Complaints that bother you (road-related)

[Rothman]

I am tired of complaints about complaints.

[jlam]

I am tired of complaints about complaints.

That sounds like a complaint.

[Rothman]

I am tired of complaints about complaints.

That sounds like a complaint.

Are you complaining about my complaint?

[formulanone]

I am tired of complaints about complaints.

That sounds like a complaint.

Are you complaining about my complaint?

Complaining about things we can't control is an inherent American trait, commie.

How many sides are on this fence?

It does get tiring when a complaint about {Breezewood, I-99, Clearview, Renumbering, roundabouts, flat Illinois} spills over into every tenth thread, especially when we've heard the same things from the same users, and it's patently off-topic.

[Max Rockatansky]

I am tired of complaints about complaints.

That sounds like a complaint.

Are you complaining about my complaint?

Complaining about things we can't control is an inherent American trait, commie.

How many sides are on this fence?

Being on the fence is un-American.

[formulanone]

I am tired of complaints about complaints.

That sounds like a complaint.

Are you complaining about my complaint?

Complaining about things we can't control is an inherent American trait, commie.

How many sides are on this fence?

Being on the fence is un-American.

Plymouth Fence landed on us!

[kphoger]

complaints about IDOT

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm complaining about all these complaints about complaining.

[Rothman]

I am tired of complaints about complaints.

That sounds like a complaint.

Are you complaining about my complaint?

Complaining about things we can't control is an inherent American trait, commie.

How many sides are on this fence?

It does get tiring when a complaint about {Breezewood, I-99, Clearview, Renumbering, roundabouts, flat Illinois} spills over into every tenth thread, especially when we've heard the same things from the same users, and it's patently off-topic.

That sounds like a complaint.

[kphoger]

I am tired of complaints about complaints.

That sounds like a complaint.

Are you complaining about my complaint?

Complaining about things we can't control is an inherent American trait, commie.

How many sides are on this fence?

It does get tiring when a complaint about {Breezewood, I-99, Clearview, Renumbering, roundabouts, flat Illinois} spills over into every tenth thread, especially when we've heard the same things from the same users, and it's patently off-topic.

That sounds like a complaint.

Are you complaining about his complaint?

[JoePCool14]

There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.

1.  To be signed as an Interstate, I think, the freeway in question should connect to the network of other Interstates.  If there is a freeway that is isolated from others–i.e., it doesn't connect to any other freeways–then it should not be signed as an Interstate.

2.  To be signed as an Interstate, I think, the freeway in question should be up to certain standards (with some exceptions granted to those grandfathered in).  If there is a freeway that falls far short of those standards–e.g. shoulder width or vertical clearances–then it should not be signed as an Interstate.

I agree with both of those arguments, unless the section of freeway is planned to be connected to the rest of the network. Or the highway is in Hawaii, Alaska, or Puerto Rico.

complaints about IDOT

I feel personally attacked.

[MikieTimT]

I feel dumber for having briefly read this thread.

[Max Rockatansky]

I feel dumber for having briefly read this thread.

Sounds like a complaint about the complaining.

[kphoger]

There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.

1.  To be signed as an Interstate, I think, the freeway in question should connect to the network of other Interstates.  If there is a freeway that is isolated from others–i.e., it doesn't connect to any other freeways–then it should not be signed as an Interstate.

2.  To be signed as an Interstate, I think, the freeway in question should be up to certain standards (with some exceptions granted to those grandfathered in).  If there is a freeway that falls far short of those standards–e.g. shoulder width or vertical clearances–then it should not be signed as an Interstate.

I agree with both of those arguments, unless the section of freeway is planned to be connected to the rest of the network. Or the highway is in Hawaii, Alaska, or Puerto Rico.

Even for Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, though, each one forms its own system.  I'm OK with that.  If, however, Kuihelani Highway (on Maui) became a freeway, I wouldn't be OK with designating it as an Interstate.

[michravera]

CA 99 and CA 58 not being Interstates.

CA 99 should be.

Yes, the problem I usually have with said complaint is the lack of understanding the reasoning why it hasn't happened and what it would take for it to happen.  At least with CA 99 there is sound reasoning, I'm not even sure how the same started with CA 58.

CASR-99 was *APPROVED* as an interstate route, but upgrading it proved to be too onerous so, as long as "the Fed were paying 90%", I-5 was built along a new alignment. CASR-58 has been upgraded (and is continuing to be) in pieces so that it has started to look like it was meant to be an interstate, but never was, nor was it ever contemplated as such.

[Rothman]

I am tired of complaints about complaints.

That sounds like a complaint.

Are you complaining about my complaint?

Complaining about things we can't control is an inherent American trait, commie.

How many sides are on this fence?

It does get tiring when a complaint about {Breezewood, I-99, Clearview, Renumbering, roundabouts, flat Illinois} spills over into every tenth thread, especially when we've heard the same things from the same users, and it's patently off-topic.

That sounds like a complaint.

Are you complaining about his complaint?

Yes, and I am complaining to myself about it.

[kphoger]

Most complaints that take an all-or-nothing stance bother me.

Example:  Complaints that a highway expansion project should be axed, and the funds diverted to improving public transit and cycling infrastructure, often appear to come from a position that any and all improvement to car-based infrastructure should be opposed–and that bothers me.  On the flip side, though, complaints about new urbanism, transit advocates, freeway removal, etc, often appear to come from a position that downgrading car-based infrastructure could never, anywhere, possibly be worth any consideration–and that bothers me too.  Perhaps instead, and I know I'm probably crazy for thinking it, some projects have more merit than others.

