Unpopular Anything Road-Related Opinions

[formulanone]

I don't know why it's such a popular opinion on here that US 400 "adds nothing" to the system, because it does add something. Improving east-west connectivity for a metro area with over 500,000 people is a good enough justification to slap a US highway shield on it IMO. If it's just because it barely enters another state, US 166 is also right there, but that highway mysteriously doesn't get any forum-wide calls to decommission it.

Grid perfectionism is a horrible disease that has ravaged the road fan community since time and memorial.

It's "time immemorial". (Which is probably a fossilized word because I don't think I've seen immemorial used alongside any other word.) Meanwhile, most people live somewhere that their own state doesn't have anything close to a grid numbering system for its own numbers.

Maybe because I grew up someplace where control cities didn't mean much in the southeast corner of the US, but control city arguments is also a petty pox.

[epzik8]

I don't know why it's such a popular opinion on here that US 400 "adds nothing" to the system, because it does add something. Improving east-west connectivity for a metro area with over 500,000 people is a good enough justification to slap a US highway shield on it IMO. If it's just because it barely enters another state, US 166 is also right there, but that highway mysteriously doesn't get any forum-wide calls to decommission it.

Grid perfectionism is a horrible disease that has ravaged the road fan community since time and memorial.

Most laymen don't care about a numbering grid anyhow. They just want to know which highways will take them to where they need to go.

[Rothman]

I don't know why it's such a popular opinion on here that US 400 "adds nothing" to the system, because it does add something. Improving east-west connectivity for a metro area with over 500,000 people is a good enough justification to slap a US highway shield on it IMO. If it's just because it barely enters another state, US 166 is also right there, but that highway mysteriously doesn't get any forum-wide calls to decommission it.

Grid perfectionism is a horrible disease that has ravaged the road fan community since time and memorial.

Meh.  US 400 is mostly concurrent with other established routes.  Doesn't seem like it has much of a point.

[kphoger]

I don't know why it's such a popular opinion on here that US 400 "adds nothing" to the system, because it does add something. Improving east-west connectivity for a metro area with over 500,000 people is a good enough justification to slap a US highway shield on it IMO. If it's just because it barely enters another state, US 166 is also right there, but that highway mysteriously doesn't get any forum-wide calls to decommission it.

Grid perfectionism is a horrible disease that has ravaged the road fan community since time and memorial.

Meh.  US 400 is mostly concurrent with other established routes.  Doesn't seem like it has much of a point.

West of Wichita, yes.  But, between Wichita and Pittsburg (approx. 157 miles), only about one-fifth of US-400 is concurrent with other established routes.  Furthermore, of the four US Routes that cross southeastern Kansas, US-400 has significantly more traffic than the other three—especially when it comes to truck traffic.

[J N Winkler]

West of Wichita, yes.  But, between Wichita and Pittsburg (approx. 157 miles), only about one-fifth of US-400 is concurrent with other established routes.  Furthermore, of the four US Routes that cross southeastern Kansas, US-400 has significantly more traffic than the other three—especially when it comes to truck traffic.

The traditional counterargument among the US 400 haters (NB:  I do not necessarily agree with it) is that the segment east of Wichita largely replaced K-96, a "sensible" multi-state route that now exists only in pieces.

(I'd also add that US 400 actually does US 166 two better--it extends into Colorado as well as Missouri, and is over 400 miles in length.  The fixation on US 400 entering another state "just to die," when US 166, US 177, and US 270 do precisely the same, is interesting.)

[Rothman]

West of Wichita, yes.  But, between Wichita and Pittsburg (approx. 157 miles), only about one-fifth of US-400 is concurrent with other established routes.  Furthermore, of the four US Routes that cross southeastern Kansas, US-400 has significantly more traffic than the other three—especially when it comes to truck traffic.

The traditional counterargument among the US 400 haters (NB:  I do not necessarily agree with it) is that the segment east of Wichita largely replaced K-96, a "sensible" multi-state route that now exists only in pieces.

(I'd also add that US 400 actually does US 166 two better--it extends into Colorado as well as Missouri, and is over 400 miles in length.  The fixation on US 400 entering another state "just to die," when US 166, US 177, and US 270 do precisely the same, is interesting.)

Perhaps because US 400 is so much more recent and the other routes suffered through decades of changes to the overall system.

