AARoads Forum

Inspired by a radio program I listened to where listeners submitted their nominees for an on-air award show, I started thinking about what might be a good question to ask my fellow road enthusiast. I would opt for all of the answers, but if I had to choose one...

In order:
Cutouts (what I voted for)
Colored shields
Higher speed limits (because race car)
Button copy
Trusses
Concrete

I wonder how high "reasonable and prudent" would be these days.

R&P for speed limits.  Do we really need cops hiding out in the bushes like a thief in the night to catch speeders on freeways?

Then I'd bring back cutout shields.

Engine cranks. Sundown towns.

Quote from: NE2 on January 10, 2014, 05:46:50 PM
Engine cranks. Sundown towns.

Hell, at that rate, let's just go back to horses and buggies.

Quote from: Brandon on January 10, 2014, 05:38:31 PM
R&P for speed limits.  Do we really need cops hiding out in the bushes like a thief in the night to catch speeders on freeways?

^^This.

One traditional highway practice item not mentioned that I would like to see return is the increased usage of pull-through signs; especially at locations where the through route changes its control destinations but does not veer off onto a different highway corridor.

Hmmm, my order would probably be:

Trusses
Cutout shields
Colored shields
Reasonable and prudent*
Concrete
Button copy*

I love button copy, but mostly for the rareness / nostalgia factor. Retro-reflective sheeting seems better in terms of visibility / functionality. (My take as a non-engineer)

Although I'm definitely in favor of reasonable and prudent, I would be leery of going back to it at this point. I wish it had been the standard all along. I'm not sure we could bring it back now that law enforcement has had years to have the practice of aggressive speed enforcement as the "easy" ticket / revenue enhancement it has become. My fear would be that R&P becomes something arbitrary that a cop can determine more or less at whim and load one event into multiple tickets with big fines and points, simply because it's the end of the month and he hasn't met his quota, or doesn't like your make of car or your bumper sticker.

Reasonable and prudent should be anything below 100. The 85 mph ticket that ended Montana's reasonable and prudent limit was absolutely ludacris and he was right to call them out on it. I haven't driven any of MT 200, but a (relatively) straight highway out west with shoulders is safe at those speeds.

Other, cloverleaf interchanges

Quote from: Molandfreak on January 10, 2014, 06:48:36 PM
The 85 mph ticket that ended Montana's reasonable and prudent limit was absolutely ludacris

Proof that R&P is all about DWB.

Other: Traffic engineers setting speed limits not politicians.

Cutouts was my vote.

As for concrete pavement and trusses as bridge standards, we live in an era where prudent use of tax dollars is essential. Concrete is a more expensive initial investment. As for truss bridges, only if they are the most cost-efficient design. Many times they aren't and it would be a waste of money to build a truss bridge isn't necessary.

I've never experienced R&P speed limits, but they wouldn't necessarily end police patrols. My definition of R&P might be different than the cop's, and his definition will win.

Nobody wants to repeal right turn on red ??


:-o

Quote from: hbelkins on January 10, 2014, 07:22:38 PM
I've never experienced R&P speed limits, but they wouldn't necessarily end police patrols. My definition of R&P might be different than the cop's, and his definition will win.

I have.  126 mph on a lonely stretch of I-94 east of Miles City, MT was a blast, in my new BMW 328i in 1996 when the "Montanabahn" was still in effect.  But there was enough traffic on I-90 between Billings and Butte to keep me in the 85-100mph range. 

Also, the curve advisories stopped at 65mph, so you were taking your chances on how fast you could take a curve that could be safely driven faster but how much faster was unclear.

More generally, IIRC the general lack of guidance on safe speeds was what doomed R&P in Montana.  Maybe yellow speed advisory signs would've made R&P less legally problematic, as well as promoting driver safety and reining in cops' discretion.

While I voted for restoration of R&P, cutout shields would've been my second choice if that had been allowed.  (I grew up in California, where cutouts rule -- Interstate, U.S., state, and county route markers were and still are all cutouts.)  Button copy, though, I could do without -- sometimes it works nicely, but more often it doesn't, especially where only the marker shape and not the route number are visible at night. 

And no, I think right turn on red is a great idea.

Quote from: Jardine on January 10, 2014, 07:44:06 PM
Nobody wants to repeal right turn on red ??


:-o

No. Why would we?

Nostalgia?

Restoring things to a simpler, gentler way of life ?

