.
On the flip side, there's many Roadgeek Misconceptions: That anyone besides those in the hobby, in the direct career fields, or those involved with those related agencies...will actually care about...
- Hidden route designations / transportation agency doesn't bother to sign something
- Whether a sign is 100% MUTCD-compliant, ugly, or uses the wrong font
- Whether a route number is "out of the grid"
- Who pays for the route maintenance (it's always perceived to be the taxpayer).
Add to that:
–It is wrong to use "expressway" to refer to what people in California call a "freeway." (Some roadgeeks can get quite upset about that.)
My point was, most ordinary people couldn't give a rat's arse what the FHWA, the MUTCD, people in California, or the roadgeek community consider a "freeway" or an "expressway"–to many people, those terms (as well as "highway") either mean the same thing as each other or else they only use one of them and would look at you funny if you used the other. (When my brother-in-law from Arizona visited us a few years ago, it was very weird to hear him calling the highways here "freeways." We don't say that unless it's the name of a specific road.) But some roadgeeks do think the distinction matters for more than technical purposes, by which I mean, of course if you're a DOT employee or a highway engineer when you're working you use the appropriate term for your agency or your line of work–although even there, some agencies do not use "expressway" and "freeway" in the way the FHWA does–but in ordinary day-to-day conversation you use whatever the local convention is. I'm thinking, for example, of a Wikipedia article–I don't remember which one–where someone who was almost certainly a hypertechnical roadgeek had put in a sentence (later removed) that said something like, "Despite this road's name, it is not really an expressway because it is actually a freeway due to [whatever]." Perhaps technically true, but unnecessary and unhelpful to the average Wikipedia reader!
Quote from: mgk920 on July 14, 2018, 08:04:51 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 14, 2018, 05:17:52 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on July 14, 2018, 03:50:38 PM
That freeways are free as in no cost to the user.
And that tollways are double taxation.
But remember, nobody, but NOBODY in Wisconsin nor Illinois will ever refer to an Illinois Tollway as a 'freeway'. It's a 'tollway'.
;-)
Mike
That tollways are not freeways.
TECHNICAL TERMS: Tollway is part of the name of the road. freeway is the type of road and the term has
nothing to do with how much extra $$ you put into the coin bucket/transponder account. They are free as in free of interference from crossing traffic (maniac weavers non-withstanding).
that being saidMike's statement is correct that locals of Chicagoland and state and ISTHA officials do refer to the system as tollway to distinguish it by name. Same is held true for other agencies (Houston (Harris County), Dallas (North Texas))
It's just a name, kids!
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 21, 2018, 08:19:28 AM
My point was, most ordinary people couldn't give a rat's arse what the FHWA, the MUTCD, people in California, or the roadgeek community consider a "freeway" or an "expressway"–to many people, those terms (as well as "highway") either mean the same thing as each other or else they only use one of them and would look at you funny if you used the other... But some roadgeeks do think the distinction matters for more than technical purposes, by which I mean, of course if you're a DOT employee or a highway engineer when you're working you use the appropriate term for your agency or your line of work–although even there, some agencies do not use "expressway" and "freeway" in the way the FHWA does–but in ordinary day-to-day conversation you use whatever the local convention is. I'm thinking, for example, of a Wikipedia article–I don't remember which one–where someone who was almost certainly a hypertechnical roadgeek had put in a sentence (later removed) that said something like, "Despite this road's name, it is not really an expressway because it is actually a freeway due to [whatever]." Perhaps technically true, but unnecessary and unhelpful to the average Wikipedia reader!
I agree with all that. In the context of misconceptions, however, it was not entirely clear whether you were saying roadgeeks or the general population were the ones with the misconception.
After reading the above, it seems clear that my original interpretation upthread was correct:
Quote from: webny99 on July 20, 2018, 07:28:43 PM
1995hoo's post (inserted for clarity):
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 20, 2018, 05:22:59 PM
–It is wrong to use "expressway" to refer to what people in California call a "freeway."
looks to me like a false statement worded as a true one.
My position on that issue: I try to use "freeway", even though there's nothing wrong with using "expressway" in the same context. If I thought there was something wrong with using "expressway", then I'd be one of the roadgeeks holding the misconception 1995hoo describes.
^^^
Sorry if I was unclear. I had assumed when I said "Add to that" that it indicated I intended my comment to be an add-on to formulanone's list. I should know better than to assume anything!
Quote from: bing101 on July 20, 2018, 09:46:20 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road
Vasco road should have been signed as CA-84.
Do not link to mobile sites, the phone will do the work --sso
As it sits, Vasco is still county property; while the improvements "over the hill" were in fact done to Caltrans state highway standards, there are no present plans for Caltrans to adopt the route. That being said, there
are long-range plans to extend Isabel Ave. (the east end of present CA 84 in the Livermore area) north and east to intersect with Vasco near the Alameda/Contra Costa county line. If this happens, there's the possibility that Caltrans may be convinced to take over maintenance of that composite route. Besides the fact that Caltrans is currently disinterested in assuming maintenance of any more surface facilities in general, having to sign a CA 84 multiplex over I-580 for the 6 or so miles between Isabel and Vasco roads is also something to which they're also averse. But don't hold your breath on any of this; it'll be 15 or so years down the line before any such connection is made.
Also -- considering the peak levels of traffic on Vasco, it may be construed that "advertising" it by slapping state highway shields on the facility would only make matters worse -- and the money's just not there to further increase the capacity of the road, which would likely entail either bringing it out to 2+ 2 -- plus periodic passing lanes or simply twinning it. If the Isabel/84 connection is made, something like that may yet happen -- but no finalized plans have been made nor funding identified for this within either of the counties served by the facility.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin_Parkway
Freeways must have a route number designation.
But interestingly Summerlin Parkway in Las Vegas is one of a few freeways without a route number assigned by the state due to Summerlin Development.
Quote from: bing101 on July 20, 2018, 09:46:20 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road
Vasco road should have been signed as CA-84.
Do not link to mobile sites, the phone will do the work --sso
Quote from: 1 on July 20, 2018, 09:47:04 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 20, 2018, 09:46:20 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road
Vasco road should have been signed as CA-84.
Don't link to mobile Wikipedia.
Quote from: bing101 on July 21, 2018, 03:56:04 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin_Parkway
Freeways must have a route number designation.
But interestingly Summerlin Parkway in Las Vegas is one of a few freeways without a route number assigned by the state due to Summerlin Development.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 21, 2018, 02:09:30 PM
^^^
Sorry if I was unclear. I had assumed when I said "Add to that" that it indicated I intended my comment to be an add-on to formulanone's list. I should know better than to assume anything!
It was clear that's what you intended. It was just that your statement didn't follow directly from his, and it threw me off. Anyways, all good. Consider the case closed and let the thread continue... :D
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 21, 2018, 04:48:45 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 20, 2018, 09:46:20 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road
Do not link to mobile sites, the phone will do the work --sso
Quote from: 1 on July 20, 2018, 09:47:04 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 20, 2018, 09:46:20 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road
Vasco road should have been signed as CA-84.
Don't link to mobile Wikipedia.
Quote from: bing101 on July 21, 2018, 03:56:04 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin_Parkway
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
I recall issues with bing101 in the past... I believe it was with him repeatedly posting in a miniscule font size.
He seems benign, yet he keeps doing stuff like this as if he is completely unaware that (a) it's annoying, and (b) he has been admonished for it by both mods and other users.
Quote from: Beltway on July 15, 2018, 08:17:16 PM
I recently got a copy thru Amazon of "Superhighway - Superhoax", by Helen Leavitt, 1970. Good for a laugh!
"From Sea to Shining Sea: we are strangling in a concrete straitjacket that pollutes the environment and makes driving a nightmare."
I've read that once or twice. The BS in that book got annoying and irritating to no end.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 21, 2018, 04:48:45 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 20, 2018, 09:46:20 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road
Vasco road should have been signed as CA-84.
Do not link to mobile sites, the phone will do the work --sso
Quote from: 1 on July 20, 2018, 09:47:04 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 20, 2018, 09:46:20 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road
Vasco road should have been signed as CA-84.
Don't link to mobile Wikipedia.
Quote from: bing101 on July 21, 2018, 03:56:04 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin_Parkway
Freeways must have a route number designation.