[kphoger]

The traditional counterargument among the US 400 haters (NB:  I do not necessarily agree with it) is that the segment east of Wichita largely replaced K-96, a "sensible" multi-state route that now exists only in pieces.

IMO, a "sensible" multi-state route ... is basically what US Routes are supposed to be.  So just make them US Routes.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

There is no such thing as a "multi-state route". Any such claims are actually as many different state routes as states crossed that just happen to have the same number.

[tmoore952]

There is no such thing as a "multi-state route". Any such claims are actually as many different state routes as states crossed that just happen to have the same number.

I hear you and understand what you are saying. But you make it sound like these are random occurrences, which I doubt very much is the case, especially in the northern plains Rt. 200 example (and I just noticed this is a different thread than the one I thought I was in).

Northern Delaware has a lot of these. Off the top of my head, DE 261, 273, 41, 299, 896, 52, 82, 491 (albeit very short, only 0.2 mile if that), 279 (another newer one which is short)  --- are all state routes that derive their numbers from neighboring PA or MD. Granted that even the longest of these Delaware roads are relatively short due to the narrowness of the state.

[Rothman]

There is no such thing as a "multi-state route". Any such claims are actually as many different state routes as states crossed that just happen to have the same number.

Meh, we know what it means in this context.

I'm more concerned with the term "federal highway" catching on from the other thread...

[Scott5114]

I'm more concerned with the term "federal highway" catching on from the other thread...

These people need to be forced to listen to a song about a little green shrub until they agree to stop using that term.

[formulanone]

There is no such thing as a "multi-state route". Any such claims are actually as many different state routes as states crossed that just happen to have the same number.

Meh, we know what it means in this context.

I'm more concerned with the term "federal highway" catching on from the other thread...

And some of us know what that means without excessive persnicketyness...(or is that an "i", not a "y"? Dang it.)

[Rothman]

There is no such thing as a "multi-state route". Any such claims are actually as many different state routes as states crossed that just happen to have the same number.

Meh, we know what it means in this context.

I'm more concerned with the term "federal highway" catching on from the other thread...

And some of us know what that means without excessive persnicketyness...(or is that an "i", not a "y"? Dang it.)

Federal highway?  No, some people think it means one thing, others think it means another...when, in reality, it's meaningless.  Just read through the contradictory nonsense in that thread already.

[Bickendan]

I'd rather 'national highway' were used over 'federal highway', but that itself is wrong.
Also, that could get confusing with India's National Highways.

[J N Winkler]

I kept schtum about it in Calrog's heyday so as not to encourage him, but a few state DOTs did use the term "federal highway" on plan sheet titles as a synonym for US highways.  I get that Poiponen13 was searching for a catch-all term for US and Interstate highways, but "federal highway" wouldn't be it even if Calrog hadn't used it as part of his passion project to drive roadgeeks up the wall.

[formulanone]

There is no such thing as a "multi-state route". Any such claims are actually as many different state routes as states crossed that just happen to have the same number.

Meh, we know what it means in this context.

I'm more concerned with the term "federal highway" catching on from the other thread...

And some of us know what that means without excessive persnicketyness...(or is that an "i", not a "y"? Dang it.)

Federal highway?  No, some people think it means one thing, others think it means another...when, in reality, it's meaningless.  Just read through the contradictory nonsense in that thread already.

Oh no, I stay out of those user's threads like I stay out of control city conversations.

I know it pains some folks but synonyms exist; even if no two words have exact same overlap of meaning there has to be a bridge between needless bickering.

[Rothman]

There is no such thing as a "multi-state route". Any such claims are actually as many different state routes as states crossed that just happen to have the same number.

Meh, we know what it means in this context.

I'm more concerned with the term "federal highway" catching on from the other thread...

And some of us know what that means without excessive persnicketyness...(or is that an "i", not a "y"? Dang it.)

Federal highway?  No, some people think it means one thing, others think it means another...when, in reality, it's meaningless.  Just read through the contradictory nonsense in that thread already.

Oh no, I stay out of those user's threads like I stay out of control city conversations.

I know it pains some folks but synonyms exist; even if no two words have exact same overlap of meaning there has to be a bridge between needless bickering.

"Federal highway" means a different synonym to different people.

The term is best left for the dustbin.

[ran4sh]

One for this site, I think there is a limit to how wide a highway can be, especially in urban areas. Don't like city traffic? Take a bus/subway, or stay in.   

