AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 1 
 on: Today at 01:18:35 AM 
Started by pdx-wanderer - Last post by JasonOfORoads
These are awesome! I just wish they were in higher resolution. I'd love to be able to make out some signage.

 2 
 on: Today at 01:15:36 AM 
Started by Bickendan - Last post by JasonOfORoads
Note to self: Get photos of 217 along this stretch, plus the interchanges, before construction. There's a lingering button copy sign EB on Allen at the onramp to 217 NB that will not likely survive construction.

Also, I would imagine they keep the exit number southbound as 2B because that's the least impactful change. Although they could renumber 2A to 2, Denney NB from 3 to 3B, Allen Blvd. NB from 2B to 3A, and the new combo exit gets 3 SB.

Finally, I remember a news story when I was a kid on KATU IIRC about how ODOT misspelled "Denney" on one of the two SB BGSs as "Denny", and that they were going to fix it. Anyone else remember that? I really wish I knew when that was and that I could go hunt down a photo of the signs. I think it happened before 217 got exit numbers c. 1995.

 3 
 on: Today at 12:53:14 AM 
Started by hbelkins - Last post by D-Dey65
Nothing can make me lose interest in roadgeeking. I was into it long before I was old enough to drive. Unfortunately, seeing many should've been built road projects being abandoned and demolished has only made me feel disgusted about them not being built, and isolated over it.


 4 
 on: Today at 12:47:03 AM 
Started by hbelkins - Last post by DandyDan
I could turn into my dad and get really interested in trains, old rail stations and abandoned rail lines, plus other aspects of the railroad business I can't think about at the moment.

 5 
 on: Today at 12:43:14 AM 
Started by 74/171FAN - Last post by Beltway
None of the DEIS western sub-alternates between the US-220 bypass and just north of the county line had an alignment like that, they were at or west of US-220.
I've mentioned numerous of times this was my conceptual alignment. In that regard, it would work.

How would it work?  How can you say something can "work" without your doing detailed engineering analysis?  If it would "work" then why didn't it make one of the many sub-alternates in the DEIS? 

That is not how things work, it is a joint effort to route a new highway while taking into consideration current and proposed development patterns.
Correct. If you already have infrastructure there, you should want a new highway to pass it. If you plan for something there, you should want a new highway to pass it. But don't purposely build assuming the highway will go there. If the development is already there, or you want development, understandable. But I'm pretty sure that industrial park was built recently assuming that I-73 would stroke the northern end of it.

There can be a long lead time for a highway to get built, and likewise the same for major developments.  One or the other could get delayed for various reasons.  Nevertheless they try to plan as much as possible.  That is why county governments have comprehensive plans, some try to forecast for 20 years or more.

They are proposing a much greater buildout than what has been built.  If the highway is delayed then the full buildout may be delayed, and maybe indefinitely.

Why such intense focus on routing I-73 west of the city when all 4 southern municipalities requested it to the east and the CTB approved that?  Do you own a large tract of land west of town?
Let's see, at this point I'm a NE NC economic development lobbyist and I own a large tract west of town. I push these things the same reason you do - you believe and want one thing, I want another. We can bicker and argue about it all day and night, but the fact is we both have a difference of opinion.
I could go back and say you have an intense focus on telling me everything wrong with my concepts, opinions, or thoughts, but I don't.

It was a question and not a statement.  Of course there are plenty of roadgeeks here that simply like to argue about roads and that is what motivates them.

And at an urban bottleneck.  A poor connection compared to an excellent connection.
Yes, an urban bottleneck because of traffic signals and businesses. And aren't you proposing to add another urban bottleneck along the US-220 Bypass by removing access controls and adding traffic signals, businesses, etc? That will lead to growth, more traffic, and congestion that may not exist now, but will in the future.

I said that it can be -considered-, pending traffic and development studies.  I would tend to believe that if I-73 is built that most of US-220 will be in the 5,000 to 8,000 AADT range and with about 10% large trucks.  If that is the case and the bypasses are converted to at-grade highways then there would be no bottlenecks and more businesses could be added.  But the traffic studies might prove otherwise.

