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

Myths/misconceptions/untrue things about road-related things

Started by index, July 13, 2018, 02:36:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: hbelkins on July 14, 2018, 07:35:46 PM
That there's a science called viatology.  :ded: :pan:

Wasn't that from that crazy guy out by me (Central California) that made a bunch of videos on the road with a bunch of swearing?


hotdogPi

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 14, 2018, 06:51:44 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 14, 2018, 06:45:37 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 14, 2018, 05:39:21 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 14, 2018, 05:28:47 PM
That freeways and Interstates are safer than US or State routes. 

Um, freeways are statistically safer than 2 or 4-lane undivided roads. Most crashes happen at intersections. The myth is that "freeways are more dangerous due to the speeds involved".
Had to pull up the data for a friend, cause he claimed Interstates were more unsafe than rural 2 lane roads, due to the higher speeds. The data is clear that Interstates/Freeways are the safest form of auto roadways to travel

CA 99 near me has something like 60 plus fatalities a year per 100 miles which way higher than any surface route in the immediate area.  Granted the volume a freeway like CA 99 sees it isn't any wonder that it would have more wrecks and fatalities with the sheer traffic count alone. .  With the volume a freeway sees compared to most surface equivalents odds are you'll likely have more wrecks and fatalities.  I'm sure if you mathed fatalities per volume surface routes will edge wat higher than a freeway.  I'd venture a guess that per mileage freeways would almost always have more accidents and surface routes would take the edge on traffic volume.

What matters is per vehicle mile traveled.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

mgk920

Quote from: Brandon on July 14, 2018, 05:17:52 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on July 14, 2018, 03:50:38 PM
That freeways are free as in no cost to the user.

And that tollways are double taxation.

But remember, nobody, but NOBODY in Wisconsin nor Illinois will ever refer to an Illinois Tollway as a 'freeway'.  It's a 'tollway'.

;-)

Mike

vdeane

Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 09:39:54 AM
That urban Interstate highways were not part of the original plan.  They were slipped in at the last minute.
Guess it depends on how you define "original plan".  They certainly weren't what Eisenhower envisioned.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Beltway

Quote from: 1 on July 14, 2018, 07:58:57 PM
What matters is per vehicle mile traveled.

Indeed.  Freeways typically have 1/3 the fatality rate per 100 million VMT per year, compared to surface highways.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Beltway

Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2018, 09:02:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 09:39:54 AM
That urban Interstate highways were not part of the original plan.  They were slipped in at the last minute.
Guess it depends on how you define "original plan".  They certainly weren't what Eisenhower envisioned.

Interregional Highways in 1944, and the Yellow Book in 1955.  Both had urban Interstates, and the first one had no input from Eisenhower and the second one was mainly developed by Congress and the Bureau of Public Roads.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

cl94

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 14, 2018, 07:55:16 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 14, 2018, 07:35:46 PM
That there's a science called viatology.  :ded: :pan:

Wasn't that from that crazy guy out by me (Central California) that made a bunch of videos on the road with a bunch of swearing?

Yes.



I still haven't seen any of the uncensored ones. I hope somebody can find them.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

jeffandnicole


Mergingtraffic

Quote from: jon daly on July 13, 2018, 08:59:27 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 13, 2018, 04:20:46 PM
2) building a new expressway/freeway will result in the same damage that happened when they were built in the 1950s.


Could you expand on this one? From a macro view you could argue that the interstate system and other limited-access highways caused a bunch of different problems from pollution, homogenization of the US, urban decay and sprawl, a decline in importance for rail, et cetera. I've seen such arguments from paleoconservatives as well as some folks on the left. But I get the felling that's not the type of damage you are referring to.

Today, planners are more respectful to the environment and sprawl so if a new expressway is built it probably won't damage areas like I-95 did in the northeast etc.

CT was close to extending their CT-11 Expressway 8 miles and part of that plan was to have a greenway surrounding it so no sprawl would happen and limited exits would've also been required.
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

Revive 755

Myth:  I-74 was proposed to go inside the I-465 loop.

(still waiting for someone to provide/name a document confirming there was a serious proposal).

Beltway

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 14, 2018, 09:55:11 PM
You can't build your way out of congestion.