A similar issue seems to persist when it comes to roundabouts.  Some people love them and wish every intersection in the world were a roundabout, while others think they should all be bombed into oblivion.  Interestingly, that has been one of my biggest takeaways from the 'Crash-prone Modern Roundabouts' thread:  that there may actually be specific characteristics and conditions that make some roundabout designs and implementations preferable to others.

[hbelkins]

How "stroads" are evil and should never be allowed to exist. Or the general argument that all roads must be for access only or travel only. It implies that arterials can't be built with better traffic control in mind through the use of medians and safe sidewalks.

Uncritical use of the word "stroad" is generally a pretty good marker that someone can't be trusted to have sensible opinions on transportation.

This is the first time I have ever heard the term "stroad."

It's mostly a term of derision used by the "cars are ruining America" crowd to refer to typical suburban arterials, which they feel like are some sort of unhappy medium between "streets" and "roads" (which of course is a dichotomy that didn't exist until they invented it for the purpose of making up the term "stroad").

I figured it was some sort of mashup of "street" and "road."

Can we expect PennDOT to sign exits to PA 123 as "Stroad" instead of "Street Road" now?

[formulanone]

Most complaints that take an all-or-nothing stance bother me.

Besides, it's more fun watching everyone cry that they didn't get 100% of their way.

[DTComposer]

CASR-58 has been upgraded (and is continuing to be) in pieces so that it has started to look like it was meant to be an interstate, but never was, nor was it ever contemplated as such.

Except, as mentioned upthread, that the Barstow to Bakersfield section was submitted as a potential Interstate twice - in 1956 and 1968.

[Scott5114]

There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.

1.  To be signed as an Interstate, I think, the freeway in question should connect to the network of other Interstates.  If there is a freeway that is isolated from others–i.e., it doesn't connect to any other freeways–then it should not be signed as an Interstate.

So I assume this means you don't agree with I-2/I-69C/I-69E? Should South Texas have I-T2/I-T69C/I-T69E until such point as they're connected to the main network?

I'm not so sure that network connectivity is something that registers in the minds of anyone not on this forum. Hell, I've heard people in Ada, Oklahoma refer to the local freeway as "the Interstate", despite the fact that it's a state highway and it doesn't connect to any other freeways, let alone Interstates.

2.  To be signed as an Interstate, I think, the freeway in question should be up to certain standards (with some exceptions granted to those grandfathered in).  If there is a freeway that falls far short of those standards–e.g. shoulder width or vertical clearances–then it should not be signed as an Interstate.

Yes, I would say interstate standards still need to be enforced. It's important to have a defined standard for what a freeway is.

[english si]

There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.

There are good reasons why not to give freeways interstate shields, kphoger gave two, 'too short' is another. Tolls, possibly?

But yes, the onus should be more on the "not everything needs to be an interstate" crowd to explain why a freeway shouldn't be one than the "bring out the blue and red shields" to try and justify interstate status for a freeway that meets the basic criteria of being up to standards and forming a coherent addition to the network.

[kphoger]

So I assume this means you don't agree with I-2/I-69C/I-69E? Should South Texas have I-T2/I-T69C/I-T69E until such point as they're connected to the main network?

Correct.  I don't think they should be signed as Interstates until they're connected to the network.  It drives me nuts when Interstates are signed in pieces.  (And yes, I realize that's the way it's always been done, such as I-40 as it replaced US-66.)  As it is with I-2 and I-69C/E/W/X/Y/Z, there's little difference from what they were before the red and blue signs went up:  they still just lead you to non-freeway routes.

I would say interstate standards still need to be enforced. It's important to have a defined standard for what a freeway is.

Our point is that there are freeways that aren't up to Interstate standards.  They're still freeways, though.

[Scott5114]

There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.

There are good reasons why not to give freeways interstate shields, kphoger gave two, 'too short' is another. Tolls, possibly?

There are plenty of tolled interstates already. There's one in my state (I-44, which has three separate tolled segments) and soon to be another (I-240) and there's four in the state just north of me (portions of I-35, I-335, I-470, I-70). The newer MUTCDs have a yellow "TOLL" cartouche that should be used to indicate the toll status of a road, whether or not it is an interstate.

As for length, even if something is a short connector between two other interstates, like I-238, I have no problem with it being an Interstate. I would rather be able to infer freeway-ness from the route shield than length. Which is already impossible to determine from a route shield anyway, since we didn't assign the Interstate numbers in order of length.

I would say interstate standards still need to be enforced. It's important to have a defined standard for what a freeway is.

Our point is that there are freeways that aren't up to Interstate standards.  They're still freeways, though.

I'm fine with substandard freeways not getting the shield.

[jeffandnicole]

There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.

There are good reasons why not to give freeways interstate shields, kphoger gave two, 'too short' is another. Tolls, possibly?

But yes, the onus should be more on the "not everything needs to be an interstate" crowd to explain why a freeway shouldn't be one than the "bring out the blue and red shields" to try and justify interstate status for a freeway that meets the basic criteria of being up to standards and forming a coherent addition to the network.

So we need to somehow prove something that has existed and worked, for over 60 years in some cases, exists and works?

Plenty of examples of that. The NJ Turnpike for starters. Even adding the Interstate shield to Interchange 6 and the PA Tpk Extension hasn't caused most travelers to suddenly abandon the Turnpike.