People really do need to learn that there is more than one mode of passenger transportation besides the automobile.  Agreed.  And reality provides its own constraints to the width of a ROW regardless of how any of us feels about it.

Unpopular opinion from me: Wisconsin should have single-digit state highways.  WI-35 should be WI-1. 

Agreed. I know this is a pro-road forum but it's annoying how pissy some people on this forum get at the idea of some people being against an urban highway (or widening of an urban highway) or wanting an alternative to driving.

I suspect many of the overtly pro-freeway people here had the luxury of their neighborhood not being displaced by one.

Or the opposite. Some of us are pro-freeway because we want a freeway built to our city/urban area when currently such a freeway option does not exist (accessing the Interstate system requires 20+ miles of travel on non-freeways).

[Rothman]

One for this site, I think there is a limit to how wide a highway can be, especially in urban areas. Don't like city traffic? Take a bus/subway, or stay in.   

People really do need to learn that there is more than one mode of passenger transportation besides the automobile.  Agreed.  And reality provides its own constraints to the width of a ROW regardless of how any of us feels about it.

Unpopular opinion from me: Wisconsin should have single-digit state highways.  WI-35 should be WI-1. 

Agreed. I know this is a pro-road forum but it's annoying how pissy some people on this forum get at the idea of some people being against an urban highway (or widening of an urban highway) or wanting an alternative to driving.

I suspect many of the overtly pro-freeway people here had the luxury of their neighborhood not being displaced by one.

Or the opposite. Some of us are pro-freeway because we want a freeway built to our city/urban area when currently such a freeway option does not exist (accessing the Interstate system requires 20+ miles of travel on non-freeways).

...as long as it doesn't require you to relocate...

[SEWIGuy]

One for this site, I think there is a limit to how wide a highway can be, especially in urban areas. Don't like city traffic? Take a bus/subway, or stay in.   

People really do need to learn that there is more than one mode of passenger transportation besides the automobile.  Agreed.  And reality provides its own constraints to the width of a ROW regardless of how any of us feels about it.

Unpopular opinion from me: Wisconsin should have single-digit state highways.  WI-35 should be WI-1. 

Agreed. I know this is a pro-road forum but it's annoying how pissy some people on this forum get at the idea of some people being against an urban highway (or widening of an urban highway) or wanting an alternative to driving.

I suspect many of the overtly pro-freeway people here had the luxury of their neighborhood not being displaced by one.

Or the opposite. Some of us are pro-freeway because we want a freeway built to our city/urban area when currently such a freeway option does not exist (accessing the Interstate system requires 20+ miles of travel on non-freeways).

Does the traffic warrant more than that? Because we shouldn't be placing highways in random places just to make life more convenient.

[hbelkins]

I kept schtum about it in Calrog's heyday so as not to encourage him, but a few state DOTs did use the term "federal highway" on plan sheet titles as a synonym for US highways.  I get that Poiponen13 was searching for a catch-all term for US and Interstate highways, but "federal highway" wouldn't be it even if Calrog hadn't used it as part of his passion project to drive roadgeeks up the wall.

Thanks for reminding me to check MTR to see if Calrog has been active lately. He hasn't posted anything there since September of 2022.

But I did see that Google's Usenet access is going away in February. They will no longer allow posting to Usenet via Google Groups, and will no longer archive new Usenet postings.

https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538?visit_id=638396632087689691-1778193851&p=usenet&rd=1

[vdeane]

There is no such thing as a "multi-state route". Any such claims are actually as many different state routes as states crossed that just happen to have the same number.

Meh, we know what it means in this context.

I'm more concerned with the term "federal highway" catching on from the other thread...

And some of us know what that means without excessive persnicketyness...(or is that an "i", not a "y"? Dang it.)

Federal highway?  No, some people think it means one thing, others think it means another...when, in reality, it's meaningless.  Just read through the contradictory nonsense in that thread already.

Oh no, I stay out of those user's threads like I stay out of control city conversations.

I know it pains some folks but synonyms exist; even if no two words have exact same overlap of meaning there has to be a bridge between needless bickering.

"Federal highway" means a different synonym to different people.

The term is best left for the dustbin.

To me "federal route" and related phrases evoke things like Mexico's federal routes, which unlike US routes and interstates, are actually owned/maintained by their federal government.

Oh, and Calrog, of course.