Well, that old slogan is what could be called a 'false dichotomy'.  True that you can't eliminate all congestion, but the right kind of building can create huge congestion improvements in selected areas.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

english si

Quote from: hbelkins on July 14, 2018, 07:35:46 PMThat there's a science called viatology.  :ded: :pan:
It's called odology as via is latin...  :-P

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 14, 2018, 09:55:11 PMYou can't build your way out of congestion.
A similar myth is new rail link gets decent loading and you have to stand = success = upgrade/build more; new road link gets decent loading and gets a bit snarled up at a light at peak times = failure = shouldn't build/built too attractive for traffic and should have been watered down some more.

GaryV

A freeway with in Interstate number is better than other freeways that carry a US or State number.

ilpt4u

Quote from: GaryV on July 15, 2018, 07:05:35 AM
A freeway with in Interstate number is better than other freeways that carry a US or State number.
What about unnumbered Freeways?

The Nature Boy

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 13, 2018, 05:38:04 PM

(2) An awful lot of people have the incorrect belief that the entire New Jersey Turnpike is part of I-95.

For the purposes of long-distance interstate travel, it might as well be. If you're traveling from DC to New York, you're doing the I-95 > I-295 (DE/NJ) > NJ Turnpike > I-95 (which joins the Turnpike).

What I don't understand is how one can hold that belief and properly navigate between the two points. At some point, you have to affirmatively LEAVE I-95 to get onto I-295 to cross the Delaware Memorial Bridge. If you think that I-95 is continuous onto the Turnpike, wouldn't you just continue on I-95 into Philly?

Quote from: GaryV on July 15, 2018, 07:05:35 AM
A freeway with in Interstate number is better than other freeways that carry a US or State number.


This one also has some grain of truth. Interstates at least have uniform standards so you can be reasonably sure of their quality or at least what features are present.

ilpt4u

Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 15, 2018, 10:24:35 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 13, 2018, 05:38:04 PM

(2) An awful lot of people have the incorrect belief that the entire New Jersey Turnpike is part of I-95.

For the purposes of long-distance interstate travel, it might as well be. If you're traveling from DC to New York, you're doing the I-95 > I-295 (DE/NJ) > NJ Turnpike > I-95 (which joins the Turnpike).

What I don't understand is how one can hold that belief and properly navigate between the two points. At some point, you have to affirmatively LEAVE I-95 to get onto I-295 to cross the Delaware Memorial Bridge. If you think that I-95 is continuous onto the Turnpike, wouldn't you just continue on I-95 into Philly?
Granted, the I-95 Gap is being corrected as we type, with the Delaware Expy/PA Turnpike interchange project

That being said, the current discontinuity of I-95 probably encourages the idea that Thru I-95 continues on the NJ Turnpike, instead of going thru Wilmington & Philadelphia. Sure, it is not signed that way, but practically speaking, it really is Thru I-95. The unnumbered portion should be signed as an (even)95 3DI, really

The Nature Boy

Quote from: ilpt4u on July 15, 2018, 11:20:32 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 15, 2018, 10:24:35 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 13, 2018, 05:38:04 PM

(2) An awful lot of people have the incorrect belief that the entire New Jersey Turnpike is part of I-95.

For the purposes of long-distance interstate travel, it might as well be. If you're traveling from DC to New York, you're doing the I-95 > I-295 (DE/NJ) > NJ Turnpike > I-95 (which joins the Turnpike).

What I don't understand is how one can hold that belief and properly navigate between the two points. At some point, you have to affirmatively LEAVE I-95 to get onto I-295 to cross the Delaware Memorial Bridge. If you think that I-95 is continuous onto the Turnpike, wouldn't you just continue on I-95 into Philly?
Granted, the I-95 Gap is being corrected as we type, with the Delaware Expy/PA Turnpike interchange project

That being said, the current discontinuity of I-95 probably encourages the idea that Thru I-95 continues on the NJ Turnpike, instead of going thru Wilmington & Philadelphia. Sure, it is not signed that way, but practically speaking, it really is Thru I-95. The unnumbered portion should be signed as an (even)95 3DI, really

I've long said that an easy fix for the I-95 gap would've been to just designate that entire I-295 > NJ Turnpike span as I-95. For practical navigational purposes, it basically already is.

vdeane

Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 09:31:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2018, 09:02:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 09:39:54 AM
That urban Interstate highways were not part of the original plan.  They were slipped in at the last minute.
Guess it depends on how you define "original plan".  They certainly weren't what Eisenhower envisioned.