Getting back to basics and eschewing ill conceived liberalizations from the 70s that fostered a decline in traditional values ?


:wow:

Gateless railroad crossing signals.
In my opinion, gates are not needed. Lights work just fine. Gates are really annoying because they block traffic unnessessarily during the following situations: Hi-rail truck near crossing, track work near crossing, switching near crossing.
I like the old style mast signals where the crossbuck and lights are mounted more flush with the pole, and the crossbuck isn't too far from the lights.

Barricade lights.
In many states, such as Texas, they aren't used anymore.
Two reasons I would bring them back. 1. Safety. 2. They look cool.
Yes, there are situations where they are not needed due to bright sheeting. However, there are some situations where they would be beneficial. Especially isolated repair spots that aren't part of a large project.

I voted for R&P, but simply having traffic engineers set speed limits based on what is safe, not having them politically motivated would be a great thing.  Having driven across the US nearly a dozen times, there are more places that I care to list where the speed limits are ridiculously slow.  With few exceptions, like going through the panhandle of Idaho and some twists through Montana, no less than 90 would be acceptable throughout most of the Freeways in the West, all the way to Chicago.


I would also like to see cutout shields, and have seen a few in recent years installed along US-421 in Carroll County, IN, and they look awesome and should be the norm, not the exception.

I voted for "other." I would get rid of signs saying "Slower Traffic Keep Right" in favor of "Keep Right Except to Pass" ("Left Lane for Passing Only" might be OK on roads with no left-lane exits).

Quote from: Brian556 on January 11, 2014, 12:27:42 AM
Gateless railroad crossing signals.
In my opinion, gates are not needed. Lights work just fine. Gates are really annoying because they block traffic unnessessarily during the following situations: Hi-rail truck near crossing, track work near crossing, switching near crossing.
I like the old style mast signals where the crossbuck and lights are mounted more flush with the pole, and the crossbuck isn't too far from the lights.

With modern signaling techniques (pair of lights per lane), I can agree. When gates malfunction, they can be a bitch. There's a pair of xings several miles from where I work that have a habit of malfunctioning just as the afternoon rush is beginning. What makes matters worse is the railroad is extremely slow to respond. Responding police end up getting caught in the traffic gridlock. Once they finally reach the xing, they end up lifting the gates by hand and tying them to the signal pole.

QuoteBarricade lights.
In many states, such as Texas, they aren't used anymore.
Two reasons I would bring them back. 1. Safety. 2. They look cool.
Yes, there are situations where they are not needed due to bright sheeting. However, there are some situations where they would be beneficial. Especially isolated repair spots that aren't part of a large project.

While I can't speak for many other states, barricade lights are alive and kicking in Wisconsin with no signs of eliminating them. They're still in the spec book and have specific notes on their usage in the standard detail drawings for closures and detours.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 11, 2014, 01:00:04 PM
I voted for "other." I would get rid of signs saying "Slower Traffic Keep Right" in favor of "Keep Right Except to Pass" ("Left Lane for Passing Only" might be OK on roads with no left-lane exits).

Some states already use a similar phrasing.  Michigan's say "KEEP RIGHT / PASS LEFT".

Quote from: Jardine on January 10, 2014, 11:48:27 PM
Nostalgia?

Restoring things to a simpler, gentler way of life ?

Getting back to basics and eschewing ill conceived liberalizations from the 70s that fostered a decline in traditional values ?


:wow:

what

1. Truss bridges.
2. Button copy.
3. Concrete pacement.
4. Reasonale & Prudent speed limit. (Or at the very least, 70 mph in Canada; should be at least 120 km/h / 75 mph now.)
5. Cutout shields. (US; Does not apply here.)
6. Coloured shields. (Idem.)

Quote from: Brandon on January 11, 2014, 04:33:47 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 11, 2014, 01:00:04 PM
I voted for "other." I would get rid of signs saying "Slower Traffic Keep Right" in favor of "Keep Right Except to Pass" ("Left Lane for Passing Only" might be OK on roads with no left-lane exits).

Some states already use a similar phrasing.  Michigan's say "KEEP RIGHT / PASS LEFT".

Yeah, I recall there used to be a sign like that just west of Breezewood. But they're all too rare (or nonexistent) in most states I've visited.

