News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Recent posts

#1
Northeast / Re: New Cape Cod Canal bridges
Last post by pderocco - Today at 12:56:50 AM
Quote from: webny99 on July 19, 2024, 08:34:33 AMI would honestly just like to see MA 25 extended to meet MA 3 on the mainland side of the cape. I-495 could then be designated along said extension. Why this wasn't done decades ago is beyond my comprehension. For a such a short (~2.5 mile) extension, it would significantly improve connectivity/redundancy between the two bridges, and all the more so with the new Sagamore Bridge being built first.

I would even go so far as to say that, with a 6-lane Sagamore Bridge and a freeway connector from I-495 to MA 3, congestion issues approaching the bridges would be so improved that the replacing the Bourne Bridge would no longer be a pressing need. Even though it would still eventually be needed, it would be primarily because of the aging structure rather than capacity constraint issues. It's majorly underrated how much that lack of connectivity and resulting US 6/Sandwich Rd situation exacerbates the congestion issues.
That's a reasonable argument in light of the Sagamore Bridge being enlarged, but perhaps not in the past when it would have unbalanced the traffic between the two basically identical bridges.

Having driven to and from the Cape hundreds of times, including in summer weekend traffic, I always rather wished that Sandwich Rd had been fourlaned on Sandwich Rd on the Cape side between 28 and 6, which would have helped to keep the bridge traffic balanced. That road has an interesting history of being signed as various routes. In the MA official maps that I have, I see the following:

  2009,23 -- nothing
  1994 -- MA-6A
  1965,68,69,70,71,72,73,75,77,79,81,83,84 -- US-6 (yes, US-6 on both sides of the canal)
  1955,57,58,60,62,64 -- nothing
  1941,45,47,49,50 -- MA-3
  before that -- nothing

I remember seeing 6A and US-6 signs on it. There is a Sandwich Road Wikipedia page that says US-6 was signed WB on the mainland side and EB on Sandwich Rd, and the other directions were called US-6 Bypass, but I never noticed that at the time.
#2
Pacific Southwest / Re: Was highway 237 ever plann...
Last post by DTComposer - July 20, 2024, 11:50:07 PM
If you look at traffic patterns in the 1940s:


Traffic Flow Diagram, Santa Clara County, California (1942) by Erica Fischer, on Flickr

What would become 237 was not necessarily a heavy-traffic route, so it makes sense that the Stevens Creek Freeway (the north section of CA-85) would be adequate for Milpitas-to-Los Altos traffic. Here's the earliest freeway planning map I've seen, from 1952:

Freeways, Northwesterly Section, Santa Clara County, California (1952) by Erica Fischer, on Flickr
#3
General Highway Talk / Re: Road Work Ahead Signs
Last post by pderocco - July 20, 2024, 11:48:05 PM
Steal it.
#4
Traffic Control / Re: Guess the speed limit chal...
Last post by sprjus4 - July 20, 2024, 11:44:03 PM
75 mph
#5
Traffic Control / Re: Guess the speed limit chal...
Last post by Hunty2022 - July 20, 2024, 11:26:23 PM
60 MPH?
#6
Great Lakes and Ohio Valley / Re: Mackinac Bridge congestion
Last post by Flint1979 - July 20, 2024, 11:25:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 20, 2024, 09:05:58 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 20, 2024, 12:49:36 PMThey aren't going to be adding EZPass so it doesn't make any difference. It's not going to benefit anyone by adding it, first of all they would need to rebuild the toll plaza, secondly it's not going to stop congestion ON the bridge. I'm talking from knowledge not just what I think. People already do drive through the toll plaza instead of being forced to stop and hand over $4 it's called MacPass. Nobody is upset over having to stop for less than 30 seconds to pay a toll and then move on. Having EZPass on the Mackinac Bridge would compete with their own MacPass. The Mackinac Bridge Authority isn't out to screw themselves over.
Why would they need to rebuild the toll plaza to make MacPass and E-ZPass compatible?  Wouldn't they just let E-ZPass users use the existing MacPass lanes and other states would do the reverse?  And what would be "competing"?  Transponders aren't profit centers, at least they're not supposed to be.
They probably could do that. There isn't much room there though.
#7
Photos, Videos, and More / Re: END signs
Last post by Rothman - July 20, 2024, 11:25:37 PM
END! VT 67A:

#8
Traffic Control / Re: Unique, Odd, or Interestin...
Last post by Rothman - July 20, 2024, 11:24:57 PM
Liked this construction modification to a diagrammatic:

#9
Great Lakes and Ohio Valley / Re: Mackinac Bridge congestion
Last post by Flint1979 - July 20, 2024, 11:20:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 20, 2024, 08:33:06 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 20, 2024, 12:49:36 PM
Quote from: rhen_var on July 20, 2024, 12:40:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 19, 2024, 09:56:10 AMWe don't support EZ Pass because we don't have toll roads. What difference does it make it any of you if Michigan has EZ Pass or not? And how many people on here actually use the Mackinac Bridge? They aren't getting EZ Pass no matter how much people bicker about it. It's not happening.
What difference would it make to you if they did add support for EZ-Pass?  You're so adamant that they shouldn't add it but you haven't given any good reason why not other than "I personally don't like it."  I'm sure there are a couple other old grumpy people that hate change and would be angry that other people would gain the option to just drive through the toll barrier instead of being forced to stop and hand over $4, but I would bet most normal people would be elated, and pick up an EZ-Pass for themselves if they don't already have one (which many Michiganders do).
They aren't going to be adding EZPass so it doesn't make any difference. It's not going to benefit anyone by adding it, first of all they would need to rebuild the toll plaza, secondly it's not going to stop congestion ON the bridge. I'm talking from knowledge not just what I think. People already do drive through the toll plaza instead of being forced to stop and hand over $4 it's called MacPass. Nobody is upset over having to stop for less than 30 seconds to pay a toll and then move on. Having EZPass on the Mackinac Bridge would compete with their own MacPass. The Mackinac Bridge Authority isn't out to screw themselves over.

"Nobody is upset over having to stop for less than 30 seconds" but congestion is a problem.

Claiming that your experience driving over the bridge means that AET or even adding AET lanes and keeping cash lanes would be useless towards mitigating congestion is a non sequitur.
Congestion is a problem because the bridge is two lanes in each direction and almost always has a lane closed for one reason or another. Trucks exceeding 30 tons the speed limit is 20 mph, how is the toll plaza the reason for the congestion? You stop for about 5 seconds and then go at the toll booth. Every time I cross the bridge there is truck traffic holding the flow up. The lack of EZPass is not the reason for congestion on the Mackinac Bridge.
#10
Traffic Control / Re: Unique, Odd, or Interestin...
Last post by TheCatalyst31 - July 20, 2024, 11:13:14 PM
Quote from: Amaury on July 20, 2024, 05:45:48 PMInterstate 84 westbound in Umatilla County, Oregon, before milepost 204: https://maps.app.goo.gl/kUuX8FkaB3SHJvYv8

There's a similar sign on I-39 in Wisconsin south of Plover, though that one's due to a crop dusting operation in the area: https://maps.app.goo.gl/CnzvR683LWGsBG4LA

Incidentally, that same crop dusting operation is the reason for the famous "Watch for Low Flying Planes" sign, which I'm surprised hasn't been posted in this thread yet. I've seen the planes in action a couple times while driving that stretch.

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.