 6 
 on: Today at 12:42:46 AM 
Started by hbelkins - Last post by Beltway
It has been 50 years now.  I don't see anything that would decrease the interest.

 7 
 on: Today at 12:32:51 AM 
Started by hbelkins - Last post by Duke87
One common cause of me losing interest in anything in life is reaching a point where I have exhausted the possibilities within it, or at least reaching a point where there are increasingly diminishing returns to continuing further, and it stops being fun.

This has already manifested itself for me in terms of roadgeeking in one key way: I've finished the entire state highway systems in MA, RI, CT, NJ, and in the downstate portion of NY. As such, I've stopped going on trips that are purely clinchathons - because I've tapped out my ability to clinch any significant new mileage without at least one overnight stay away from home, and if I have to spend money on a hotel it ceases being worthwhile to me.

I do still make a point of clinching roads whenever I have some other reason to be away from home overnight and can reasonably work it in, but it is now an opportunistic activity rather than a targeted one.

 8 
 on: Today at 12:04:14 AM 
Started by 74/171FAN - Last post by sprjus4
None of the DEIS western sub-alternates between the US-220 bypass and just north of the county line had an alignment like that, they were at or west of US-220.
I've mentioned numerous of times this was my conceptual alignment. In that regard, it would work.

That is not how things work, it is a joint effort to route a new highway while taking into consideration current and proposed development patterns.
Correct. If you already have infrastructure there, you should want a new highway to pass it. If you plan for something there, you should want a new highway to pass it. But don't purposely build assuming the highway will go there. If the development is already there, or you want development, understandable. But I'm pretty sure that industrial park was built recently assuming that I-73 would stroke the northern end of it.

Why such intense focus on routing I-73 west of the city when all 4 southern municipalities requested it to the east and the CTB approved that?  Do you own a large tract of land west of town?
Let's see, at this point I'm a NE NC economic development lobbyist and I own a large tract west of town. I push these things the same reason you do - you believe and want one thing, I want another. We can bicker and argue about it all day and night, but the fact is we both have a difference of opinion.

I could go back and say you have an intense focus on telling me everything wrong with my concepts, opinions, or thoughts, but I don't.

And at an urban bottleneck.  A poor connection compared to an excellent connection.
Yes, an urban bottleneck because of traffic signals and businesses. And aren't you proposing to add another urban bottleneck along the US-220 Bypass by removing access controls and adding traffic signals, businesses, etc? That will lead to growth, more traffic, and congestion that may not exist now, but will in the future.

 9 
 on: January 21, 2019, 11:54:02 PM 
Started by 1995hoo - Last post by jeffandnicole
But is it even POSSIBLE to reasonably implement a mileage tax?  Either everything goes to your home jurisdiction no matter what, or some centralized tracking method is needed.
Virginia requires annual safety inspections, so I don't see why they couldn't simply log the odometer each year and calculate the tax from that...

But what if I was In Idaho with my car for 11 months during that year? VA gets the money even though I drove in another state the entire time.
For the same reason you'd still be paying income and property tax back to the Commonwealth of Virginia even though you've been mostly using other state's services? I can't see this being a common use case.

If you own property in VA, the tax is for that property. There's still services that assist you even if you're not in the house. The police will still come; trash will still be picked up, etc (ie: you rent the house).

Income tax, depending on the state, isn't the same thing either. You may wind up paying income tax to Idaho but crediting it against your VA tax return.

Idaho wouldn't be happy they won't receive gas tax revenue because it's going to VA.

 10 
 on: January 21, 2019, 11:37:18 PM 
Started by Avalanchez71 - Last post by DandyDan
One more from Minnesota, since I was up there this weekend. MN 55 and I-94. The Olson Memorial Highway section westward to North Dakota should keep the MN 55 designation, but the Hiawatha Avenue section eastward to Hastings should get renumbered, probably to MN 155.


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.