AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

 on: Today at 05:55:58 AM 
Started by TheBox - Last post by sparker
Quote from: sparker
Any of the suggestions, from a suffixed I-10 all the way to I-18 (save 14!) would work; the I-grid's been busted too many times to be worrisome except to extreme anal retentives (those that can't decide if they need a psychiatrist or a proctologist!).

Given Texas' history with highways over the past 20-30 years, odds are strong if US-290 and/or TX-71 were upgraded to Interstate standards between Austin and Houston/I-10 the freeways would retain their current numbers rather than gain Interstate designations. The same might go for any new freeway "spokes" between I-35 and I-10 between San Antonio and Austin.

Quote from: sparker
But the designation is secondary; Job #1 is getting some solid and consistent backing at all levels -- local, state, and national via the regional congressfolks -- for such a corridor's development in the first place.  First thing -- venture a bit north and talk to appropriate folks from Bryan, Temple, and Killeen and pick up some pointers about getting a new corridor into the system.

I think any congratulatory overtures to backers of I-14 are premature. The only thing of substance that has been accomplished so far is renaming an existing short freeway in the Killeen-Copperas Cove-Fort Hood area as I-14. There is little in the way of actual new construction taking place anywhere else that I-14 has been proposed. Even easy tasks, such as adding a second pair of lanes to the existing Super 2 bypass around the South side of Copperas Cove appear to be on the back burner. There are various proposals for snaking I-14 across the "Texas Triangle," but none are final.

Meanwhile rapid growth is happening elsewhere in Texas. That activity does its own thing to incite highway improvements.

The successful feat of the I-14 backers to date has been to get the corridor on the federal books in the first place.  The signage of US 190 in the Killeen area as I-14 was simply as an exercise to publicize that corridor; actually building it out fully was never a task that was projected to happen overnight.   Those backers had a plan and got it noticed -- period.  What happens after that depends upon follow-through and circumstance.   Unless there's quite a bit of existing Interstate-grade or near to that along the corridor's length there will invariably be delays while negotiations regarding routing and ROW acquisition take place; except for a bit of TX 6 in the State College/Bryan area, everything between I-35 and I-45 is functionally "virgin territory".  I-14's backers therefore have a tougher row to hoe than other in-state corridors with considerable upgradeable or existing mileage, such as I-69/69E/69C.  However, that doesn't diminish my admiration for the way the corridor proponents were able to carve a cohesive plan out of a previously "scattershot" set of concepts, and get it on the TX radar.   The P2P is more of a mixed bag -- while there is considerable divided highway between San Angelo and Lubbock, only some of it is appropriate for "re-use" as an Interstate facility; the rest will require either a full rebuild or a parallel new-terrain alignment.   Also -- the basic P2P concept has been around for nearly 30 years; the I-14 corridor in its present form was germinated less than ten years ago; it's likely the older corridor concept will reach some form of realization considerably sooner than the more recent effort. 

 on: Today at 04:15:19 AM 
Started by KCRoadFan - Last post by bcroadguy
Streetview hasn't been updated there since 2015, but Charlottetown, PEI is the only place in Canada I'm aware of that might still have any, including at this awful franken-intersection.

They seem to have replaced almost every single pedestrian signal in town since then, but Regina, Saskatchewan still had at least one in 2009.

There might some more Canadian examples, but these are the only ones I've happened to see on Streetview.

 on: Today at 03:51:59 AM 
Started by MCRoads - Last post by bcroadguy
Are illuminated chevrons a thing anywhere else?

 on: Today at 03:47:35 AM 
Started by roadman65 - Last post by bcroadguy
You know you're in Washington when you see Bott's dots and a small yellow curb instead of a double yellow line


 on: Today at 03:41:50 AM 
Started by Roadgeekteen - Last post by bcroadguy
Good guesses (even you, Jakeroot) but nope!

 on: Today at 02:54:14 AM 
Started by Mergingtraffic - Last post by jp the roadgeek
Any sings of new exit numbers yet?

Negative, at least between I-95 and Exit 15.  Everything new to the north is getting existing numbers put on for now.

Iíve driven Route 9 north of I-91 this week and other than the number on the Willow Brook, no new signage has been posted in the last couple weeks.  Same with Route 72 (the preview of coming attractions at Corbin Ave is over for now).

 on: Today at 02:48:33 AM 
Started by Desert Man - Last post by tolbs17
It's so hot my tits are sticking to my thighs.

 on: Today at 02:47:08 AM 
Started by ZLoth - Last post by Bruce
Well, add another to the list.

Listening to OPB this morning, and hear there's a chlorine shortage due to a plant issue in Longview, WA that supplies a lot of chlorine to the state. 

Certain cities in Oregon are urging people to conserve water as a preventative measure.

It's a little crazy to have one point of failure like this.

Anacortes is starting to conserve water, while other utilities have a 2-week supply on hand.

 on: Today at 02:40:33 AM 
Started by KEK Inc. - Last post by Jet380
Georgia, for a 2-lane onramp, normally installs a mast arm and mounts the ramp meters on there. There are 2 overhead ramp meters for each lane because GA uses staggered release in those situations. Georgia did request an MUTCD interpretation from FHWA regarding the number and positioning of ramp meters for multi-lane onramps with staggered release; they have generally followed that interpretation. https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_294.htm


Funnily enough, at the other onramp at that interchange, they seem to have changed it from two signals per lane to just one. Have a look the historical images here: https://goo.gl/maps/yjf3jrVzxBNgJNvGA

For an overseas perspective, the newly-installed meters here in Perth all use 8-8-8 signals.


Interestingly, they have done their best to imitate US-style signals with some features not found at other traffic lights in Perth. For example, the ramp meters generally have far-side gantries with multiple signal faces, whereas at normal intersections, overhead signals are rare and are generally near-side with only one signal face.

Our ramp meters are also operated a bit differently. During metering, the signals go through the full G-Y-R but with a comically short yellow. Staggered starts are not used at all, so it is left to motorists to figure out who should go in front. Does anywhere in the US operate this way?

 on: Today at 02:39:48 AM 
Started by KCRoadFan - Last post by ran4sh
I strongly believe the right turn should be listed first, as thatís how it works when there are two separate exits.

I guess that the justification for doing it the opposite way (left on top) is to match the directional sign posted on the ramp (assuming a simple diamond interchange or any other ramp type that doesn't turn 180 degrees), which per the MUTCD a destination to the left should be above a destination to the right.

But I agree with you, but probably because I've only seen right on top (and not left on top).

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.