News:

why is this up in the corner now

Main Menu

Interstate 11

Started by Interstate Trav, April 28, 2011, 12:58:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

DenverBrian

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 28, 2024, 04:00:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 28, 2024, 02:19:53 PMDoes anyone think the US 93 corridor between Interstate 40 and Wickenburg would be adequate if they just widened the remaining two-lane portions to four lanes and left it at that instead of converting the corridor into Interstate 11 (terminating 11 at Interstate 40 in Kingman)? I doubt that will actually happen, but the land US 93 passes through south of Interstate 40 is very vacant, so upgrading the corridor will not warrant significant relocation of homes and businesses (except around Wikieup where a small bypass will be needed, and within Wickenburg where a realignment would occur before reaching the city limits).

There is no need whatsoever for I-11 to be built/upgraded from US 93 south of I-40.  Most of the land is ranches, each of which would need its own access road/ramp.  They could do like I-40 in Texas and allow at-grade turnoffs, but that's supposed to be a no-no. 

There are only 3 state highways along that whole stretch:  AZ 97, AZ 71, and AZ 89, north to south. The latter two are already interchanges that could be upgraded, while 97 is merely an access highway to AZ 96, which goes from Bagdad to Hillside (and continues as a gravel county road from there to 89) and is also connected to a county road that is a back way to Prescott.  Not much traffic on it.

Completing the 4-lane segments of 93 with at-grade ranch turnoffs and no bypass at Wikieup will serve just fine. But we know it won't happen because of the I-8 to US 93 freeway segment (originally Loop 404, now part of proposed I-11) that is needed.  They'll sign the whole thing I-11.
I see nothing wrong with segments of I-11 having a few at-grade ranch turnoffs, especially with precedent along similar ultra-rural stretches of other interstates in the West.


KeithE4Phx

Quote from: DenverBrian on June 28, 2024, 05:49:51 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 28, 2024, 04:00:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 28, 2024, 02:19:53 PMDoes anyone think the US 93 corridor between Interstate 40 and Wickenburg would be adequate if they just widened the remaining two-lane portions to four lanes and left it at that instead of converting the corridor into Interstate 11 (terminating 11 at Interstate 40 in Kingman)? I doubt that will actually happen, but the land US 93 passes through south of Interstate 40 is very vacant, so upgrading the corridor will not warrant significant relocation of homes and businesses (except around Wikieup where a small bypass will be needed, and within Wickenburg where a realignment would occur before reaching the city limits).

There is no need whatsoever for I-11 to be built/upgraded from US 93 south of I-40.  Most of the land is ranches, each of which would need its own access road/ramp.  They could do like I-40 in Texas and allow at-grade turnoffs, but that's supposed to be a no-no. 

There are only 3 state highways along that whole stretch:  AZ 97, AZ 71, and AZ 89, north to south. The latter two are already interchanges that could be upgraded, while 97 is merely an access highway to AZ 96, which goes from Bagdad to Hillside (and continues as a gravel county road from there to 89) and is also connected to a county road that is a back way to Prescott.  Not much traffic on it.

Completing the 4-lane segments of 93 with at-grade ranch turnoffs and no bypass at Wikieup will serve just fine. But we know it won't happen because of the I-8 to US 93 freeway segment (originally Loop 404, now part of proposed I-11) that is needed.  They'll sign the whole thing I-11.

I see nothing wrong with segments of I-11 having a few at-grade ranch turnoffs, especially with precedent along similar ultra-rural stretches of other interstates in the West.

Neither do I, but some folks take serious offense to an Interstate that has at-grade intersections, even if they're for ranch or DOT maintenance turnoffs.  At-grade intersections are supposedly "against the rules" for Interstates.
"Oh, so you hate your job? Well, why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called "EVERYBODY!" They meet at the bar." -- Drew Carey

Scott5114

I remember Texas had concerns that FHWA wouldn't allow I-69(W/C/E/J/Æ/ :colorful: /💩) to have the at-grade ranch turnoffs like they have on I-10 and I-40. So they were looking at doing something where there was basically a wide shoulder on the side the ranch road is on, and making it into an "exit/entrance ramp" with paint. (Then I guess if they wanted to go the other way they could use the next U-turn crossover and the cops could just kind of look the other way.)

