AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
 1 
 on: Today at 03:26:05 AM 
Started by ZLoth - Last post by slorydn1
One of these years I'll migrate all of my pictures over to a new location, and in the case of a few threads where I absolutely know what picture I had posted (the I-42 thread would be a prime example) I'll re address those pictures so that they will work again. Other than that, I just don't have the time or the motivation to go through that kind of PITA, and I am not a programmer so any of those other quick fixes just wouldn't work for me.

 2 
 on: Today at 03:15:20 AM 
Started by KC - Last post by MNHighwayMan
Looking at your KC I-70 & 670 example, an aerial photo (from Google Earth) shows that both these highways are at least 6 to 8 lanes wide (totaling 12 to 14 lanes).

I would just like to point out that capacity does not necessarily mean that the road meets current needs. It's entirely possible (although, in this case, not likely) that 12-14 lanes is actually too many lanes for the actual volume of traffic.

I just want to clarify an assumption that seems likely to be made here.

 3 
 on: Today at 03:10:33 AM 
Started by Alex - Last post by GenExpwy
NY generally doesn't update reference markers.  Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it's not supposed to.  Part of I-390 near Wayland still has 245 markers, and part of NY 151 and all of Third Ave Ext (a reference route) say 43.  Meanwhile, most markers in Wayne County (47) use county code 37, and Tioga (97) still uses 65.

The reason for this is because accident reports are tied to the reference marker, so the marker in the field needs to stay correlated with any past reports.

I agree with cl94 that the Region Office has a lot to do with this. For I-390 between Wayland and Dansville, the Steuben County [Region 6] section still uses 245, while the Livingston County [Region 4] section switched from 245 and 36 to 390I (around 1980 or so, when the rest of 390 was built, not in the early ’70s when 390 was first designated).

Another thing is the 1000 marker, right at the county line. NY 245 back then was an east-west route, so the 245  **** 1000 marker was, and still is, Steuben County’s. As a north-south route, a 390I **** 1000 marker would be Livingston County’s. I imagine it would be a real bureaucratic nightmare to “transfer a county line” from one region to another like that :hmmm:

 4 
 on: Today at 03:07:11 AM 
Started by webny99 - Last post by MNHighwayMan
Utah's lieutenant governor Spencer Cox lives in Fairview UT and commutes every day to Salt Lake City, 100 miles each way.

 :-D As if politicians actually have a daily long commute.

 5 
 on: Today at 02:41:46 AM 
Started by bandit957 - Last post by sparker
I do not see why it still cannot be a Parkway despite the interstates.

Also is the Western Kentucky solo east of I-69 ever to become I-66?  If I remember that correctly the current I-69 on the Western Kentucky would have been a two interstate concurrency along with I-24 having a three interstate concurrency.

I heard it was dead for lack of support, but it Kentucky still going to keep the possibility alive though?

The settled I-66 corridor followed the Cumberland Parkway, and then the Natcher, to intersect the WK. There was a discussion about using the Hal Rogers and Cumberland vs. I-64 and the Bluegrass, and in the end the southern route won.

IIRC, the Natcher/WKY I-66 routing was suggested (particularly after the combination WKY/Pennyrile alignment was chosen for I-69) but never finalized.  And now that the Natcher is legally designated as future I-165; that in itself would tend to indicate that the nails are ready for the coffin regarding that alignment for I-66 west of I-65.  Perhaps the originally conceived alignment along US 68/KY 80 might be resurrected at least as far west as I-24.

And I certainly agree with HB's oft-expressed sentiment that any I-66 (or other) extension in the western tip of the state should include a direct bridge into MO from somewhere in the Wickliffe area.   

 6 
 on: Today at 02:33:30 AM 
Started by Buck87 - Last post by MisterSG1
I hate shootouts, but it seemed the USA women controlled the OT and deserved the Gold.

I’ll say that even speaking as a Canadian. And I congratulate the US Women’s hockey team in the game.