But interestingly Summerlin Parkway in Las Vegas is one of a few freeways without a route number assigned by the state due to Summerlin Development.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Why not? In my browser, it brings up a cleaner page than regular Wiki.
Quote from: bing101 on July 21, 2018, 03:56:04 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin_Parkway
But interestingly Summerlin Parkway in Las Vegas is one of a few freeways without a route number assigned by the state due to Summerlin Development.
Well then -- a damn good place to (eventually) put the mistaken "I-111" shield seen in another thread. As I iterated there, just a FedEx shipment, finalization of an I-11 through route through LV, and some finagling by NDOT's legal team away! :cool:
Quote
Do not link to mobile sites, the phone will do the work --sso
Quote from: hbelkins on July 21, 2018, 07:28:47 PM
Why not? In my browser, it brings up a cleaner page than regular Wiki.
There is no problem, I think people just want an excuse to complain.
If the interface and usability bothers someone that much, they can also just as easily delete the "m." out of the URL.
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.
Cars and those damned overpasses tend to get in the way.
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.
Small planes are required to stall (roughly translates to touchdown speed) at 70mph or less. If you know what you're doing, dealing with a small plane making an emergency landing shouldn't be too different from dealing with a car barreling down an on ramp at 70mph. As long as traffic is flowing at high speed a safe landing shouldn't be impossible.
Whether the plane gets caught on overpasses or powerlines depends on the clearance available, small planes should be able to duck under.
If the area allows the plane to safely pull off the road, traffic disruption (other than rubbernecking) should be minimal.
For example in this video the pilots made an emergency landing on a canadian freeway, and kept moving to position themselves past the bridge/guard rail section where they could pull off the freeway into the grass.
Quote from: Bruce on July 15, 2018, 07:36:16 PM
Building more lanes automatically means traffic relief forever.
That using parking or thru lanes for transit and bicycling is a net loss in transportation capacity.
Suburban life is not necessarily the end-all be-all, especially for younger Americans.
Building enough lanes does relieve traffic - especially if you're paving over traffic-generating buildings to do it. Induced demand stops at the point when everyone is travelling by car, and as much as they could possibly want to. With the advent of self driving cars, suburban lifestyles will be more accessible to people who can't drive.
Quote from: yand on July 26, 2018, 02:06:39 PM
Building enough lanes does relieve traffic - especially if you're paving over traffic-generating buildings to do it. Induced demand stops at the point when everyone is travelling by car, and as much as they could possibly want to. With the advent of self driving cars, suburban lifestyles will be more accessible to people who can't drive.
Let's say that a bridge is 3 lanes going northbound. If there are 4 lanes before the bridge, increasing that number won't help, even if it's to 10 lanes. This is the definition of a bottleneck.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 20, 2018, 11:23:55 AM
That interstate routes, and particularly US routes, are "federal routes." :pan: Only a viatologist would believe such nonsense.
I was gonna say, it's a myth that the federal government maintains US and Interstate highways. It's all state DOT's, sometimes with supplemental funding from the feds for big enough projects.
Quote from: 1 on July 26, 2018, 02:50:45 PM
Let's say that a bridge is 3 lanes going northbound. If there are 4 lanes before the bridge, increasing that number won't help, even if it's to 10 lanes. This is the definition of a bottleneck.
It makes the backup approaching the bottleneck shorter allowing those whose destination is before the bottleneck to not get caught up in the backup.
Let's say that a bridge is 3 lanes going northbound. If there are 4 lanes before the bridge, increasing that number won't help, even if it's to 10 lanes. This is the definition of a bottleneck.
Quote from: 1 on July 26, 2018, 02:50:45 PM
Quote from: yand on July 26, 2018, 02:06:39 PM
Building enough lanes does relieve traffic - especially if you're paving over traffic-generating buildings to do it. Induced demand stops at the point when everyone is travelling by car, and as much as they could possibly want to. With the advent of self driving cars, suburban lifestyles will be more accessible to people who can't drive.
Let's say that a bridge is 3 lanes going northbound. If there are 4 lanes before the bridge, increasing that number won't help, even if it's to 10 lanes. This is the definition of a bottleneck.
Obviously, building the lanes in the right places to relieve bottlenecks will have maximum effect, but like bzakharin said, even increasing lanes before the bottleneck can help delay the backup from affecting traffic prior to the bottleneck.
- US 66 was an especially significant US highway of out-sized national importance, rather than being a fairly insignificant route, memoralized simply by having a number that rhymed in a song.
- Highway construction constitutes a "subsidy" to buses, trucks, or cars, in that same way and meaning as direct appropriations for transit, airports, or docks.
- The interstate numbering system was supposed to be a perfect grid, with no variations which "violate" the numbering scheme to account for societal needs or physical geography, and thus any such variations are "bad".
- The shortest distance between any two points is to precede directly to the closest interstate and then remain within the interstate system for as long as possible, never using US, state or other routes.
- The crowded urban life led by many persons dependent on transit before interstates made suburbs possible was desireable, healthy, and/or safe.
- I-99 (and I-73/74) , because it bears an I number is, by virtue of that fact alone, more of a boondoggle than any of 100 similar projects of interstate or near interstate standard which are carried within the US, state or other numbering systems.
- Persons who have property acquired for ROW receive something less than fair compensation, if no over-compensation.
- Speed limits impact road safety.
- Police time used for speed enforcement does not take away from other work, and thus increase serious crime.
- Travel, especially in rural areas outside one's cultural homeland, will bring the traveler into contact with dangerous, dishonest, or sketchy characters and clean and safe travel facilities do not exist throughout the country, especially near interstates and other major highways.
- Most highway workers are something other than honest hardworking people who try to get things done and keep the best road system possible for the public, often with inadequate money.
- (Local to WV). I-77 and 79 were added to the system as specific reward for the (mythical) role of WV in the 1960 elections.
- (Local to WV). Huntington and Charleston local politicians in the 1960s were given the power to decide the routing of I-64, with Huntington (bypassed like most cities its size nationally) choosing poorly and thus declining and Charleston (with a congested center of town route) the opposite, rather than those decisions being made at the state level.
@SP Cook
Something is wrong with your post. Some of your items are obviously true (US 66, Speed Limits), most are obviously false, and yet others I'm not sure (Interstate numbering system, property acquired for ROW). Unless you believe them all to be false, which is kind of strange.
US 66's importance can be gauged by the Interstate numbers replacing it. Most end in 5 and 0 with I-40 taking a big chunk. While rhyming influenced the creation of the song, the only other option considered was US 40 as most of the author's road trip was on US 40 and US 66.
Speed limits definitely affect safety, though perhaps not in the way some people think (sometimes higher speed limits are safer)
Quote from: bzakharin on July 26, 2018, 04:14:43 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 26, 2018, 03:42:29 PM
snip
Something is wrong with your post. Some of your items are obviously true (US 66, Speed Limits), most are obviously false, and yet others I'm not sure (Interstate numbering system, property acquired for ROW). Unless you believe them all to be false, which is kind of strange.
Read the thread title. This has come up before. People are wording false statements as if they were true, knowing they are "myths/misconceptions". I'm sure
some people think the statements are true, just not the author of the post.
Quote from: webny99 on July 26, 2018, 04:19:54 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 26, 2018, 04:14:43 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 26, 2018, 03:42:29 PM
snip
Something is wrong with your post. Some of your items are obviously true (US 66, Speed Limits), most are obviously false, and yet others I'm not sure (Interstate numbering system, property acquired for ROW). Unless you believe them all to be false, which is kind of strange.
Read the thread title. This has come up before. People are wording false statements as if they were true, knowing they are "myths/misconceptions". I'm sure some people think the statements are true, just not the author of the post.
I understand the title. I am confused because this particular list includes things that are really true and things that are false
Surprised no one has said "speed kills" yet. If you haven't watched speed kills your pocketbook yet, that should shut most of them up.
Also some Portland examples:
One of any of the following apparently means you're a lobbyist the auto industry (people use generally only one of these), from least extreme to most extreme:
1. You are a roadgeek.
2. You support widescale freeway expansions.
3. You support freeways.
4. You drive (yes I've heard that a few times).
Reducing the amount of lanes and making bike lanes will make bikers get massive gains in ridership numbers (only true in Corvallis and Dowtown Portland in Oregon).