Something like that would work for I-11 too.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

kkt

Quote from: DenverBrian on June 28, 2024, 05:49:51 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 28, 2024, 04:00:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 28, 2024, 02:19:53 PMDoes anyone think the US 93 corridor between Interstate 40 and Wickenburg would be adequate if they just widened the remaining two-lane portions to four lanes and left it at that instead of converting the corridor into Interstate 11 (terminating 11 at Interstate 40 in Kingman)? I doubt that will actually happen, but the land US 93 passes through south of Interstate 40 is very vacant, so upgrading the corridor will not warrant significant relocation of homes and businesses (except around Wikieup where a small bypass will be needed, and within Wickenburg where a realignment would occur before reaching the city limits).

There is no need whatsoever for I-11 to be built/upgraded from US 93 south of I-40.  Most of the land is ranches, each of which would need its own access road/ramp.  They could do like I-40 in Texas and allow at-grade turnoffs, but that's supposed to be a no-no. 

There are only 3 state highways along that whole stretch:  AZ 97, AZ 71, and AZ 89, north to south. The latter two are already interchanges that could be upgraded, while 97 is merely an access highway to AZ 96, which goes from Bagdad to Hillside (and continues as a gravel county road from there to 89) and is also connected to a county road that is a back way to Prescott.  Not much traffic on it.

Completing the 4-lane segments of 93 with at-grade ranch turnoffs and no bypass at Wikieup will serve just fine. But we know it won't happen because of the I-8 to US 93 freeway segment (originally Loop 404, now part of proposed I-11) that is needed.  They'll sign the whole thing I-11.
I see nothing wrong with segments of I-11 having a few at-grade ranch turnoffs, especially with precedent along similar ultra-rural stretches of other interstates in the West.

Then again, I see nothing wrong with upgrading US 93 to be mostly freeway either.

KeithE4Phx

Quote from: kkt on June 29, 2024, 06:24:40 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on June 28, 2024, 05:49:51 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 28, 2024, 04:00:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 28, 2024, 02:19:53 PMDoes anyone think the US 93 corridor between Interstate 40 and Wickenburg would be adequate if they just widened the remaining two-lane portions to four lanes and left it at that instead of converting the corridor into Interstate 11 (terminating 11 at Interstate 40 in Kingman)? I doubt that will actually happen, but the land US 93 passes through south of Interstate 40 is very vacant, so upgrading the corridor will not warrant significant relocation of homes and businesses (except around Wikieup where a small bypass will be needed, and within Wickenburg where a realignment would occur before reaching the city limits).

There is no need whatsoever for I-11 to be built/upgraded from US 93 south of I-40.  Most of the land is ranches, each of which would need its own access road/ramp.  They could do like I-40 in Texas and allow at-grade turnoffs, but that's supposed to be a no-no. 

There are only 3 state highways along that whole stretch:  AZ 97, AZ 71, and AZ 89, north to south. The latter two are already interchanges that could be upgraded, while 97 is merely an access highway to AZ 96, which goes from Bagdad to Hillside (and continues as a gravel county road from there to 89) and is also connected to a county road that is a back way to Prescott.  Not much traffic on it.

Completing the 4-lane segments of 93 with at-grade ranch turnoffs and no bypass at Wikieup will serve just fine. But we know it won't happen because of the I-8 to US 93 freeway segment (originally Loop 404, now part of proposed I-11) that is needed.  They'll sign the whole thing I-11.

I see nothing wrong with segments of I-11 having a few at-grade ranch turnoffs, especially with precedent along similar ultra-rural stretches of other interstates in the West.

Then again, I see nothing wrong with upgrading US 93 to be mostly freeway either.

Most of it already is, and the segments that are done are very good (OK, a few potholes here and there).  The problems as of now are a couple short 2-lane segments north of Wikieup, including rebuilding the ramps to I-40, and the Joshua Forest Deathtrap that for some reason our State Legislature will not address.  I don't buy the idea that those joshua trees can't be relocated.  I think it's more of an eminent domain issue, and the money that would have to be paid to the ranch owners along that road for the right-of-way.