This was the first Olympic game the Canadian Women lost since the gold medal game against the US back at Nagano ‘98.

 7 
 on: Today at 02:24:48 AM 
Started by jpm - Last post by sparker
You do paint a positive picture on it. Time will tell. I'm not sure whether I'd like to see efforts placed on this or extension of I-40, but the high desert needs some love ASAP! I am very skeptical of the ExpressWest HSR proposal even more so than I am of the LA to SF HSR project which I don't think will happen.

The LA to SF HSR project is on thin ice politically; whether it survives into the next gubernatorial term will depend upon the whims of whomever occupies that office; none of the leading candidates seem to be as committed to the project as Brown is; the likely question will be how to best utilize the Valley portion currently under construction.  As far as the ExpressWest connection to a Vegas-serving HSR, the latter has always been a roller-coaster ride, largely dependent upon Nevada money (which seems to run hot and cold almost randomly).  Neither major project is a sure bet; a dependent connector between the two is even less so.  But reserving a space in the median for some sort of rail on a relatively flat alignment such as this isn't a terrible idea; as I've iterated before, a more conventional sort of rail -- whether a commuter line, freight reliever, or both -- could readily be deployed even after the roadway portion was in service.  It also seems that this project is completely independent of the CA 58 efforts some thirty miles north; that tends to serve a more interregional and/or commercial purpose than the "E-220" corridor; its provision of access to Northern California (via Tehachapi Summit) sets it apart from the rationale for the shorter corridor.     

 8 
 on: Today at 02:17:03 AM 
Started by Buck87 - Last post by davewiecking
I hate shootouts, but it seemed the USA women controlled the OT and deserved the Gold.

 9 
 on: Today at 02:02:45 AM 
Started by jpm - Last post by Plutonic Panda
You do paint a positive picture on it. Time will tell. I'm not sure whether I'd like to see efforts placed on this or extension of I-40, but the high desert needs some love ASAP! I am very skeptical of the ExpressWest HSR proposal even more so than I am of the LA to SF HSR project which I don't think will happen.

 10 
 on: Today at 01:36:07 AM 
Started by jpm - Last post by sparker
I think the preferred alternative is a toll road concept that has parts of it being free to use. I support the entire thing being a freeway just to have a better freeway network.

The components of this are HSR and a bike trail.

Project homepage: https://www.metro.net/projects/high-desert-corridor/

I've been following this project with high hopes it gets built. The final EIRS was released last fall.

Final EIRS: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d7/env-docs/docs/hdc/

Who says this will get built? I am getting a little worried projects like and the 710 South expansion will get scaled back or even canceled with the current anti-freeway sentiment in California.

With the mixed track record of SoCal toll facilities, this project -- while preliminarily considered to be a tolled facility -- could be shifted to a standard freeway project by the time construction actually starts in the early-to-mid 2020's.  As far as the rail component is concerned, while the west end of the project does correspond with the proposed HSR route, it also is the location of the Lancaster branch of the Metrorail commuter network; if HSR "bites the dust" or otherwise fades into oblivion, the ROW reserved for rail (presumably the median) could conceivably become a Metrorail extension out to Victorville (BNSF has shown no inclination to host an extension of the San Bernardino Metrorail line over Cajon Pass to the Victorville area, primarily due to the sheer amount of freight traffic over that line -- a train each way at about 20-30 minute intervals -- essentially 24/7!).   

There seem to be interests lined up to support this corridor -- from Vegas honchos who've always supported ways to make access to their attractions easier, to the developers looking for a place to slap down housing (this region has historically been among the more affordable areas of SoCal), and to San Bernardino County officials, who need a shiny new project such as this to draw attention away from the fiscal problems endemic to Inland Empire cities -- particularly the namesake county seat.  And being that it's on the "wrong side of the mountains" and out of the line of fire of most of the region's urban activist core (and has bike & rail components), it's likely to be the one new-terrain project that'll get traction in the area. 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.