California's driver ed materials apparently now call the left lane the "fast cruising lane." I hate that sort of crap. I mean, look, we all know sometimes due to traffic you wind up in the left lane, especially in urban areas or when there are a lot of slow trucks. That's life. What irks me is the number of people who see no problem with essentially defaulting to the left lane–unless, of course, you're in a country where they drive on the left!

I chose "other" as a proxy for "None of the above."  Most of the options listed are curiosities that are good to look at, and good to collect, but were abandoned for good reasons.  The lone exception is concrete for new pavement, which has never really been abandoned and so is not "traditional" in the same sense as the others.

One thing that used to be "traditional" in that sense, which I wish would be restored, is sheetings that remain color-stable as they age.  Microprismatic yellow, for example, fades surprisingly rapidly and badly--there are plenty of guide-sign sunflowers around me that are just ten years old and faded almost white.

I voted for cutout shields. Especiallly for the US highway sheild. it just looks terrible as a square sign. Additionally they should all be standardized using the California US shield as the default shield design.

Quote from: Indyroads on January 12, 2014, 06:43:04 PM
I voted for cutout shields. Especiallly for the US highway sheild. it just looks terrible as a square sign. Additionally they should all be standardized using the California US shield as the default shield design.

I vote for variety in this regard.  Personally, I'm more of a fan of the variety Michigan and Ohio used.  Cutouts with a black border and the number, no "US" at the top.

I'm going with other.  Slightly in order of practice:

* Rest areas, both on interstates and on other major expressways.  Less of the 'there's plenty of gas stations/fast food joins along the highway, the motorist can use their bathroom' attitude.  Also need less of the 'only trucks may need to pull over and stop, screw the autos' attitude seen in some states.

* Green lights in traffic signals that are truly green; less of the modern bluish green indications.  The color blind should be able to tell the indication by position.

* A tad less of making everything safe to the point of overkill, sometimes to the point of having unintended side effects.  Some possible examples:

   - Breakaway street lights that get knocked over by a drunk driver and then fall onto some other vehicle.  I think there is also at least one case of a pedestrian being electrocuted by a downed street light somewhere.

   - Excessive use of protected only lefts, especially when one signal ends up with protected only lefts because the next signal down the road has them.  So in the name of  safety there can be excessive delay, a greater risk of motorist pushing the light, or developing a habit of disregarding the light and turning whenever they fell is safe.

  - Excessive measures at signalized intersections next to railroad crossings.  If there's going to be a clearance period for any motorist who stopped on or between the tracks and the intersection, right turns on red from the leg with the crossing should be allowed.  Another safety idea that can lead to motorist pushing or disregarding the traffic signal, especially when the pre-signal turns red before the main traffic signal and there's more than enough time for a motorist to clear the intersection.

  - I'll also second the overuse of railroad crossing gates.  Might not have any safety issues, but still can lead to excessive delays when used on minor railroad crossings that see switching near the crossing and the gates get sensitive enough to drop if the engineer sneezes, and stay down even if the train is quite a distance from the crossing.

Quote from: Revive 755 on January 12, 2014, 10:31:23 PM- Breakaway street lights that get knocked over by a drunk driver and then fall onto some other vehicle.  I think there is also at least one case of a pedestrian being electrocuted by a downed street light somewhere.

Lamp columns with frangible bases are designed to break away from the impact, so the scenarios where they would fall on another vehicle if hit are far from universal (frontage road immediately adjacent, too-narrow right-of-way, etc.).  And lamps are equipped with cutoffs so that a break at the base does not result in an exposed electrical connection; I'm not sure what else could be done to reduce the risk of electrocution other than provision of ground fault interruption.

On the safety mention, I was reading a week or two ago a gripe about crumple-away cars.  These days, the hood is designed to buckle if hit, and bumpers to be destroyed.  The result is that even a minor fender bender can total and old car (nearly happened to me, and the car hasn't been the same since).

Quote from: Revive 755 on January 12, 2014, 10:31:23 PM
* Green lights in traffic signals that are truly green; less of the modern bluish green indications.  The color blind should be able to tell the indication by position.

Ever been to Tipperary Hill?  It's even in my Syracuse atlas.

Signals look green to me though.  I wonder if I'm just too young to notice it of if NY never adopted the color change.

Pre-NMSL speed limits, especially on freeways (Interstate and non-Interstate) and rural arterial highways.