A bypass around Wikieup may not be necessary, as long as access roads and/or one interchange can be built through town, with the highway upgraded to 4 lanes divided, possibly elevated.  Wikieup is a dying town, with a few restaurants and three gas stations that charge $6 per gallon (the rest of the state averages $3.30-3.75).  Most of the rest of the buildings along 93 have long been abandoned.
"Oh, so you hate your job? Well, why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called "EVERYBODY!" They meet at the bar." -- Drew Carey

mrsman

4-lane dual carriage roadway without traffic signals or full intersections would probably be sufficient south of Kingman.  Think US 101 in CA's central coast.  Intersections to be replaced with RCUT or diamond interchanges.

Even if I-11 were done here, there is a good argument to maintain a split (or a 3di spur) along US 60 to reach AZ-303 and the Phoenix suburbs, even if I-11 is routed to take over parts of the bypass route as an upgrade to AZ-85.

DenverBrian

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 28, 2024, 11:17:43 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on June 28, 2024, 05:49:51 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 28, 2024, 04:00:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 28, 2024, 02:19:53 PMDoes anyone think the US 93 corridor between Interstate 40 and Wickenburg would be adequate if they just widened the remaining two-lane portions to four lanes and left it at that instead of converting the corridor into Interstate 11 (terminating 11 at Interstate 40 in Kingman)? I doubt that will actually happen, but the land US 93 passes through south of Interstate 40 is very vacant, so upgrading the corridor will not warrant significant relocation of homes and businesses (except around Wikieup where a small bypass will be needed, and within Wickenburg where a realignment would occur before reaching the city limits).

There is no need whatsoever for I-11 to be built/upgraded from US 93 south of I-40.  Most of the land is ranches, each of which would need its own access road/ramp.  They could do like I-40 in Texas and allow at-grade turnoffs, but that's supposed to be a no-no. 

There are only 3 state highways along that whole stretch:  AZ 97, AZ 71, and AZ 89, north to south. The latter two are already interchanges that could be upgraded, while 97 is merely an access highway to AZ 96, which goes from Bagdad to Hillside (and continues as a gravel county road from there to 89) and is also connected to a county road that is a back way to Prescott.  Not much traffic on it.

Completing the 4-lane segments of 93 with at-grade ranch turnoffs and no bypass at Wikieup will serve just fine. But we know it won't happen because of the I-8 to US 93 freeway segment (originally Loop 404, now part of proposed I-11) that is needed.  They'll sign the whole thing I-11.

I see nothing wrong with segments of I-11 having a few at-grade ranch turnoffs, especially with precedent along similar ultra-rural stretches of other interstates in the West.

Neither do I, but some folks take serious offense to an Interstate that has at-grade intersections, even if they're for ranch or DOT maintenance turnoffs.  At-grade intersections are supposedly "against the rules" for Interstates.
Yes, I know. These are the same people who wail and gnash their teeth over the fact that there's not a jump ball after every goal in a basketball game.


pderocco

Quote from: TheStranger on December 10, 2024, 07:30:27 PMhttps://www.12news.com/article/news/local/arizona/interstate-11-one-step-closer-to-reality-thanks-to-infrastructure-funding-mark-kelly-us-93/75-e8b4d028-c421-43a5-8fa8-401667b1d592?ref=exit-recirc
I wonder if they're really creating something that will eventually be converted to an Interstate, or something that will attract businesses and developers and eventually need to be bypassed by an Interstate.

The Ghostbuster

Finishing expanding US 93 to four lanes between Interstate 40 and Wickenburg should be the priority. Converting this segment to Interstate 11 can occur later (likely much later).

michravera

Quote from: DenverBrian on June 30, 2024, 12:22:15 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 28, 2024, 11:17:43 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on June 28, 2024, 05:49:51 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on June 28, 2024, 04:00:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 28, 2024, 02:19:53 PMDoes anyone think the US 93 corridor between Interstate 40 and Wickenburg would be adequate if they just widened the remaining two-lane portions to four lanes and left it at that instead of converting the corridor into Interstate 11 (terminating 11 at Interstate 40 in Kingman)? I doubt that will actually happen, but the land US 93 passes through south of Interstate 40 is very vacant, so upgrading the corridor will not warrant significant relocation of homes and businesses (except around Wikieup where a small bypass will be needed, and within Wickenburg where a realignment would occur before reaching the city limits).