[Scott5114]

One for this site, I think there is a limit to how wide a highway can be, especially in urban areas. Don't like city traffic? Take a bus/subway, or stay in.   

People really do need to learn that there is more than one mode of passenger transportation besides the automobile.  Agreed.  And reality provides its own constraints to the width of a ROW regardless of how any of us feels about it.

Unpopular opinion from me: Wisconsin should have single-digit state highways.  WI-35 should be WI-1. 

Agreed. I know this is a pro-road forum but it's annoying how pissy some people on this forum get at the idea of some people being against an urban highway (or widening of an urban highway) or wanting an alternative to driving.

I suspect many of the overtly pro-freeway people here had the luxury of their neighborhood not being displaced by one.

Or the opposite. Some of us are pro-freeway because we want a freeway built to our city/urban area when currently such a freeway option does not exist (accessing the Interstate system requires 20+ miles of travel on non-freeways).

...as long as it doesn't require you to relocate...

Personally, I wouldn't mind if a government project required me to relocate, so long as staying in the same town or whatever is an option. Moving is disruptive, but it's not a permanent disruption. I'd prefer just taking the L and moving, as opposed to trying to fight it and having the uncertainty of how that is going to end up going hanging over my head (and then possibly having to move anyway).

I can see how it might bother someone whose grandpappy's pappy's grandpappy's dog's uncle's babysitter twice removed's uncle's grandpappy's cousin's cat's coworker's niece's nephew's brother's aunt's grandpappy has been on the land for 163 centuries might get perturbed about it, but that's never been me.

[Max Rockatansky]

There is no such thing as a "multi-state route". Any such claims are actually as many different state routes as states crossed that just happen to have the same number.

Meh, we know what it means in this context.

I'm more concerned with the term "federal highway" catching on from the other thread...

And some of us know what that means without excessive persnicketyness...(or is that an "i", not a "y"? Dang it.)

Federal highway?  No, some people think it means one thing, others think it means another...when, in reality, it's meaningless.  Just read through the contradictory nonsense in that thread already.

Oh no, I stay out of those user's threads like I stay out of control city conversations.

I know it pains some folks but synonyms exist; even if no two words have exact same overlap of meaning there has to be a bridge between needless bickering.

"Federal highway" means a different synonym to different people.

The term is best left for the dustbin.

To me "federal route" and related phrases evoke things like Mexico's federal routes, which unlike US routes and interstates, are actually owned/maintained by their federal government.

Oh, and Calrog, of course.

"Calrog" to me sounds like a small chain of local roasted chicken restaurants.  I never knew the guy given I wasn't on MTR but every time I see his name it reminds me of the Kenny Rogers Roasters episode of Seinfeld for some weird reason.

[Rothman]

One for this site, I think there is a limit to how wide a highway can be, especially in urban areas. Don't like city traffic? Take a bus/subway, or stay in.   

People really do need to learn that there is more than one mode of passenger transportation besides the automobile.  Agreed.  And reality provides its own constraints to the width of a ROW regardless of how any of us feels about it.

Unpopular opinion from me: Wisconsin should have single-digit state highways.  WI-35 should be WI-1. 

Agreed. I know this is a pro-road forum but it's annoying how pissy some people on this forum get at the idea of some people being against an urban highway (or widening of an urban highway) or wanting an alternative to driving.

I suspect many of the overtly pro-freeway people here had the luxury of their neighborhood not being displaced by one.

Or the opposite. Some of us are pro-freeway because we want a freeway built to our city/urban area when currently such a freeway option does not exist (accessing the Interstate system requires 20+ miles of travel on non-freeways).

...as long as it doesn't require you to relocate...

Personally, I wouldn't mind if a government project required me to relocate, so long as staying in the same town or whatever is an option. Moving is disruptive, but it's not a permanent disruption. I'd prefer just taking the L and moving, as opposed to trying to fight it and having the uncertainty of how that is going to end up going hanging over my head (and then possibly having to move anyway).

I can see how it might bother someone whose grandpappy's pappy's grandpappy's dog's uncle's babysitter twice removed's uncle's grandpappy's cousin's cat's coworker's niece's nephew's brother's aunt's grandpappy has been on the land for 163 centuries might get perturbed about it, but that's never been me.

Heh.  That's not how residential eminent domain works in NY.  You get compensated, but not relocated locally.