Posting in Fictional Highways and Wish Lists being attacked by other users

[roadman65]

I was always often wondering about making wish lists on the Fictional Highways board, as I would assume that we can make any kind of dream that we all have about highways noticed to the others.  It is made to share our thoughts and let others know about our aspirations while showing how we like to see our road networks in our own minds.  It also is a place where we can share crazy ideas that we know would not work, but just for the fun of it think about as well!

Yet I see so many users here critique  others wish lists ideas as if the one who suggested it is either a politician or an engineer who is about to make that idea a reality next week or so.  I see people calling others ideas a lot more than crazy too.  I have seen many bring out the reality in the situation harshly!  Plus many of the typical liberal verses conservative and other trivial stuff.

Just because a person wishes for something, does not mean he believes his wish is suitable either.  I wish that FDOT would turn SR 436 in Florida to a freeway between the Orlando International Airport and SR 408, but I would not push it in real life.  There are plenty of other road projects around Orlando that need more attention to than converting this segment of highway from arterial to freeway.  In fact Orlando has so many trouble spots I would not even know where to begin.  I would most likely think that SR 435 (aka Kirkman Road) would be more suitable to become a freeway upgrade as it has more stop and go than SR 436. At least on 436 the lights are better timed as SR 435 intersects many other major arterials like Vineland Road, Conroy Road, and Univeral Studios main entrance as SR 436 has smaller intersecting streets.

Anyway, the point is why we get so bent out of shape when someone else shares his own wish list which is harmless to say the least?  Is not this discussion area to be about dreaming?  Why do others attack others on here just for stating that they would like to see, or have done, something that will never ever get off the ground in reality?  I just don't get it!

[hotdogPi]

Maybe it would be better if the person that proposed the ideas specifically said if it was realistic or not.

[Zeffy]

Maybe it would be better if the person that proposed the ideas specifically said if it was realistic or not.

That shouldn't be necessary - the term fictional refers to something that isn't reality - so you shouldn't be attacked for any reason regardless whether or not what you posted makes any sense in the real world.

For example, if I posted that I wanted US 206 to be upgraded to a 6 lane road through Hillsborough, should I be attacked? Yes, it is true that it wouldn't be possible, but since the board is Fictional Highways, my post is more than suitable for that board. Now if I went and said that in somewhere like Northeast or General Highway Discussion, yeah, I probably would be attacked, but as long as my post is in a board that is purely 100% contained of fictional ideas, no matter how inane they may be, I should be fine. Of course, I don't post there anyway, because I like my ideas to be kept to myself. Oh well.

[vdeane]

There are four categories of fictional highways - "a good idea, but won't happen/hasn't been proposed due to finances/politics/whatever" (which I don't think anyone really minds), "not based on real places" (not too much of that around here for some reason), "a little out there", and "are you high?" (Alanland, I-86SSEWNS, interstate to the moon, the immigration freedomway).  There are some people that don't like the second-to-last category and a large number that hate the last category.

[hbelkins]

I don't think it's attacking if you ask someone to justify their proposal.

For instance, someone recently proposed extending US 460 into Illinois via the Shawneetown Bridge. I asked why. I don't think that was an attack; instead, it was wanting to know why the person thought that was necessary.

Some things, like the I-86ESSENWWESW thread, are self-explanatory as parody or humor. Others aren't, and I don't think it's out of line to ask someone why they would suggest what they are suggesting.

[corco]

Some things, like the I-86ESSENWWESW thread, are self-explanatory as parody or humor

I was actually completely serious.

More seriously, though, yeah- I feel like there's a nice line for renumbering plans that are actually sort of possible.

"Holy fuck why would you want to do that it is stupid. Are you crazy?" is probably not acceptable but "What is your reasoning for this" or "What you say is interesting, but why do you feel it is better than now? This is why I think now is better" should be acceptable, because that's what will actually stimulate discussion, which I assume is the point of a forum post. If you're just posting a masturbatory exercise that has no value to anybody but you, why bother posting it?