There is no need whatsoever for I-11 to be built/upgraded from US 93 south of I-40.  Most of the land is ranches, each of which would need its own access road/ramp.  They could do like I-40 in Texas and allow at-grade turnoffs, but that's supposed to be a no-no. 

There are only 3 state highways along that whole stretch:  AZ 97, AZ 71, and AZ 89, north to south. The latter two are already interchanges that could be upgraded, while 97 is merely an access highway to AZ 96, which goes from Bagdad to Hillside (and continues as a gravel county road from there to 89) and is also connected to a county road that is a back way to Prescott.  Not much traffic on it.

Completing the 4-lane segments of 93 with at-grade ranch turnoffs and no bypass at Wikieup will serve just fine. But we know it won't happen because of the I-8 to US 93 freeway segment (originally Loop 404, now part of proposed I-11) that is needed.  They'll sign the whole thing I-11.

I see nothing wrong with segments of I-11 having a few at-grade ranch turnoffs, especially with precedent along similar ultra-rural stretches of other interstates in the West.

Neither do I, but some folks take serious offense to an Interstate that has at-grade intersections, even if they're for ranch or DOT maintenance turnoffs.  At-grade intersections are supposedly "against the rules" for Interstates.
Yes, I know. These are the same people who wail and gnash their teeth over the fact that there's not a jump ball after every goal in a basketball game.


Some people like wearing their shoes in the pool....

sprjus4

#1786
Quote from: pderocco on December 10, 2024, 09:23:10 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 10, 2024, 07:30:27 PMhttps://www.12news.com/article/news/local/arizona/interstate-11-one-step-closer-to-reality-thanks-to-infrastructure-funding-mark-kelly-us-93/75-e8b4d028-c421-43a5-8fa8-401667b1d592?ref=exit-recirc
I wonder if they're really creating something that will eventually be converted to an Interstate, or something that will attract businesses and developers and eventually need to be bypassed by an Interstate.
If it's anything the like the recently completed project, I feel like it will be able to be converted long term. The current project did add roundabouts to 4 intersections, but it also constructed miles of frontage road closing off several private access points, and created a mainline cross section with 10 foot right paved shoulders and 4 foot left paved shoulders. The raised median would need to be replaced with a concrete barrier, and the intersections replaced with grade-separations, but it's certainly doable without needing to bypass the entire roadway again later.

I imagine the upcoming project will create a similar situation with an upgradable road later on.



Update: This page has some more information, along with a detailed design report for ultimately upgrading the US-93 corridor that seems to indicate that these improvements are indeed temporary and an ultimate bypass will eventually be constructed around the entire area to the south.

It's a very interesting document from 2006 showing how the entire corridor would be widened in the interim to 4 lanes, then later access controlled (freeway / interstate highway) with interchanges and where those may be located.

Bobby5280

It shouldn't cost all that much creating short frontage road segments less than the length of a common rest area to cut off a lot of these driveways from the main lanes of traffic. There are hints of what that could be like along I-69E North of Raymondville, TX.

Of course we have some existing "exit ramps" in various locations, such as I-25 going over Raton Pass, where some on/off ramps are damned near hard right turns. Those may be grandfathered and not comply at all with current standards.

They can come up with some creative ways to handle these rural access roads without having them connect as hard 90 degree turns into the main lanes of the freeway.

One thing I simply cannot stand is at-grade left turns going across the main lanes of the freeway. To make a left turn the ranch guys should drive to the next grade-separated freeway exit. At grade left turns make a 4-lane highway no longer a freeway. Simple as that. If it was up to me those first few miles of I-40 in Texas just past the NM border wouldn't be classified as Interstate highway. It's just standard 4-lane divided highway, no better than OK-7 between Lawton and Duncan, OK.

pderocco

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 26, 2024, 11:58:45 AMOne thing I simply cannot stand is at-grade left turns going across the main lanes of the freeway. To make a left turn the ranch guys should drive to the next grade-separated freeway exit. At grade left turns make a 4-lane highway no longer a freeway. Simple as that. If it was up to me those first few miles of I-40 in Texas just past the NM border wouldn't be classified as Interstate highway. It's just standard 4-lane divided highway, no better than OK-7 between Lawton and Duncan, OK.
They could put up "Authorized Personnel Only" signs on them, and then authorize the ranchers to use them. They probably don't use those crossovers as much as the state police do when they see someone speeding the other way.

