Recent posts

#1

Sports / Re: Arizona Coyotes players ap...

Last post by JayhawkCO - Today at 10:44:34 AM

Yes, yes, it snows "everywhere" at some point.  You know what I meant.

Not really.

#2

Sports / Re: Arizona Coyotes players ap...

Last post by triplemultiplex - Today at 10:36:46 AM

Yes, yes, it snows "everywhere" at some point.  You know what I meant.

#3

Southeast / Re: Florida

Last post by D-Dey65 - Today at 10:34:23 AM

This is the first reference to SR 516 that I've seen...is it part of a proposed beltway for Clermont or just a connector between US 27 and SR 429? Seems to be a puzzling location for now.

Just a connector. US 27 has gone to shit and there are no good connections to 429 between 192 and 50.

This is why US 27 should be upgraded into a limited-access highway at least between US 192 and 50, instead of building all the other crap they're building around there. I'd almost consider extending the upgrade to I-4.

IMHO, if anything is in need of an upgrade, it's US-27 south of I-4 and north of the new Toll 516 connector. It appears that your proposal would do a similar job to what 516, 429, and I-4 express will do, provided that they work properly in tandem. What do you think?

That wouldn't be such a bad idea either, although I'm not sure how far south the upgrade should go. I'd be willing to consider as far south as SR 60. South of that, while there's certainly some suburban sprawl, I'm not sure the traffic gets bad enough to require turning the road into a limited-access highway.

#4

Great Lakes and Ohio Valley / Re: Ohio

Last post by GCrites - Today at 10:24:36 AM

Yeah Ohio (at least) can change grasses during projects to cut down on future mowing.

#5

Southeast / Re: Interstate 73/74

Last post by jdunlop - Today at 10:16:50 AM

FHWA requires full movement at all Interstate interchanges (with very few exceptions) hence the redundant ramps.

Is this something introduced in the last 15-20 years, in which the interstate-to-interstate connection must include direct ramps between all directions?

I ask this because I can think of many interstate-to-interstate junctions that don't have this, usually a bypass route and its parent (i.e. for a California example, I-405 and I-5 at both ends in Sylmar and Irvine respectively, in which Route 118 and Route 133 serve the missing movements nearby).

There are some examples of Interstate-to-interstate in North Carolina that do not have this:

I-40/former I-85 (US 29) in Greensboro, in which the missing 85 north to 40 west move was covered by US 220. Junction was built when both routes were Interstates, before the Greensboro urban loop/I-840 happened

I-285/I-85 in Lexington, grandfathered in as I-285 was not originally interstate.  Standard Y junction

I-40/I-840/I-85 in eastern Greensboro, I-40 east from the Death Valley section does not have any ramp to 85 south

I-795 and I-587, though the Interstate designations came after both freeways were originally constructed.

I should have said new interchanges, not retrofits.  And I don't know when FHWA 'changed the directive.

There's a good number of interchanges built 30+ years ago where a minor movement was directed to another route/interchange.  You mentioned the I-40/old I-85 one in Greensboro.  We had to provide a justification when naming I-285 to not have to build the missing movements as direct ramps (using NC 47 to provide those minor movements.)  There's other examples of this (non-interstate to interstate interchanges as well.)

 For some, no such connections are needed even when reconstructing the interchange, but for others (primarily interstate to interstate) those connections may need to be built.  The I-40/I-26 interchange was missing two movements; once the project is finally let, those two movements will be built.

The interstate to interstate movements must be direct, ( no surface streets/signals/stop signs.). I-295 north of Fayetteville had to be named NC 295 until a direct ramp from I-95N to I-295W (exit 58) could be built (it's under construction now.). FHWA was OK with the indirect movement when it was designed (early-mid '90s) but changed their mind around the time that segment was built.  (possible new regs or just a change in decision makers)

#6

Great Lakes and Ohio Valley / Re: Madison Area

Last post by triplemultiplex - Today at 10:07:27 AM

Raymond Road is such a random-ass place to have the first traffic light since Dubuque. I can forgive not replacing the SPUI at the beltline. At least that makes some sense to permanently end the expressway there even if it's not what I'd rather see, but really at a road that isn't even on the NHS?

It is the new crash hot spot in the city.  I don't go that way daily or anything, but even I've seen at least two crashes there in the last year.  Both looked like rear-enders.

#7

General Highway Talk / Re: What's the Closest Interst...

Last post by thspfc - Today at 10:04:51 AM

Either I-88 (IL) or I-280 (IL/IA)

#8

Off-Topic / Re: Minor things that bother y...

Last post by Max Rockatansky - Today at 09:35:28 AM

Horse people in general have issues with roads.  We have video of Horse Eye's thought process while pondering initiating the latest purge of road related articles on Wikipedia.

#9

Great Lakes and Ohio Valley / Re: Ohio

Last post by seicer - Today at 09:28:55 AM

I think NYSDOT's rural highways tend to be better landscaped than others - but some of those efforts were because of budget cuts to grass cuttings. I can't find the article that supports that, but NYSDOT found a benefit in reducing mowings of its wide right-of-ways in allowing natural grasses and wildflowers to flourish.

#10

Off-Topic / Re: Minor things that bother y...

Last post by Big John - Today at 09:22:08 AM

Does anybody know anything about the feud between "AAARoads" and "Horse Eye's Back" on Wikipedia? Because "Horse Eye's Back" is tagging a lot of articles as not meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even lists of roads.

What does the third A stand for?