Traffic engineers, informed by the design speed of the road, should be in charge of setting speed limits. They do not need "help" from the Sierra Club or elected officials who either want to slow traffic (in some cases because they think they are "helping" transit providers to "compete" against private automobiles) or believe that slower means safer - or because of general anti-auto ideology.

Two words:

'Smudge pots"

:nod:

Mike

Quote from: mgk920 on January 13, 2014, 03:08:42 AM
Two words:

'Smudge pots"

:nod:

Mike

That would inspire letters and "campaigns" from the Sierra Club expressing "serious concern" about the impact of such devices.

Quote from: NE2 on January 10, 2014, 05:46:50 PM
Engine cranks. Sundown towns.

I grew up in a post-sundown town.

I'd accept all signs being '70 spec Arialveticverstesk if we had a sensible speed limit policy.

Also, how many remember those lighted balls, usually with yellow lights, that were used to outline traffic islands and medians at night?

:hmmm:

Mike

Quote from: Brian556 on January 11, 2014, 12:27:42 AM
Gateless railroad crossing signals.
In my opinion, gates are not needed. Lights work just fine. Gates are really annoying because they block traffic unnessessarily during the following situations: Hi-rail truck near crossing, track work near crossing, switching near crossing.
I like the old style mast signals where the crossbuck and lights are mounted more flush with the pole, and the crossbuck isn't too far from the lights.

Due to their light weight and other design criteria, Hi-Rail trucks don't trigger track circuits that activate crossing signals and gates.  Track workers near a crossing will temporarily override the track circuits so that the signals will continue to flash, but the gates won't go up and down unnecessarily.  Likewise, if switching operations routinely occur in the vicinity of a crossing, the track circuits will be designed so that the gates won't go down until the train is actually going through the crossing - and you can be sure that the switching crew has been given some very good incentives by their employer (like loss of pay or job) to not block the crossing for more time than is absolutely necessary.

Sorry, guys....until we as a society become less litigatious, R&P is doomed.

As for my vote, "None of the Above", for reasons similar to Mr. Winkler.

Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2014, 05:38:53 PM
Sorry, guys....until we as a society become less litigatious, R&P is doomed.

And until cops become less piggish. Which will happen about the time pigs become less coppish.

Quote from: vdeane on January 12, 2014, 11:46:44 PM
Ever been to Tipperary Hill?  It's even in my Syracuse atlas.

That particular signal I'm open to having the blue-green light.  It's the other 99.9% where the green is on the bottom or the right (for horizontal signals) that should be more of a pure green.

Quote from: Jardine on January 10, 2014, 07:44:06 PM
Nobody wants to repeal right turn on red ??

:-o

Nah. I'm a huge fan of right on red, and I'd go so far to say that it's a contender for the greatest American contribution to traffic laws. Expanding the general concept to straight and left would be a help to many drivers. Switching to flashing yellow during lightly-trafficked hours such as 2 AM (another more traditional practice from what I've heard) would solve most of that problem, however. It's quite annoying to see a traffic light put in due to rush hour traffic volumes that remains in that same cycle for the entire day when traffic volumes don't even rate a stoplight :banghead:.

With the possible exception of the flashing solid yellow, I think modern traffic lights are very much superior to traditional traffic lights, from greater use of protected turns, to bright LED lamps, to flashing yellow arrows.

Quote from: US81 on January 10, 2014, 06:25:16 PMAlthough I'm definitely in favor of reasonable and prudent, I would be leery of going back to it at this point. I wish it had been the standard all along. I'm not sure we could bring it back now that law enforcement has had years to have the practice of aggressive speed enforcement as the "easy" ticket / revenue enhancement it has become. My fear would be that R&P becomes something arbitrary that a cop can determine more or less at whim and load one event into multiple tickets with big fines and points, simply because it's the end of the month and he hasn't met his quota, or doesn't like your make of car or your bumper sticker.

I tend to agree. The well of speed enforcement has been so poisoned by this point that I think removing speed restrictions altogether would be better, since it would be immune from vagueness lawsuits and take away any arbitrary enforcement power cops may claim under R&P. The experience Germany and Montana (http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox) had with unrestricted speed indicate that such a regime is as safe or even safer than a traditional one, at least on freeways and rural roads. The speed signs would still be useful - they could simply be converted from R series signs to W series signs ;-).

None of that would  be traditional highway practices, though, so moving on...