sprjus4

Quote from: pderocco on December 26, 2024, 02:14:27 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 26, 2024, 11:58:45 AMOne thing I simply cannot stand is at-grade left turns going across the main lanes of the freeway. To make a left turn the ranch guys should drive to the next grade-separated freeway exit. At grade left turns make a 4-lane highway no longer a freeway. Simple as that. If it was up to me those first few miles of I-40 in Texas just past the NM border wouldn't be classified as Interstate highway. It's just standard 4-lane divided highway, no better than OK-7 between Lawton and Duncan, OK.
They could put up "Authorized Personnel Only" signs on them, and then authorize the ranchers to use them. They probably don't use those crossovers as much as the state police do when they see someone speeding the other way.
Yeah, I'm not sure why they haven't done that. It's not like it's a traditional intersection with regular vehicles making left turns all day long. It's rare and far and few between. 

Bobby5280

The at-grade crossings on I-40 in Texas from mile markers 3 to 15 are signed like at-grade intersections on many other standard 4-lane expressways, right down to the one way signs pointing in either direction.

Basically, anyone that wants to do so can slow to nearly a dead stop in the left lane and then hang a U-turn into the opposing lanes.

I-10 in far West Texas has a couple or so at-grade intersections signed in a similar manner. Some are signed "for official or emergency vehicle use only," but there are often frontage roads present where those at-grade crossings exist. Derp!

sprjus4

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 26, 2024, 10:20:32 PMThe at-grade crossings on I-40 in Texas from mile markers 3 to 15 are signed like at-grade intersections on many other standard 4-lane expressways, right down to the one way signs pointing in either direction.

Basically, anyone that wants to do so can slow to nearly a dead stop in the left lane and then hang a U-turn into the opposing lanes.

I-10 in far West Texas has a couple or so at-grade intersections signed in a similar manner. Some are signed "for official or emergency vehicle use only," but there are often frontage roads present where those at-grade crossings exist. Derp!
The one way signage isn't uncommon on true emergency crossovers. Here's an example: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Mq1UEVG89PhMwjqt5?g_st=ic

But the stop signs and yield signs are certainly more typical for a traditional intersection.

Bobby5280

In some ways the at-grade intersections on I-40 in the Texas Panhandle and I-10 at various locations in West Texas are inferior to the designs of standard 4-lane divided highways.

Most at-grade intersections on standard 4-lane divided highways have dedicated left turn deceleration lanes. The intersections on these Interstates do not. That makes it much more dangerous for anyone to make a left turn (or U-turn) at those Interstate at-grade intersections. The vehicle making the turn has to slow way down almost to a stop, in the passing lane, and probably in a location where the speed limit is signed at either 75mph or 80mph. Not good.

Max Rockatansky

Handle it like you're on an Autopsista in Mexico.  Get on the shoulder and start slowing down there.  Make the left hand turn when the traffic clears.   That's pretty much the only safe way to get to the family ranch road off of 54D every time I visit Jalisco.

ElishaGOtis

#1794
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 26, 2024, 10:20:32 PMThe at-grade crossings on I-40 in Texas from mile markers 3 to 15 are signed like at-grade intersections on many other standard 4-lane expressways, right down to the one way signs pointing in either direction.

Basically, anyone that wants to do so can slow to nearly a dead stop in the left lane and then hang a U-turn into the opposing lanes.

I-10 in far West Texas has a couple or so at-grade intersections signed in a similar manner. Some are signed "for official or emergency vehicle use only," but there are often frontage roads present where those at-grade crossings exist. Derp!

Some were RECENTLY signed as authorized vehicles only, like this one on I-10.