Interregional Highways in 1944, and the Yellow Book in 1955.  Both had urban Interstates, and the first one had no input from Eisenhower and the second one was mainly developed by Congress and the Bureau of Public Roads.
Except the Interregional Highways proposal went nowhere, and the Yellow Book was not in what Eisenhower originally gave Congress, which can be argued as the "original plan".  The Yellow Book was added to the plan (which was later passed) by Congress while Eisenhower was in the hospital and not in a position to do anything about it.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

english si

Quote from: GaryV on July 15, 2018, 07:05:35 AMA freeway with in Interstate number is better than other freeways that carry a US or State number.
And the flip of this - just because a freeway has a number (or name in the case of KY Parkways, etc) already doesn't mean that seeking an Interstate designation is an unnecessary and pointless waste of time and effort.

english si

Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 15, 2018, 11:38:59 AMI've long said that an easy fix for the I-95 gap would've been to just designate that entire I-295 > NJ Turnpike span as I-95. For practical navigational purposes, it basically already is.
But, but, that will take it away from Philadelphia and major interstates absolutely must serve major cities directly - and the CBD if they can go via it rather than around it (even if its longer).

Of course, there's no absolutely about it - they rerouted I-70 out of Pittsburgh, after all and I-80 skirts Chicago. But at the same time, it is a dominant philosophy.

Beltway

Quote from: vdeane on July 15, 2018, 11:44:45 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 09:31:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2018, 09:02:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 09:39:54 AM
That urban Interstate highways were not part of the original plan.  They were slipped in at the last minute.
Guess it depends on how you define "original plan".  They certainly weren't what Eisenhower envisioned.
Interregional Highways in 1944, and the Yellow Book in 1955.  Both had urban Interstates, and the first one had no input from Eisenhower and the second one was mainly developed by Congress and the Bureau of Public Roads.
Except the Interregional Highways proposal went nowhere, and the Yellow Book was not in what Eisenhower originally gave Congress, which can be argued as the "original plan".  The Yellow Book was added to the plan (which was later passed) by Congress while Eisenhower was in the hospital and not in a position to do anything about it.

Sounds like something copied from _Superhighway - Superhoax_, Helen Leavitt, 1970.

_Interregional Highways_, published by Public Roads Administration, 1943, was the 40,000 mile approved Interstate highway system that was carried forward to what was begun in 1956. 

Eisenhower did not give any detailed Interstate highway plan (as in where specific routes were planned) to Congress at any time.

_Interregional Highways_ was updated to _General Location of National System of Interstate Highways_, 1955, the so-called "Yellow Book".

The "Yellow Book", which is posted on a private website, shows that the urban Interstates were planned then.
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/

Eisenhower is one of the major roads myths.  His influence in the overall scheme of things Interstate between 1939 and 1956, was rather minor compared to all the other players in the BPR and in Congress.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sparker

Quote from: vdeane on July 15, 2018, 11:44:45 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 09:31:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2018, 09:02:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 14, 2018, 09:39:54 AM
That urban Interstate highways were not part of the original plan.  They were slipped in at the last minute.
Guess it depends on how you define "original plan".  They certainly weren't what Eisenhower envisioned.

Interregional Highways in 1944, and the Yellow Book in 1955.  Both had urban Interstates, and the first one had no input from Eisenhower and the second one was mainly developed by Congress and the Bureau of Public Roads.
Except the Interregional Highways proposal went nowhere, and the Yellow Book was not in what Eisenhower originally gave Congress, which can be argued as the "original plan".  The Yellow Book was added to the plan (which was later passed) by Congress while Eisenhower was in the hospital and not in a position to do anything about it.

The plan with which Eisenhower was familiar was predicated on the latest iteration of Thomas MacDonald's original 1943-44 network (about 37K miles), expanded after WWII and the 1950 census figures -- but basically following the original outline.  Not a lot of details within that plan regarding how the system would circumnavigate urban areas; Eisenhower was apparently under the impression that the network would follow the Autobahn mode and simply skirt the urban areas (at least where topologically possible).  But while the original plan was conceived as a large-scale "farm-to-market" network with long uninterrupted rural segments -- which had been long-considered ideal within a Congress dominated by rural interests, the postwar reality was that Congressional power had shifted more toward cities and suburbs -- and those representatives wanted their interests served by the nascent network.  So starting in the late '40's additional urban mileage was increasingly "penciled in" to the ever-evolving system schematic.     Also note at that time there was no USDOT (that didn't come about until 1967); planning was embedded within the Commerce Department, which tended to respond to entreaties from commercial interests in most regards; the Interstate system was one of those.  Commercial interests echoed the desire to let the system serve the city cores (those interests wanted efficient points of egress); the combination of Congressional pressure and Commerce Department interests did result in several versions of the "Yellow Book".