Adding exit-exit lanes increases accident chance.
"The only safe speed limit is 0." (WSDOT)
1 Light rail line running once every 30 minutes will run as much people as a 6 lane freeway. (True in Europe and NYC).
The interstate bridge is earthquake safe. :rofl:
Public transit, specifically light rail is the only way to reduce congestion.
Freeways solve all problems on surface streets.
This is an inference based on Portland law: Pedestrians aren't the cause of any accident.
More people are driving now than in 1980 due to lower gas prices (I have a screenshot, can post if requested).
Tolling the entire roadway adds capacity.
Speeders are dangerous anywhere. (On mountain roads in in neighborhoods this is true, but on an interstate with a 55 mph limit and traffic is at 70, no).
(Location, 4 lane expressway, speed limit 45): roundabouts are safer than traffic signals and provide less congestion.
Building freeways/more lanes to relieve a congested area causes more pollution.
LG-TP260
Quote from: bzakharin on July 26, 2018, 05:18:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 26, 2018, 04:19:54 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 26, 2018, 04:14:43 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 26, 2018, 03:42:29 PM
snip
Something is wrong with your post. Some of your items are obviously true (US 66, Speed Limits), most are obviously false, and yet others I'm not sure (Interstate numbering system, property acquired for ROW). Unless you believe them all to be false, which is kind of strange.
Read the thread title. This has come up before. People are wording false statements as if they were true, knowing they are "myths/misconceptions". I'm sure some people think the statements are true, just not the author of the post.
I understand the title. I am confused because this particular list includes things that are really true and things that are false
Well, in that case, if he actually believes everything he posted is false, he may have some explaining to do. :)
Quote from: bzakharin on July 26, 2018, 05:18:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 26, 2018, 04:19:54 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 26, 2018, 04:14:43 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 26, 2018, 03:42:29 PM
snip
Something is wrong with your post. Some of your items are obviously true (US 66, Speed Limits), most are obviously false, and yet others I'm not sure (Interstate numbering system, property acquired for ROW). Unless you believe them all to be false, which is kind of strange.
Read the thread title. This has come up before. People are wording false statements as if they were true, knowing they are "myths/misconceptions". I'm sure some people think the statements are true, just not the author of the post.
I understand the title. I am confused because this particular list includes things that are really true and things that are false
I've never really understood SP's antipathy toward Route 66, especially since it always comes with the claim that the only reason it's relatively well-known in popular culture is Troup's song, which is, of course, patently false. Even before the route was decommissioned, there was Steinbeck's
The Grapes of Wrath and the movie based on it, the television show
Route 66, as well as Kerouac's
On the Road, to say nothing of small things like the origin and logo of Phillips 66.
I think his point about Route 66 is that while it has cross-regional importance, it has limited meaning and personal influence to anyone east of Chicago. It's a historical curiosity to some outside the states and regions it covers, but also "just another route" to those distant from it...for most people, if it's not part of their commute or vacation spots, a road has no meaning. If you're from the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Appalachia, The South, Pacific Northwest, it has no more importance than US 1, US 80, US 11, or US 2.
And yet, Route 66 has an American Mythology that few other routes can match in the public's perception. Meaning and purpose were assigned and attributed to it, of which typically only frustration and utilitarian purpose are attached to roads.
US-6 is better :biggrin:.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 27, 2018, 03:59:22 AM
I've never really understood SP's antipathy toward Route 66...
Antipathy is not the right word. Probably the best is disregard.
The best evidence is to look at the traffic volumes. While the figures from the day are lost to history, the interstates that replaced it have their figures. Mostly I-55, 44, 40 and 15. And remember that a much LARGER %age of the populace, thanks to air conditioning, lives in the SW now than then.
And the numbers are? Mediocre. Not in the top 40. Grossly insignificant to the vast majority of Americans. A route number combining as one a regional road connecting Chicago and St. Louis, and another connecting St. Louis and, by connection to other routes, the middle part of the east, to LA, (although you do not have to be that far north or south of STL for an entirely different US route to be the way west) across a vast and mostly empty part of the country. Hardly the "mother road" or the "main street of America". Legitimate candidates for the actual "main street" of America in that era would include US 1, 2, 11, 40, 50, or 51 & 61.
One thing I thought was true when I was a kid that proved incorrect was that any raised, thermoplastic arrows, and stop lines were NOT pressure pads that would activate or "trip" the traffic lights at an intersection, although there were some intersections in the 50s and 60s which had actual rubber trip strip pads that would be used to indicate vehicles at an intersection.
Nor were the conduction loop boxes or circles in the road were pressure/weight activated. When I was a kid I had an intersection at the end of my street where I thought if you could jump on the "box", you could get the light to change.
People that believe the if they flashed their lights, it would cause the light to change. It was simply the in-ground sensors that detected the vehicle, but because the driver was flashing their lights at the same time, they believed they had the power in their hands!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 27, 2018, 10:45:49 AM
People that believe the if they flashed their lights, it would cause the light to change. It was simply the in-ground sensors that detected the vehicle, but because the driver was flashing their lights at the same time, they believed they had the power in their hands!
Some believe flashing the lights will set off the preemption device found on some intersections meant for emergency vehicles.
^ Aren't those preemption devices triggered by detecting a strobe of some kind? I seem to recall seeing companies selling small strobe devices, designed to be used inside a vehicle, that would supposedly trip the preemption device and give the user an "instant green" . I believe these were at best gray market items (at least when used by non-authorized individuals) at first that were later explicitly prohibited by federal law.
But if a strobe triggers the preemption device, I have to wonder how it differentiates between an emergency vehicle strobe and those on construction vehicles, tow trucks, school busses, etc. My guess would be something to do with the frequency and intensity of the light pulses.
Whoever puts together the NJ Basic automobile driver manual thinks 65 MPH speed limits in the state are limited to Interstates. What's puzzling is that this was never the case. The 1998 NJ Speed Limit increase did not have any such limitation. Even the 1987 provision in the NMSL, which did only allow a speed limit of 65 to apply to Interstates, was never applied to New Jersey.
Quote from: briantroutman on July 27, 2018, 02:28:12 PM
^ Aren’t those preemption devices triggered by detecting a strobe of some kind? I seem to recall seeing companies selling small strobe devices, designed to be used inside a vehicle, that would supposedly trip the preemption device and give the user an “instant green”. I believe these were at best gray market items (at least when used by non-authorized individuals) at first that were later explicitly prohibited by federal law.
But if a strobe triggers the preemption device, I have to wonder how it differentiates between an emergency vehicle strobe and those on construction vehicles, tow trucks, school busses, etc. My guess would be something to do with the frequency and intensity of the light pulses.
Signal pre-emption for vehicles works off an infrared emitter on the vehicle, and not a strobe light. In theory, the emitters on different classes of emergency vehicles work on slightly different frequencies, so the controller can prioritize the pre-emption calls if say an ambulance and a fire truck are approaching the intersection from different directions at the same time.
Quote from: SP Cook on July 27, 2018, 09:06:54 AM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 27, 2018, 03:59:22 AM
I've never really understood SP's antipathy toward Route 66...
Antipathy is not the right word. Probably the best is disregard.
The best evidence is to look at the traffic volumes. While the figures from the day are lost to history, the interstates that replaced it have their figures. Mostly I-55, 44, 40 and 15. And remember that a much LARGER %age of the populace, thanks to air conditioning, lives in the SW now than then.
And the numbers are? Mediocre. Not in the top 40. Grossly insignificant to the vast majority of Americans. A route number combining as one a regional road connecting Chicago and St. Louis, and another connecting St. Louis and, by connection to other routes, the middle part of the east, to LA, (although you do not have to be that far north or south of STL for an entirely different US route to be the way west) across a vast and mostly empty part of the country. Hardly the "mother road" or the "main street of America". Legitimate candidates for the actual "main street" of America in that era would include US 1, 2, 11, 40, 50, or 51 & 61.
I was looking at the map in the OP of this thread. It looks like the main way west out of Chicago doglegs to Nashville via I-65, then west on I-40.