July 2022 open to all: https://maps.app.goo.gl/hMHwcGg5xLFUxq25A

Nov 2024 restricted: https://maps.app.goo.gl/1CF6sYNx8cDZYVEP6

Few more examples: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4o1UCVKVX1G26y7n8 & https://maps.app.goo.gl/5KKuu5BkpJGfQAm36


Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 27, 2024, 12:34:04 PMHandle it like you're on an Autopsista in Mexico.  Get on the shoulder and start slowing down there.  Make the left hand turn when the traffic clears.   That's pretty much the only safe way to get to the family ranch road off of 54D every time I visit Jalisco.
That seems similar to a Jersey Jughandle, ironically.
I can drive 55 ONLY when it makes sense.

NOTE: Opinions expressed here on AARoads are solely my own and do not represent or reflect the statements, opinions, or decisions of any agency. Any official information I share will be quoted from another source.

Max Rockatansky

Amusingly that's the comparison I drew for my wife the first time I had to pull it off.

Bobby5280

Quote from: Max RockatanskyHandle it like you're on an Autopsista in Mexico.  Get on the shoulder and start slowing down there.

That's what I do on four lane highways here in Oklahoma. But usually I'm having to do that when making a right turn. There is often no deceleration lane for making a right turn. So the shoulder has to do.

The bigger problem is we can't underestimate the willingness of other motorists to make very risky or blatantly stupid driving choices. Someone taking a long road trip on I-40 probably isn't going to be mentally prepared for some random vehicle ahead of him coming to a dead stop to hang a left turn or U-turn. Such a thing would be really bad to encounter when a cluster of speeding vehicles are trying to use the left lane to pass the slower drivers.

Max Rockatansky

What I'm describing involves both left and right hand turns.  The left hand turn to cross the dirt median onto the ranch road is particularly hellacious.  I don't think that I could approach it at more than 20 MPH given it isn't really graded.

But yes, CA 41 south of Fresno often lacks advanced right hand turn lanes on the expressway segments.  Throwing a long signal and/or using the shoulder when there is traffic is the optimal way to approach. 

michravera

Quote from: ElishaGOtis on December 27, 2024, 12:36:58 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 26, 2024, 10:20:32 PMThe at-grade crossings on I-40 in Texas from mile markers 3 to 15 are signed like at-grade intersections on many other standard 4-lane expressways, right down to the one way signs pointing in either direction.

Basically, anyone that wants to do so can slow to nearly a dead stop in the left lane and then hang a U-turn into the opposing lanes.

I-10 in far West Texas has a couple or so at-grade intersections signed in a similar manner. Some are signed "for official or emergency vehicle use only," but there are often frontage roads present where those at-grade crossings exist. Derp!

Some were RECENTLY signed as authorized vehicles only, like this one on I-10.

July 2022 open to all: https://maps.app.goo.gl/hMHwcGg5xLFUxq25A

Nov 2024 restricted: https://maps.app.goo.gl/1CF6sYNx8cDZYVEP6

Few more examples: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4o1UCVKVX1G26y7n8 & https://maps.app.goo.gl/5KKuu5BkpJGfQAm36


Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 27, 2024, 12:34:04 PMHandle it like you're on an Autopsista in Mexico.  Get on the shoulder and start slowing down there.  Make the left hand turn when the traffic clears.   That's pretty much the only safe way to get to the family ranch road off of 54D every time I visit Jalisco.
That seems similar to a Jersey Jughandle, ironically.
I haven't been on a road outside of the airport in New Jersey in almost 50 years, so I'm not sure about jughandles. For safety and convenience, it would seem right to prohibit left turns, have all exits to the right into a large (preferably paved) circle, let those who wish to go to the left cross at approximately right angles, and maybe for extra safety even put a blinking yellow light that activates for a while while someone is waiting to enter or cross. Let it go dark at other times. Yes, maybe have a median stop sign (if the median is wide enough for more than one vehicle or a reasonable length truck). Longer vehicles would have to make the crossing all at one go, but requiring a stop in the left lane without being able to pull fully into a turn pocket seems like it is encouraging trouble.
There are places along US-101 in Central California where the medians are wide and have reasonably sized left turn pockets, but U-turns by trucks are still prohibited for good reason. They might be able to accelerate from a stop and cross to the left, but, even on these relatively flat and unobstructed sections, the lines of sight (especially in rain or fog) aren't good enough for a car at expressway speeds (posted 65MPH) to see the truck in order to avoid an unfriendly interaction.

michiganguy123




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.