Eisenhower was certainly not a micromanager; like the general he once was, he preferred to delegate the details to his subordinates and function as a highly visible "cheerleader" for the concept; actual planning was left to others.  When the final authorizing legislation came up for a vote in 1956, Eisenhower was indeed indisposed with a heart condition and "out of the loop", so to speak.  To make certain the vote went their way (i.e., getting the system and its funding scheme approved), the variation of the "Yellow Book" that showed the full complement of intercity/interregional corridors plus the maximum amount of urban beltways, inner loops, spurs, etc. was distributed to Congress just prior to the vote.  Of course, it looked like pretty much every district got a piece of the system, with highly populated areas featuring multiple congressional districts getting more than their share.  And thus the vote went the way of the administration and the Commerce Dept., they had their funded system -- but with all those added urban servers, which brought the system out to 41K aggregate miles versus just under 40K prior to the additions.  When Eisenhower received the news of the approval, he was happy -- but at the time, he was more happy to be alive than concerned about the details.  The lore goes (and this is from several published sources) that on one of his many post-heart-attack "maintenance" trips to Walter Reed Hospital he wanted to make a side trip to Fort Meade to visit an old Army colleague; at that time, the initial grading was being done for the I-495 Beltway, and the motorcade crossed the construction zone, which was square in a commercial/housing zone near College Park.  Eisenhower asked what the construction was for, and one of his aides answered that it was the new Interstate beltway around D.C.  Not having expected to see Interstate construction in a populated area, Eisenhower was apparently apoplectic about what he had just seen; upon returning to the White House he demanded to see a detailed Interstate plan (which he hadn't done until that point).  The latest "Yellow Book" was set on his desk -- and accounts said that he became increasingly agitated every time he saw the inserts with the urban facilities displayed.  Eventually, one of the Commerce undersecretaries was summoned; the explanation was that the system wouldn't have gotten through Congress absent the additional urban mileage.  After this assessment was reinforced by others within the administration, Eisenhower calmed down a bit -- he certainly wasn't happy about the turn of events, but he grudgingly accepted the political realities of the situation; at that point construction had begun on the system, including a segment of I-70 bypassing his childhood home in Abilene, KS (apparently this initial segment had been deliberately selected to honor the President; he found time to attend the ribbon-cutting in early 1960, his last full year in office).  So while the Interstate system did exceed his original "brief", it certainly does not lessen the attribution to efforts -- at least in the realm of P.R. -- by he and his administration to get the ball rolling in the first place.     
 

jon daly

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 14, 2018, 10:08:40 PM
Quote from: jon daly on July 13, 2018, 08:59:27 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 13, 2018, 04:20:46 PM
2) building a new expressway/freeway will result in the same damage that happened when they were built in the 1950s.


Could you expand on this one? From a macro view you could argue that the interstate system and other limited-access highways caused a bunch of different problems from pollution, homogenization of the US, urban decay and sprawl, a decline in importance for rail, et cetera. I've seen such arguments from paleoconservatives as well as some folks on the left. But I get the felling that's not the type of damage you are referring to.

Today, planners are more respectful to the environment and sprawl so if a new expressway is built it probably won't damage areas like I-95 did in the northeast etc.

CT was close to extending their CT-11 Expressway 8 miles and part of that plan was to have a greenway surrounding it so no sprawl would happen and limited exits would've also been required.

Thanks. I've heard people argue that I-84 ripped apart a neighborhood in Hartford, but I read some links I found on this board and it mentioned that there was already a rift between residential neighborhoods thanks to Royal Typewriter, other factories, and a railroad.  Now, Robert Moses may've been quoted in that paper, but the negative effects of the interstates on Hartford may be exaggerated. I'm wont to blame Constitution Plaza for some of the cities ills.