Quote from: Revive 755 on January 12, 2014, 10:31:23 PM* Rest areas, both on interstates and on other major expressways.  Less of the 'there's plenty of gas stations/fast food joins along the highway, the motorist can use their bathroom' attitude.  Also need less of the 'only trucks may need to pull over and stop, screw the autos' attitude seen in some states.

That's a very good highway practice that is more traditional. Clean, attractive rest areas should be more common than they are. I usually use a Pilot or Flying J if I can find one, but there are long sections of freeway without such facilities.

I vote for cutout signs as the one practice I'd bring back, especially for US Routes. US Route cutout signs, like what are used today in California, are simply more attractive than having that huge black backing. For some reason I don't care much for concrete road surfaces, and although I like trusses just fine I would like some more variety in bridges, such as a cable-stayed configuration or something like that. That would be sort of interesting.

I'm in favor of reviving suicide passing lanes on three lane roads (a passing lane with no line markings indicating a priority for one direction).

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, there is very little about 1960s highways I would want to see back. That includes speed limits based on the self-evaluation of each driver as to what constitutes his safe speed. If you want your cutout route markers, then go for it. Basically, I vote None of the Above.

Stop making every 2 lane road a no-passing zone. Just like the useless red light at 2am, I shouldn't be forced to remain stuck behind a low-speed vehicle just because traffic is heavy a few hours a day.

Quote from: Molandfreak on January 10, 2014, 06:48:36 PM
Reasonable and prudent should be anything below 100.

You do understand the point if r&p is NOT to have a numerical value associated with it. Otherwise, just make the speed limit 100.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 14, 2014, 11:46:17 PM
Stop making every 2 lane road a no-passing zone. Just like the useless red light at 2am, I shouldn't be forced to remain stuck behind a low-speed vehicle just because traffic is heavy a few hours a day.

Quote from: Molandfreak on January 10, 2014, 06:48:36 PM
Reasonable and prudent should be anything below 100.

You do understand the point if r&p is NOT to have a numerical value associated with it. Otherwise, just make the speed limit 100.

The point is that 85 mph is a controllable speed and was more than reasonable for the road in question. Relatively straight roads with few or no intersections don't need a limit at all. I only picked 100 mph as the maximum controllable speed in an average car. Anyone can drive 85 in control. Few people can drive above 100 in control.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 14, 2014, 11:46:17 PM
Stop making every 2 lane road a no-passing zone. Just like the useless red light at 2am, I shouldn't be forced to remain stuck behind a low-speed vehicle just because traffic is heavy a few hours a day.

^^This.

As an engineer, I think in boring, practical terms, and the only ones in the poll with practical application are cutout shields and colored shields. I waffled a bit, but colors can be confusing to visiting motorists unless every state adopts the same color conventions (I'm assuming we're talking about color-by-direction and not just having a general background, because many states still do the latter).

Quote from: Steve on January 15, 2014, 10:59:07 PM
I waffled a bit, but colors can be confusing to visiting motorists unless every state adopts the same color conventions (I'm assuming we're talking about color-by-direction and not just having a general background, because many states still do the latter).

Florida, the best-known coloring, did color-by-number. No two of the same color intersected (until 192 was extended to 27, both green).

Quote from: NE2 on January 15, 2014, 11:25:18 PM

Quote from: Steve on January 15, 2014, 10:59:07 PM
I waffled a bit, but colors can be confusing to visiting motorists unless every state adopts the same color conventions (I'm assuming we're talking about color-by-direction and not just having a general background, because many states still do the latter).

Florida, the best-known coloring, did color-by-number. No two of the same color intersected (until 192 was extended to 27, both green).

Which is also cool, but I can see where it becomes confusing to follow colors all across the country. I think each state should designate one or more roads - current or former state highways - and sign them with "throwback" shields of any kind. Florida can sign US 1 with red shields, NJ can sign Skyline Drive 203, etc.

Quote from: Steve on January 16, 2014, 12:36:35 AM
I think each state should designate one or more roads - current or former state highways - and sign them with "throwback" shields of any kind. Florida can sign US 1 with red shields, NJ can sign Skyline Drive 203, etc.

Not a bad idea. CR 3 in Volusia and old SR 4A in the Keys can get blue diamond signs.

Quote from: Steve on January 16, 2014, 12:36:35 AMI think each state should designate one or more roads - current or former state highways - and sign them with "throwback" shields of any kind. Florida can sign US 1 with red shields, NJ can sign Skyline Drive 203, etc.