BTW, whatever software this site uses puts the cursor in the middle of the quoted text when I quote posts. So I sometimes wind up putting my replies right smack dab in the middle of the body. It's mildly frustrating, but I'm learning how to overcome that obstacle and work around it.
D'oh! I meant this thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22836.0
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/829/41322265154_d5ecc713d2_b.jpg)
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on July 26, 2018, 06:34:07 PM
Surprised no one has said "speed kills" yet. If you haven't watched speed kills your pocketbook yet, that should shut most of them up.
Also some Portland examples:
One of any of the following apparently means you're a lobbyist the auto industry (people use generally only one of these), from least extreme to most extreme:
1. You are a roadgeek.
2. You support widescale freeway expansions.
3. You support freeways.
4. You drive (yes I've heard that a few times).
Reducing the amount of lanes and making bike lanes will make bikers get massive gains in ridership numbers (only true in Corvallis and Dowtown Portland in Oregon).
Adding exit-exit lanes increases accident chance.
"The only safe speed limit is 0." (WSDOT)
1 Light rail line running once every 30 minutes will run as much people as a 6 lane freeway. (True in Europe and NYC).
The interstate bridge is earthquake safe. :rofl:
Public transit, specifically light rail is the only way to reduce congestion.
Freeways solve all problems on surface streets.
This is an inference based on Portland law: Pedestrians aren't the cause of any accident.
More people are driving now than in 1980 due to lower gas prices (I have a screenshot, can post if requested).
Tolling the entire roadway adds capacity.
Speeders are dangerous anywhere. (On mountain roads in in neighborhoods this is true, but on an interstate with a 55 mph limit and traffic is at 70, no).
(Location, 4 lane expressway, speed limit 45): roundabouts are safer than traffic signals and provide less congestion.
Building freeways/more lanes to relieve a congested area causes more pollution.
Most of these are only true of the most radical (akin to those "bulldoze everything for roads" types). Most modern DOT decisions are backed by studies of current and projected traffic conditions, weighted against development concerns, environmental impact, safety, and social impact.
For example: Induced demand is a well-documented and understood phenomenon. Unless there's strict limits on automobile-oriented development (or automobile use), a "congestion-relieving" expansion applied haphazardly will get more people onto the same roads and punt the problem to another spot. Transit and other alternatives for commuters during peak hours have been proven to help stave off traffic...just look north in Seattle: record population growth, yet the terrible traffic hasn't gotten exponentially worse, thanks in part to record transit ridership growth.
Quote from: jon daly on July 30, 2018, 08:02:53 PM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/829/41322265154_d5ecc713d2_b.jpg)
It's interesting to see I-82 in WA shown as a relatively heavily utilized commercial corridor -- but where does the traffic go once on to I-90?; neither direction of the latter route shows the dispersion of traffic from I-82. Also, indicating railroads in dark green and non-Interstate commercial corridors in light green may be a mistake; the substantial traffic on CA 58 from Barstow to Bakersfield may be hidden because of the closely parallel rail corridor (the dark green lines cover the light green ones); the same goes for US 395 from Pasco north to Ritzville, WA. Otherwise, this is a most useful map! :nod:
Quote from: jon daly on July 30, 2018, 08:02:53 PM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/829/41322265154_d5ecc713d2_b.jpg)
This explains why I'm so tired of the really boring I-80 in Nebraska due to so many times Big Rig Steve has been on it. Also, what's going on Gillette WY for those thick green lines? Is there something interesting to haul on railroads from there towards Kansas City and Chicago?
Edit: Nevermid, found it in the link the previous post to the quoted one. Coal.
Quote from: sparker on July 31, 2018, 04:59:55 AM
Quote from: jon daly on July 30, 2018, 08:02:53 PM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/829/41322265154_d5ecc713d2_b.jpg)
It's interesting to see I-82 in WA shown as a relatively heavily utilized commercial corridor -- but where does the traffic go once on to I-90?; neither direction of the latter route shows the dispersion of traffic from I-82. Also, indicating railroads in dark green and non-Interstate commercial corridors in light green may be a mistake; the substantial traffic on CA 58 from Barstow to Bakersfield may be hidden because of the closely parallel rail corridor (the dark green lines cover the light green ones); the same goes for US 395 from Pasco north to Ritzville, WA. Otherwise, this is a most useful map! :nod:
The Green overpowers the Blue for River traffic on the Missouri between STL and KC. Must be a parallel rail line to the river
Also, love seeing the heavily used Rail corridors that are not roadway/Interstate corridors, but really could be
Chicago-Kansas City (despite the CKC attempt) and continuing on the SW trajectory to Amarillo, TX and I-40
Future I-57 corridor in Missouri and Arkansas
US 41 between Chicago and Hopkinsville
Quote from: SP Cook on July 27, 2018, 09:06:54 AMThe best evidence is to look at the traffic volumes. While the figures from the day are lost to history, the interstates that replaced it have their figures. Mostly I-55, 44, 40 and 15. And remember that a much LARGER %age of the populace, thanks to air conditioning, lives in the SW now than then.
And the numbers are? Mediocre. Not in the top 40. Grossly insignificant to the vast majority of Americans. A route number combining as one a regional road connecting Chicago and St. Louis, and another connecting St. Louis and, by connection to other routes, the middle part of the east, to LA, (although you do not have to be that far north or south of STL for an entirely different US route to be the way west) across a vast and mostly empty part of the country. Hardly the "mother road" or the "main street of America". Legitimate candidates for the actual "main street" of America in that era would include US 1, 2, 11, 40, 50, or 51 & 61.
I attribute US 66's weight of mythology largely to its 1930's role as a migration corridor. The Dust Bowl prompted 2.5 million people to leave the Plains states, most headed west, and this is still the largest internal displacement in American history.
Quote from: 1 on July 26, 2018, 02:50:45 PM
Quote from: yand on July 26, 2018, 02:06:39 PM
Building enough lanes does relieve traffic - especially if you're paving over traffic-generating buildings to do it. Induced demand stops at the point when everyone is travelling by car, and as much as they could possibly want to. With the advent of self driving cars, suburban lifestyles will be more accessible to people who can't drive.
Let's say that a bridge is 3 lanes going northbound. If there are 4 lanes before the bridge, increasing that number won't help, even if it's to 10 lanes. This is the definition of a bottleneck.
In the New Orleans suburbs, US-90 Business--the Westbank Expressway--has 3 travel lanes. It connects to the Crescent City Connection, which crosses the Mississippi River to the New Orleans CBD. The bridge has 4 lanes, and a bunch of onramps that enter just before the bridge. Up until a few years ago, there was a 12 lane toll plaza between the last of the onramps and the bridge. Tolls were abolished, and the toll plaza remained for a couple of years. They finally demolished the toll plaza and reduced the number of thru-lanes to 4. You should have heard the bitching and complaining about how this was going to make traffic so much worse by reducing the number of lanes from 12 to 4. People just have no concept of what a bottleneck is, and traffic naturally flows better now than it did when everyone spread out to the 12 lanes and then funneled back to 4.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 31, 2018, 10:45:47 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 27, 2018, 09:06:54 AMThe best evidence is to look at the traffic volumes. While the figures from the day are lost to history, the interstates that replaced it have their figures. Mostly I-55, 44, 40 and 15. And remember that a much LARGER %age of the populace, thanks to air conditioning, lives in the SW now than then.
And the numbers are? Mediocre. Not in the top 40. Grossly insignificant to the vast majority of Americans. A route number combining as one a regional road connecting Chicago and St. Louis, and another connecting St. Louis and, by connection to other routes, the middle part of the east, to LA, (although you do not have to be that far north or south of STL for an entirely different US route to be the way west) across a vast and mostly empty part of the country. Hardly the "mother road" or the "main street of America". Legitimate candidates for the actual "main street" of America in that era would include US 1, 2, 11, 40, 50, or 51 & 61.
I attribute US 66's weight of mythology largely to its 1930's role as a migration corridor. The Dust Bowl prompted 2.5 million people to leave the Plains states, most headed west, and this is still the largest internal displacement in American history.
What about the Great Migrations during the World Wars? Many southerners, both black and white came up to the industrial north from their farms to the factories.