[Molandfreak]

I don't mind people briefly pointing out that my ideas are ridiculous (I know they are anyway); what I don't like is when I give legitimate justification for a pie-in-the-sky idea and people are so closed-minded that they keep yelling at me.

All these new interstates would really help Austin grow.

Oh wait.

Because the interstate system is totally about making cities grow.

Oh wait.

Please.  The implication is that a city of Austin's size "deserves" x amounts of interstates or else it's going to be some forgotten BFE shithole like, say, Moland.  Wherever that is.  Maybe that was true in 1975.  It's 2013.

You interstate shield fetishists are a trip.

[corco]

Yeah, I would say that would fall into the probably unacceptable line- he's making an assumption that you're making an assumption that you haven't stated you're making and then bashing you for it.

[Alps]

This is a roads forum. If you post something that's completely silly, we'll explain why. It's not pointless bashing, it's pointful (to coin a word) - to hopefully inform your next proposal to better achieve its purpose.

[Molandfreak]

Can it be safe to say that we should ignore the cost factor in the fictional ghetto and assume the poster is imagining a perfect-world scenario? It is pretty clear that any slab of asphalt you lay down is going to cost money, why do we need to be told that over and over again? Idea-bashing in fictional highways should only be done in cases of severe environmental factors and important landmarks in the right-of-way.

[Henry]

Sure, most of what we're proposing here will never come to fruition, at least not in our lifetimes, but we all can dream, can't we? And while some of our fellow posters may not like what we show them (like an Interstate through Yellowstone, for example), it shouldn't give them a reason to put us down like very few would like to do, because after all, there's no way it can happen. Leave the attacks to the opposition of actual road projects, that's all I'm saying.

[corco]

I just... if you post something you know is ridiculous and you have no interest in discussing it, why post it? What value does your post provide to other forum members? Or am i missing the point of a forum?

[Molandfreak]

I'm not suggesting we eliminate disagreements and other discussion. If someone is against a fictional proposal for financial reasons, they should provide an alternative that would cost less. "This would be a huge waste of money" adds nothing to the discussion, whereas the below argument against constructing I-49 is legitimate, valuable opposition that explores an alternative to the matter.

I-49 isn't going to magically cut the distance...
New Orleans to Kansas City via Memphis: 844 miles
New Orleans to Kansas City via I-10 to Lafayette and I-49: 883 miles
New Orleans to Kansas City via I-49 all the way: 905 miles

And the terrain's flatter via Memphis, another benefit for trucks. The money would be better spent completing the four-laning of US 63, something AHTD probably plans anyway.

[NE2]

I'm not suggesting we eliminate disagreements and other discussion. If someone is against a fictional proposal for financial reasons, they should provide an alternative that would cost less.

No build. Duh.

[US81]

Name-calling is neither beneficial nor fostering of discussion or debate, and I cannot understand why it is permitted when discussions of grammar and spelling are not, but since name-calling is condoned and the harsh kinds of comments described above are par for this forum, I continue to be reluctant to post in this area.

[Alps]

Name-calling is neither beneficial nor fostering of discussion or debate, and I cannot understand why it is permitted when discussions of grammar and spelling are not, but since name-calling is condoned and the harsh kinds of comments described above are par for this forum, I continue to be reluctant to post in this area.

We don't allow direct name-calling. We do allow groups of people to be called names (like those stupid NIMBYs, damned persnickety Middletown residents, etc.). The reason grammar/spelling isn't allowed for discussion is because before that rule, there was constant pointing out of minute errors that had nothing to do with the topic and would derail a conversation.

[Scott5114]

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1809.0 which was posted in 2009 remains good advice.

[Brandon]

I'm not suggesting we eliminate disagreements and other discussion. If someone is against a fictional proposal for financial reasons, they should provide an alternative that would cost less.

No build. Duh.

Interestingly, "no build" can have its own economic costs whether it be in trade or time.  Lake County, Illinois is finding that out with the lack of an IL-53 extension as opposed to the I-355 extension that Will County pushed for and got.  No build isn't always the cheapest option in the long run.