Beltway

Quote from: sparker on July 15, 2018, 03:18:34 PM
The plan with which Eisenhower was familiar was predicated on the latest iteration of Thomas MacDonald's original 1943-44 network (about 37K miles), expanded after WWII and the 1950 census figures -- but basically following the original outline.  Not a lot of details within that plan regarding how the system would circumnavigate urban areas 

I have a copy of the Interstate highway system foundational planning study document:  _Interregional Highways_, published by Public Roads Administration, 1943.  These were the highways that were later renamed Interstate highways.

_Interregional Highways_ was the foundation of _General Location of National System of Interstate Highways_ (the "Yellow Book"). 

_Interregional Highways_ made it clear that all the highways should have limited-access right-of-way, and full grade separation in the urban areas, with possible at-grade intersections on lightly traveled rural sections.  Mixed traffic of cars, trucks and buses would be handled.   Rural highways with more than projected 3,000 AADT should be 4-lane divided.  _Interregional Highways_ had a couple hundred pages of text, plus a series of maps and diagrams.

_Interregional Highways_ had conceptual schematics of generally how the urban freeways would be laid out, for a small city, medium city, and large city.  The small city would have the interregional highway pass nearby with major arterial thoroughfares connecting the city to the new highway, from each direction.  The medium city with one interregional highway had it passing through the heart of the city, and there was a partial beltway bypass of the city.  The large city had a full radial spoke system of urban freeways passing through the heart of the city with a downtown freeway loop, and there was a full beltway bypass of the city.  In all cases, the urban interregional highways had frequent interchange spacing of about one mile distance.

_Interregional Highways_
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89090507336;view=1up;seq=94
The urban area conceptual schematics are on Page 72, and the supporting text is in adjacent pages.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sparker

Of course the conceptual schematics for urban service were laid out early; trying to coordinate a national network with local needs would always require some attention to what local networks would look like.  But all the configurations were simply templates for how an "Interstate" system might be configured -- actual application to actual cities wasn't evident until the postwar years.  My point is that Eisenhower approached the system as purely interregional -- the expanded "farm-to-market" system originally conceived in the 1930's, partially as a Depression-era public-works measure.  It wasn't until MacDonald and his associates, under the auspices of the Public Roads Administration (the forerunner of BPR and later FHWA), did their wartime study that added defense/evacuation criteria to the mix.  The text of the study makes it clear that planning of urban or near-urban sections of the system would have to be accomplished in coordination with local planning entities; during WWII this was certainly not a national priority.  However, after the war it was found -- anecdotally and from the data derived from the 1950 Census -- that urban areas in general had significantly grown in both population and physical size over the previous decade (wartime industry being responsible for much of that).  But postwar years decidedly did not show a measurable reverse move back to more rural areas; conversely, much of the previously semi-rural territory near cities had begun to be dominated by housing and supporting businesses.  It was at that point -- and amplified when Congressional redistricting occurred prior to the 1952 elections, giving more seats to urban-based representatives, that serious attention began to be paid to the planned Interstate network's relationships with cities.  Cities deemed "small" and not requiring any Interstate treatment save a trunk bypass were now considered mid-size; often, they petitioned for a 2nd freeway loop to either serve their downtown area or configure the trunk through downtown with an arc bypass.  And the larger metropolitan areas, particularly the "sun belt" cities that were seeing consistent population influx even in the postwar years, started looking seriously at full beltways and connecting loops, driven by the perceived need for intra-regional commercial egress.  That is where the templates formulated back in the early '40's came into play -- "massaged" to fit local topographical variations, the various methodologies outlined in that paper were eventually committed to paper via the urban inserts in the iterations of the "Yellow Book". 

Scott is spot-on with one particular assessment -- that Eisenhower himself didn't have much to do with the actual planning and deployment of the system; his propensity for delegation of details functionally isolated him from the transactions that were happening between Congress, local/state planners, and the then-BPR, embedded in the Commerce Department.  Details were handled (as per historic and usual practice) at the administrative level;  the "political" top tier of the process, including the president himself, simply were periodically updated as to the progress of the entire system.  To Eisenhower, the system remained an interregional/inter-city undertaking; the minutiae of localized detail were handled administratively and effectively "out of sight" of both the public eye and the White House.  Shepherding the overall system -- and particularly its funding mechanism -- through the legislative maze occupied Eisenhower and his immediate subordinates; the matter of lower-mileage loops and spurs in urban areas just didn't make it to the top level until after the primary 1956 battle had been won.     



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.