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 31, 2018, 10:09:00 PM
Also, love seeing the heavily used Rail corridors that are not roadway/Interstate corridors, but really could be
Chicago-Kansas City (despite the CKC attempt) and continuing on the SW trajectory to Amarillo, TX and I-40
Future I-57 corridor in Missouri and Arkansas
US 41 between Chicago and Hopkinsville
Also looks like you could make a decent case to extend I-22 in both directions, southeast to Jacksonville, FL and northwest to meet I-49 in southwestern Missouri.
Here's a myth; Roads are only built to benefit banks and big business, specifically the automotive industry and oil industry.
Quote
The Dust Bowl prompted 2.5 million people to leave the Plains states, most headed west, and this is still the largest internal displacement in American history.
Quote
What about the Great Migrations during the World Wars? Many southerners, both black and white came up to the industrial north from their farms to the factories.
I have read material both ways on which was bigger. It comes down to if you consider the "black great migration" to all be one thing, as it lasted over 80 years, while the "dust bowl" was less than 10 years; and if you consider it to be an entirely black thing separate from the simultanious similar movement of poor white southerners, especially Appalachians, to many of the same places for the same reasons.
For that matter the populating of Florida, 1945-date, (population has increased ten fold) should be considered as well.
In regards to the mythos to US 66 personally I think its a combination of things. The Dust Bowl has been brought up which certainly has been immortalized in The Grapes of Wrath. Had US 60 been applied to the corridor as originally planned there wouldn't have been a cool number which to make catchy songs about. I think geography is the most important factor starting with Chicago and Los Angeles being the end points. Really 66 is pretty mundane until you get New Mexico where it's story becomes intertwined with the National Old Trails Road and the legacy of places like the Colorado Plateau and the Mojave Desert. It doesn't 66 that it comes close to the Grand Canyon and likely was the route most people took during it's heyday to reach it.
66 does have a mythos (even the British Depeche Mode covered the song!) I think of it as the '61 Yankees of roads. They were a very good team, but I'd put other teams ahead of them, including other Yankee teams ('27, '39, '98.)
Regarding the Great Migration, I was reading a book about the UAW and a lot of their membership came from the hollers of Appalachia. It made me think that the Great Migration was more of a class movement than a race movement.
California, particularly southern California, was a somewhat legendary place to move to back in the early 20th Century.
Chicago was one those heavily populated areas that a lot of people wanted to move away from after large numbers of men who served in the military in WW II saw other parts of the country as they were stationed at various military bases. Most people traveled very little before then.
That is one of the main factors in my parents moving us from Chicago to Florida in the late 1950s. They didn't like the weather, the crowding, or the featureless landscape.
What highway connected Chicago to southern California? Hence its popularity.
I don't get the US 66 fandom either.
I don't think that I'd primarily attribute it to migration in the Dust Bowl or postwar eras either. Even if 2.5 million people vacated the Plains during the Dust Bowl, we're still talking about less than 2% of the nation's total population at the time, and that's before you consider that not all of them went to Southern California or used US 66 to get there. Nontrivial numbers of migrants also fled to the Pacific Northwest or back toward the East.
Likewise, California's population gains in the postwar decades, though sizable, were never more couple percent of the country's total population. And of course that percentage also includes population increases from in-state births, migration to California from other countries, and in-country migration via other routes, making the actual number of people who "drove 66 to the promised land" even smaller yet.
So in terms of the real, firsthand experiences of Americans, US 66 was never in itself a cultural touchstone as pervasive as "where were you when Kennedy was shot" , for example (which nearly every Baby Boomer can answer instantly without a second thought).
But I will grant that migrations to California via US 66 contributed to its legend in this way: If you migrated to California via 66, you might not have been greater in number than any other than any other group of domestic migrants, but you were more culturally influential than those other groups. You might find yourself living near John Steinbeck, talking about driving "the mother road" , and he later immortalized an account of your struggles in The Grapes of Wrath. Or you might be Bobby Troup driving from Harrisburg to L.A. and pen a song along the way that would become a big hit. Or you might be Sterling Silliphant, move from Detroit to Southern California as a child, and later create the TV series Route 66. One piece of mass culture beget another to the point where the road itself was less important than the ancillary imagery around it–'50s rock and roll, tail fins, Corvettes, Googie architecture.
We took US-41 when we migrated from Chicago to Florida in the 1950s!
At least to central Florida where we connected to other roads to get to the east coast.
US-41 was mentioned in "Ramblin' Man." The protoganist was born in the back of a Greyhound Bus on that route.
And US 441 was mentioned in "American Girl" by Tom Petty.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 01, 2018, 11:03:46 PM
And US 441 was mentioned in "American Girl" by Tom Petty.
That's probably because it's one of the main north-south routes in Tom Petty's hometown of Gainesville, Florida. ("Thirteenth Street" wouldn't have sounded right.)
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 31, 2018, 10:09:00 PM
Quote from: jon daly on July 30, 2018, 08:02:53 PM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/829/41322265154_d5ecc713d2_b.jpg)
The Green overpowers the Blue for River traffic on the Missouri between STL and KC. Must be a parallel rail line to the river
Also, love seeing the heavily used Rail corridors that are not roadway/Interstate corridors, but really could be
Chicago-Kansas City (despite the CKC attempt) and continuing on the SW trajectory to Amarillo, TX and I-40
Future I-57 corridor in Missouri and Arkansas
US 41 between Chicago and Hopkinsville
Indeed, there
is a major parallel rail line hugging the banks of the Missouri River across the state of Missouri; it's the UP (former Missouri Pacific) water-level line that's currently used for coal shipments from the Powder River area of WY and going via North Platte, NE and Topeka, KS; the destination is East St. Louis, where the cargo is handed off to rail lines operating east of the Mississippi River for delivery to coal-fired power plants in IL and IN. These formerly used locally mined coal, but emissions standards now require the less-polluting variety from Powder River.
The diagonal RR line from Amarillo (it actually assumes that trajectory near Clovis, NM) to Chicago via KC is the BNSF (formerly Santa Fe) main freight line from L.A. ports to Chicago distribution terminals. If any rail line could be considered a "conveyor belt" for container cargo, this is the one! The railroad (now privately owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway holding company) has over the past three decades sunk about $2B into track upgrades, including an ongoing project to double-track the entire line (with only parts of KS and the bridge over the Missouri River east of KC still single-tracked) in order to deploy 110-car container trains at the rate of 30 per day eastbound, with a return rate (a mix of loaded and empty containers) of about 20-22 trains westbound. The future I-57 corridor pathway is paralleled by another UP set of lines (one way SW>NE via Little Rock and Poplar Bluff, and one way NE>SW via Pine Bluff; the lines converge at Texarkana, having been fed by various lines from Houston, DFW, and San Antonio. Much of the cargo originates in and around the "chemical coast" of TX between Corpus Christi and Port Arthur; such cargo consists of petrochemicals shipped in tank cars and plastic material shipped as sheets on flat cars or boxed up in, of course, boxcars. Most of these are destined for offloading facilities in East St. Louis or Chicagoland. Finally, the Chicago-Nashville-Atlanta-Jacksonville corridor (old Chicago & Eastern Illinois, Louisville & Nashville, Nashville, Chattanooga, and St. Louis, and Atlantic Coast Lines trackage, now all part of CSX) has been a heavily-utilized corridor for well over a century; northbound has always been agricultural-traffic-heavy, while southbound is currently dominated by containers coming from Chicago area sorting (originating at L.A., Oakland/Richmond, Portland, or Tacoma offloading facilities). The line parallels IL 1 south of Chicago, cutting over to follow US 41 north of Terre Haute and essentially following that U.S. route down to Atlanta; south of Macon it makes a "beeline" to Waycross, GA and then to distribution centers in and around Jacksonville.
While some of these heavy commercial rail corridors closely parallel Interstate routes, some don't. But it should be realized that besides connecting cities, rail lines run through areas featuring lack of gradients (trains don't function efficiently on grades exceeding 2%), many of which aren't necessarily parallel to Interstate corridors. But the function of these high-capacity rail lines -- the BNSF line between Amarillo and KC being an example of this -- is to expedite traffic between endpoints without much interaction with what's between those points, whereas Interstate routes function simultaneously as long-distance corridors and local arterials. It wasn't always that way; prior to most intercity roads being paved (circa WW II), railroads did duty (considered at the time "common carriers") in local
and long-distance service. But since 1980 (the passage of the
Staggers Act, which largely deregulated rail service) their local obligations have mostly been lifted, allowing the rail firms to concentrate on what they're most efficient at -- moving long trains of cargo long distances between set points. But since many of the routes traverse sparsely populated areas (like the BNSF "conveyor" between Amarillo and KC, passing through NW OK), deploying Interstates along those same corridors might not result in an AADT that would warrant their existence. Rule of thumb: if there isn't an Interstate along a heavily-trafficked rail corridor, there's usually a damn good reason why not. Of course, there are exceptions to this: DFW-Amarillo being one of the more prominent; also the "US 69" corridor from, again, DFW north to KC (although that subject has been exhaustively covered in various threads).
Quote from: briantroutman on August 01, 2018, 06:01:36 PMI don't get the US 66 fandom either.
Question: is there any participant in this thread that "doesn't get the US 66 fandom" who also lives or has lived west of Chicago and east of Los Angeles?
Quote from: jon daly on July 30, 2018, 02:32:53 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 27, 2018, 09:06:54 AM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 27, 2018, 03:59:22 AM
I've never really understood SP's antipathy toward Route 66...
Antipathy is not the right word. Probably the best is disregard.
The best evidence is to look at the traffic volumes. While the figures from the day are lost to history, the interstates that replaced it have their figures. Mostly I-55, 44, 40 and 15. And remember that a much LARGER %age of the populace, thanks to air conditioning, lives in the SW now than then.
And the numbers are? Mediocre. Not in the top 40. Grossly insignificant to the vast majority of Americans. A route number combining as one a regional road connecting Chicago and St. Louis, and another connecting St. Louis and, by connection to other routes, the middle part of the east, to LA, (although you do not have to be that far north or south of STL for an entirely different US route to be the way west) across a vast and mostly empty part of the country. Hardly the "mother road" or the "main street of America". Legitimate candidates for the actual "main street" of America in that era would include US 1, 2, 11, 40, 50, or 51 & 61.
I was looking at the map in the OP of this thread. It looks like the main way west out of Chicago doglegs to Nashville via I-65, then west on I-40.
BTW, whatever software this site uses puts the cursor in the middle of the quoted text when I quote posts. So I sometimes wind up putting my replies right smack dab in the middle of the body. It's mildly frustrating, but I'm learning how to overcome that obstacle and work around it.
Cargo isn't really going west from Chicago, and certainly not by truck. It's either coming from the west to Chicago (to be transported east by water), or being distributed in the region surrounding Chicago. Anything going out west, as previously pointed out, would be going in containers by rail on that busy BNSF line.
Route 66 is important because it connected the mythological "Heartland" of America to the promise of California. This doesn't have that much cultural relevance today, especially not east of the Appalachians, but it once was a very core aspect of general American culture.
As far as the arguement for/or against US 66's significance; there is a campaign to get "Route" 66 a National Historic Trail designation.
https://secure2.convio.net/nthp/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1301&utm_medium=paid+social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=route+66 (https://secure2.convio.net/nthp/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1301&utm_medium=paid+social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=route+66)
From their webpage...
QuoteAs our nation's first all-paved U.S. Highway System connecting the Midwest to California, it was the "road to opportunity" for hundreds of thousands of Americans escaping the devastation of the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. It also provided thousands of road crew jobs for workers unemployed during the Great Depression. Throughout World War II, critical troops, equipment, and supplies were transported on Route 66 to military bases across the country. And when the war ended, thousands of those troops traveled Route 66 back to their homes and families.
Over time, travelers began bypassing Route 66 for the Interstate, causing the independent businesses, rich roadside architecture, and kitschy landmarks and attractions that the roadway was known for to slowly diminish. By the 1960s, many communities and businesses along the route fell into deep decay...or disappeared entirely.
If you want to argue other routes were as, if not more, important than US 66, go right ahead. Just bring something more than personal recollections, to the debate.
Quote from: sparker on July 31, 2018, 04:59:55 AM
Quote from: jon daly on July 30, 2018, 08:02:53 PM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/829/41322265154_d5ecc713d2_b.jpg)
It's interesting to see I-82 in WA shown as a relatively heavily utilized commercial corridor -- but where does the traffic go once on to I-90?; neither direction of the latter route shows the dispersion of traffic from I-82. Also, indicating railroads in dark green and non-Interstate commercial corridors in light green may be a mistake; the substantial traffic on CA 58 from Barstow to Bakersfield may be hidden because of the closely parallel rail corridor (the dark green lines cover the light green ones); the same goes for US 395 from Pasco north to Ritzville, WA. Otherwise, this is a most useful map! :nod:
I think that's a map error. I-90 across Snoqualmie Pass is a somewhat major trucking corridor (fed in part by I-82), with a 2008 estimate putting it at 35 million tons of freight per year. Probably enough to register a thin line on this map.
Maybe someone should start a thread about highways other than Route 66 that are mentioned in songs.
Even though they got the terminology wrong, Smashmouth sang this in "Pacific Coat Party":
QuoteGet your motor running
California Interstate 1
Pacific Coast Party
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on August 05, 2018, 12:18:26 AM
Maybe someone should start a thread about highways other than Route 66 that are mentioned in songs.
Even though they got the terminology wrong, Smashmouth sang this in "Pacific Coat Party":
QuoteGet your motor running
California Interstate 1
Pacific Coast Party
There's already a thread on that somewhere.
Quote from: jon daly on July 19, 2018, 03:51:35 PM
Quote from: formulanone on July 19, 2018, 03:30:40 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 18, 2018, 12:25:48 PM
Sacramento is the largest city without a 3di is a misconception.
On the flip side, there's many Roadgeek Misconceptions: That anyone besides those in the hobby, in the direct career fields, or those involved with those related agencies...will actually care about...
- Hidden route designations / transportation agency doesn't bother to sign something
- Whether a sign is 100% MUTCD-compliant, ugly, or uses the wrong font
- Whether a route number is "out of the grid"
- Who pays for the route maintenance (it's always perceived to be the taxpayer).
Heh. I don't care about most of those things. What interests me is the historical evolution of roads; especially those near me.
I'm not sure if that makes me an outlier here, but this is only one of a number of interests I have. My wife thinks I'm not focused enough, but I'm working on a way to grandly unify or intersect my interest in roads, oil, sports, history, music et cetera.
That's me too. The intense interest in that minutiae in the community doesn't interest me at all.
Quote from: formulanone on July 19, 2018, 03:30:40 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 18, 2018, 12:25:48 PM
Sacramento is the largest city without a 3di is a misconception.
On the flip side, there's many Roadgeek Misconceptions: That anyone besides those in the hobby, in the direct career fields, or those involved with those related agencies...will actually care about...
- Hidden route designations / transportation agency doesn't bother to sign something
- Whether a sign is 100% MUTCD-compliant, ugly, or uses the wrong font
- Whether a route number is "out of the grid"
- Who pays for the route maintenance (it's always perceived to be the taxpayer).
I dunno, my friends typically find that stuff interesting, although I dunno if it's genuine interest, or if they have the patience of saints and feign interest to be nice. :-D They're also almost certainly not a cross-section of the general population, either (they all have their own intense interests, too).
Quote from: gilpdawg on August 12, 2018, 07:51:02 PM
Quote from: jon daly on July 19, 2018, 03:51:35 PM
Quote from: formulanone on July 19, 2018, 03:30:40 PM
Quote from: bing101 on July 18, 2018, 12:25:48 PM
Sacramento is the largest city without a 3di is a misconception.
On the flip side, there's many Roadgeek Misconceptions: That anyone besides those in the hobby, in the direct career fields, or those involved with those related agencies...will actually care about...
- Hidden route designations / transportation agency doesn't bother to sign something
- Whether a sign is 100% MUTCD-compliant, ugly, or uses the wrong font
- Whether a route number is "out of the grid"
- Who pays for the route maintenance (it's always perceived to be the taxpayer).
Heh. I don't care about most of those things. What interests me is the historical evolution of roads; especially those near me.
I'm not sure if that makes me an outlier here, but this is only one of a number of interests I have. My wife thinks I'm not focused enough, but I'm working on a way to grandly unify or intersect my interest in roads, oil, sports, history, music et cetera.
That's me too. The intense interest in that minutiae in the community doesn't interest me at all.
Same here. Think there's a difference between those whose interest is more "spectrum-y" and those whose interest is of a different sort.
Quote from: SP Cook on July 27, 2018, 09:06:54 AM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 27, 2018, 03:59:22 AM
I've never really understood SP's antipathy toward Route 66...
Antipathy is not the right word. Probably the best is disregard.
The best evidence is to look at the traffic volumes. While the figures from the day are lost to history, the interstates that replaced it have their figures. Mostly I-55, 44, 40 and 15. And remember that a much LARGER %age of the populace, thanks to air conditioning, lives in the SW now than then.
And the numbers are? Mediocre. Not in the top 40. Grossly insignificant to the vast majority of Americans. A route number combining as one a regional road connecting Chicago and St. Louis, and another connecting St. Louis and, by connection to other routes, the middle part of the east, to LA, (although you do not have to be that far north or south of STL for an entirely different US route to be the way west) across a vast and mostly empty part of the country. Hardly the "mother road" or the "main street of America". Legitimate candidates for the actual "main street" of America in that era would include US 1, 2, 11, 40, 50, or 51 & 61.
I'm reading Larry McMurtry's ROADS right now He wrote that "not many of the oldsters who drove route 66 in its heyday will be apt to wax nostalgic about it, for it was always a dangerous road, with much more traffic to carry than it could carry safely. Dead bodies in the bar ditch and smushed cars on wreckers were always common sights along old 66."
(P. 14.)
Quote from: jon daly on August 31, 2018, 12:42:21 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 27, 2018, 09:06:54 AM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 27, 2018, 03:59:22 AM
I've never really understood SP's antipathy toward Route 66...
Antipathy is not the right word. Probably the best is disregard.
The best evidence is to look at the traffic volumes. While the figures from the day are lost to history, the interstates that replaced it have their figures. Mostly I-55, 44, 40 and 15. And remember that a much LARGER %age of the populace, thanks to air conditioning, lives in the SW now than then.
And the numbers are? Mediocre. Not in the top 40. Grossly insignificant to the vast majority of Americans. A route number combining as one a regional road connecting Chicago and St. Louis, and another connecting St. Louis and, by connection to other routes, the middle part of the east, to LA, (although you do not have to be that far north or south of STL for an entirely different US route to be the way west) across a vast and mostly empty part of the country. Hardly the "mother road" or the "main street of America". Legitimate candidates for the actual "main street" of America in that era would include US 1, 2, 11, 40, 50, or 51 & 61.
I'm reading Larry McMurtry's ROADS right now He wrote that "not many of the oldsters who drove route 66 in its heyday will be apt to wax nostalgic about it, for it was always a dangerous road, with much more traffic to carry than it could carry safely. Dead bodies in the bar ditch and smushed cars on wreckers were always common sights along old 66."
(P. 14.)
That's the thing about nostalgia, rarely is it a "in the now" kind of thing. Now a great majority of the open segments of 66 are a breeze to drive with little to no traffic. In the modern view most people probably think of neon signs, cars from the 1950s, ghost towns, and possibly being mobbed by burros regarding 66 rather than the utilitarian purpose it served for so many.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2018, 12:45:52 PM
That's the thing about nostalgia, rarely is it a "in the now" kind of thing. Now a great majority of the open segments of 66 are a breeze to drive with little to no traffic. In the modern view most people probably think of neon signs, cars from the 1950s, ghost towns, and possibly being mobbed by burros regarding 66 rather than the utilitarian purpose it served for so many.
Imagine "waxing nostalgic" about the segments of US-1, US-17, US-301 and US-40 that preceded the route of I-95!
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2018, 03:50:58 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2018, 12:45:52 PM
That's the thing about nostalgia, rarely is it a "in the now" kind of thing. Now a great majority of the open segments of 66 are a breeze to drive with little to no traffic. In the modern view most people probably think of neon signs, cars from the 1950s, ghost towns, and possibly being mobbed by burros regarding 66 rather than the utilitarian purpose it served for so many.
Imagine "waxing nostalgic" about the segments of US-1, US-17, US-301 and US-40 that preceded the route of I-95!
But see, all those routes still exist as a parallel facility to the interstate (or run concurrent where there isn't a parallel route). Routes like 66 and 99 are completely gone, while routes like 80 and 91 have been drastically reduced. That didn't really happen in the east.
If the 66 designation had been kept for old alignments and business loops that were still state-maintained, 66 might not have gained its current position in popular culture. But really, how many other highways have had an entire song written about them? Not many.
Quote from: US 89 on August 31, 2018, 04:08:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2018, 03:50:58 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2018, 12:45:52 PM
That's the thing about nostalgia, rarely is it a "in the now" kind of thing. Now a great majority of the open segments of 66 are a breeze to drive with little to no traffic. In the modern view most people probably think of neon signs, cars from the 1950s, ghost towns, and possibly being mobbed by burros regarding 66 rather than the utilitarian purpose it served for so many.
Imagine "waxing nostalgic" about the segments of US-1, US-17, US-301 and US-40 that preceded the route of I-95!
But see, all those routes still exist as a parallel facility to the interstate (or run concurrent where there isn't a parallel route). Routes like 66 and 99 are completely gone, while routes like 80 and 91 have been drastically reduced. That didn't really happen in the east.
If the 66 designation had been kept for old alignments and business loops that were still state-maintained, 66 might not have gained its current position in popular culture. But really, how many other highways have had an entire song written about them? Not many.
Oddly I do have a lot of nostalgia to US 1 in the Florida Keys because I lived on it for awhile. With 66 I think a lot of the nostalgia more or less comes from the allure of the journey across the country and the adventure that entails. Granted you can say much of the same for Routes like US 40 and 50 but I think 66 had the right ingridents be it; end Point cities, points of interest, and geographic terrain which make it more memorable.
Quote from: US 89 on August 31, 2018, 04:08:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2018, 03:50:58 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2018, 12:45:52 PM
That's the thing about nostalgia, rarely is it a "in the now" kind of thing. Now a great majority of the open segments of 66 are a breeze to drive with little to no traffic. In the modern view most people probably think of neon signs, cars from the 1950s, ghost towns, and possibly being mobbed by burros regarding 66 rather than the utilitarian purpose it served for so many.
Imagine "waxing nostalgic" about the segments of US-1, US-17, US-301 and US-40 that preceded the route of I-95!
But see, all those routes still exist as a parallel facility to the interstate (or run concurrent where there isn't a parallel route). Routes like 66 and 99 are completely gone, while routes like 80 and 91 have been drastically reduced. That didn't really happen in the east.
If the 66 designation had been kept for old alignments and business loops that were still state-maintained, 66 might not have gained its current position in popular culture. But really, how many other highways have had an entire song written about them? Not many.
I'm surprised that there isn't much hoopla for US-6. A living, breathing (for the most part) route that runs/ran from L.A. to Cape Cod. A lot of history along that route. Maybe not as many old nor abandoned relics along that route noadays like the Mother Road, but still...
Quote from: US 89 on August 31, 2018, 04:08:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2018, 03:50:58 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2018, 12:45:52 PM
That's the thing about nostalgia, rarely is it a "in the now" kind of thing. Now a great majority of the open segments of 66 are a breeze to drive with little to no traffic. In the modern view most people probably think of neon signs, cars from the 1950s, ghost towns, and possibly being mobbed by burros regarding 66 rather than the utilitarian purpose it served for so many.
Imagine "waxing nostalgic" about the segments of US-1, US-17, US-301 and US-40 that preceded the route of I-95!
But see, all those routes still exist as a parallel facility to the interstate (or run concurrent where there isn't a parallel route). Routes like 66 and 99 are completely gone, while routes like 80 and 91 have been drastically reduced. That didn't really happen in the east.
If the 66 designation had been kept for old alignments and business loops that were still state-maintained, 66 might not have gained its current position in popular culture. But really, how many other highways have had an entire song written about them? Not many.
The only ones I can think of are Ventura Highway and Highway 61.
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2018, 03:50:58 PM
Imagine "waxing nostalgic" about the segments of US-1, US-17, US-301 and US-40 that preceded the route of I-95!
I used to work with someone who spoke often of the years before the Mountain Parkway was built, when traffic from the Big Sandy Valley area of Kentucky had to use US 460 to get to the central part of the state.
Quote from: US 89 on August 31, 2018, 04:08:30 PMRoutes like 66 and 99 are completely gone, while routes like 80 and 91 have been drastically reduced. That didn't really happen in the east.
I would argue that it should have happened in many cases, and still should happen. Look at the definition of what a United States Numbered Route is supposed to be and apply that definition to, say, US 11. Is it really the best route to take from New Orleans to Birmingham to Chattanooga to Knoxville to Roanoke to Harrisburg to Binghamton to Syracuse to Watertown? No, it isn't. Is there any harm in removing its multi-state designation in favor of a state route designation? No. Whether the road is called US 11 or VA 11 or even VA 245 (number chosen at random), it will still serve as a parallel route than can be used as a detour or alternate if necessary.
I don't wax nostalgic over the loss of US 227 in Kentucky, except for wishing I had taken photos of the signage in my youth. I have plenty of pictures of US 11 in Virginia to do me if the route is ever decertified or decommissioned.
Quote from: thenetwork on August 31, 2018, 05:59:31 PM
Quote from: US 89 on August 31, 2018, 04:08:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2018, 03:50:58 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2018, 12:45:52 PM
That's the thing about nostalgia, rarely is it a "in the now" kind of thing. Now a great majority of the open segments of 66 are a breeze to drive with little to no traffic. In the modern view most people probably think of neon signs, cars from the 1950s, ghost towns, and possibly being mobbed by burros regarding 66 rather than the utilitarian purpose it served for so many.
Imagine "waxing nostalgic" about the segments of US-1, US-17, US-301 and US-40 that preceded the route of I-95!
But see, all those routes still exist as a parallel facility to the interstate (or run concurrent where there isn't a parallel route). Routes like 66 and 99 are completely gone, while routes like 80 and 91 have been drastically reduced. That didn't really happen in the east.
If the 66 designation had been kept for old alignments and business loops that were still state-maintained, 66 might not have gained its current position in popular culture. But really, how many other highways have had an entire song written about them? Not many.
I'm surprised that there isn't much hoopla for US-6. A living, breathing (for the most part) route that runs/ran from L.A. to Cape Cod. A lot of history along that route. Maybe not as many old nor abandoned relics along that route noadays like the Mother Road, but still...
US 6 does have a decent following the more westward you get. Here in California US 6 gets a lot of attention due to the Sierra Highway alignment and CA 14U. In Nevada US 6 is one of the primary east/west highways in the state...even though it is remote as all hell. You also have the US Route 6 Tour Association which I was a member of for awhile:
http://www.route6tour.com/
PA has some attention to US 6 too, with those "Do 6" milemarkers along the road. I'm not aware of any other non-freeway in PA with milemarkers.
How about this myth; None of us would favor road improvements if we lived in their neighborhoods.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 09, 2018, 09:24:02 AM
How about this myth; None of us would favor road improvements if we lived in their neighborhoods.
Can't paint that one with too broad a brush: It would depend on the size/scope of "improvement" and the individual's situation.
Definitely. I can think of at least one improvement I would like to see specifically because it's not far from where I live and drive through the area nearly every day.
Quote from: thenetwork on August 31, 2018, 05:59:31 PMI'm surprised that there isn't much hoopla for US-6. A living, breathing (for the most part) route that runs/ran from L.A. to Cape Cod. A lot of history along that route. Maybe not as many old nor abandoned relics along that route noadays like the Mother Road, but still...
Yup. A good friend of mine lives one block off of US-6 just outside of Bowling Green, Ohio. He is not savvy enough to realize that he can get just about anywhere in the country and it all begins with going to the stop sign at the end of his street. :)
Quote from: Bruce on August 04, 2018, 01:18:21 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 31, 2018, 04:59:55 AM
It's interesting to see I-82 in WA shown as a relatively heavily utilized commercial corridor -- but where does the traffic go once on to I-90?; neither direction of the latter route shows the dispersion of traffic from I-82. Also, indicating railroads in dark green and non-Interstate commercial corridors in light green may be a mistake; the substantial traffic on CA 58 from Barstow to Bakersfield may be hidden because of the closely parallel rail corridor (the dark green lines cover the light green ones); the same goes for US 395 from Pasco north to Ritzville, WA. Otherwise, this is a most useful map! :nod:
I think that's a map error. I-90 across Snoqualmie Pass is a somewhat major trucking corridor (fed in part by I-82), with a 2008 estimate putting it at 35 million tons of freight per year. Probably enough to register a thin line on this map.
Guys. That's a rail line from the Tri-Cities to Spokane. It's green. That's rail traffic going east from Portland to the rest of the country via the rail line that follows the US2 corridor
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 19, 2018, 09:13:50 AM
Quote from: Bruce on August 04, 2018, 01:18:21 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 31, 2018, 04:59:55 AM
It's interesting to see I-82 in WA shown as a relatively heavily utilized commercial corridor -- but where does the traffic go once on to I-90?; neither direction of the latter route shows the dispersion of traffic from I-82. Also, indicating railroads in dark green and non-Interstate commercial corridors in light green may be a mistake; the substantial traffic on CA 58 from Barstow to Bakersfield may be hidden because of the closely parallel rail corridor (the dark green lines cover the light green ones); the same goes for US 395 from Pasco north to Ritzville, WA. Otherwise, this is a most useful map! :nod:
I think that's a map error. I-90 across Snoqualmie Pass is a somewhat major trucking corridor (fed in part by I-82), with a 2008 estimate putting it at 35 million tons of freight per year. Probably enough to register a thin line on this map.
Guys. That's a rail line from the Tri-Cities to Spokane. It's green. That's rail traffic going east from Portland to the rest of the country via the rail line that follows the US2 corridor
The original inquiry was about the moderately heavy
red line along I-82, which indicates reasonably heavy commercial traffic and the lack of a similar trace along I-90 west from Ellensburg (I-82 junction) to Seattle. And yes, the heavy dark green line extending SW from Spokane to the Tri-Cities is, of course, the main BNSF freight corridor across the Northwest -- but it is situated right next to US 395, which, from both AADT figures as well as my own experience, carries heavy commercial traffic bound for Portland from points in the upper Midwest (and vice-versa); and since the cartographers chose light green for non-Interstate corridors, the dark green of the adjoining rail line obscures any information about the highway. Incidentally, most of the volume on that BNSF line is westbound grain to be loaded onto oceangoing barges at the Port of Kalama near Kelso, WA (one of the few bright spots in our balance-of-trade with China, Japan, and Korea).
Quote from: renegade on September 09, 2018, 10:33:26 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 31, 2018, 05:59:31 PMI'm surprised that there isn't much hoopla for US-6. A living, breathing (for the most part) route that runs/ran from L.A. to Cape Cod. A lot of history along that route. Maybe not as many old nor abandoned relics along that route noadays like the Mother Road, but still...
Yup. A good friend of mine lives one block off of US-6 just outside of Bowling Green, Ohio. He is not savvy enough to realize that he can get just about anywhere in the country and it all begins with going to the stop sign at the end of his street. :)
There isn't any hoopla for US 6 here. Around here, US 6 is barely acknowledged and is almost always referred to as 159th Street. It's a arterial with a high density of stoplights, with no real historic points to find. It's a slow trip on 159th, Torrence, IN 51, and 37th Avenue. That's just the Chicagoland sections (excluding the I-80/94 overlap), though. The other parts I've driven have a much more rural feel to them and are much easier drives. That includes everything from near Wilton, IA to near Bryan, OH. It's far more likely to find something unique there.
I agree re: projects in our own neighborhoods. I have long dreamed of a complete overhaul of the nearest signalized intersection to my house.
That people auto drive 10-15 mph above the speed limit.
Quote from: jon daly on August 31, 2018, 06:49:40 PM
But really, how many other highways have had an entire song written about them? Not many.
The only ones I can think of are Ventura Highway and Highway 61.
[/quote]
US 1 in
Nothin' But the Rain - John Lincoln Wright
Takin' Old Route 1 is the name of the album.