Isn't such already practiced in some areas?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Farizonaroads.com%2Fpics%2Fus66historic.jpg&hash=c2f60b566c1f9ffb9462ed44aa98cb9c2574e766)

I think it would be so much better if they signed 66 with a HISTORIC (or even OLD) banner, or even just with brown instead of black.

Quote from: 31E on January 14, 2014, 09:36:17 PMExpanding the general concept to straight and left would be a help to many drivers.

at the very least, California needs to bring back permissive left turn on green ball.  99% of intersections with a discrete green left arrow phase have a corresponding red left arrow during green ball.  I can think of plenty of times I could have safely made the left turn because there was clearly no one coming for half a mile, but was prohibited from doing so.

I've noticed that other states are a lot better at not forbidding left turn on green ball.  California seems to be the outlier.  then again we're the state with Prop 65, which requires warning labels that furniture might kill you if you eat it.

Here's my vote in this order:

1. Button Copy signs
2. Cutout shields
3. Concrete as the surface for most new roads and highways
4. Reasonable and Prudent and other pre-1973 Speed Limits
5. Colored shields
6. Trusses as a bridge standard

Other things I would like to see restored are the use of mercury vapor in new streetlights, which unfortunately was outlawed in the US in 2008, as well as the flashing WALK (or walking pedestrian) signal.

I voted for button copy.  I like that the letters glow at night, and that they stand out more on the non reflective background.  Also I have noticed in California, that the reflective sheeting layers on the newer signs starts peeling off the signs right away, and makes the signs look awful.

Short intrastate US highways.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 10, 2014, 07:22:38 PM
As for concrete pavement and trusses as bridge standards, we live in an era where prudent use of tax dollars is essential. Concrete is a more expensive initial investment. As for truss bridges, only if they are the most cost-efficient design. Many times they aren't and it would be a waste of money to build a truss bridge isn't necessary.

Then why do highway departments spend so much money on fancy concrete bridges?  The new I-44 in Tulsa has all these snazzy bridges that were obviously a "waste of money" but they still build them like that.

Quote from Bugo:

Quote
Then why do highway departments spend so much money on fancy concrete bridges?  The new I-44 in Tulsa has all these snazzy bridges that were obviously a "waste of money" but they still build them like that.

Like the Spur 366 Trinity River Bridge in Dallas.
https://maps.google.com/?ll=32.779388,-96.823743&spn=0.000018,0.012456&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=32.779388,-96.823743&panoid=XHoQop8RIqSFEfmM1qtpHQ&cbp=12,44.83,,0,0 (https://maps.google.com/?ll=32.779388,-96.823743&spn=0.000018,0.012456&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=32.779388,-96.823743&panoid=XHoQop8RIqSFEfmM1qtpHQ&cbp=12,44.83,,0,0)

All that above-deck structure is purely decorative and unnecessary.

"decorative and unnecessary" is in the eye of the beholder.  Quite often, public stakeholders (and the public in general) have demanded better aesthetics instead of a "dull, gray, bland" bridge.  It's quite plausible to consider that, without adding on these "unnecessary" aesthetics, such projects would have not had enough public support to be completed.

Quote from: froggie on January 17, 2014, 07:28:21 AM
"decorative and unnecessary" is in the eye of the beholder.  Quite often, public stakeholders (and the public in general) have demanded better aesthetics instead of a "dull, gray, bland" bridge.  It's quite plausible to consider that, without adding on these "unnecessary" aesthetics, such projects would have not had enough public support to be completed.

However, not all bridges are gray. The most common colors, IIRC, are brown and green, the latter of which use at least two shades.

Quote from: Henry on January 17, 2014, 11:35:23 AM

Quote from: froggie on January 17, 2014, 07:28:21 AM
"decorative and unnecessary" is in the eye of the beholder.  Quite often, public stakeholders (and the public in general) have demanded better aesthetics instead of a "dull, gray, bland" bridge.  It's quite plausible to consider that, without adding on these "unnecessary" aesthetics, such projects would have not had enough public support to be completed.

However, not all bridges are gray. The most common colors, IIRC, are brown and green, the latter of which use at least two shades.

Heh. Then, of course, you have the ones near Joe Robbie Stadium (http://goo.gl/maps/GRQ9i).

I have to say the people who built Maryland's Intercounty Connector did a pretty nice job of making the overpasses look decent. Interestingly, their sign assemblies and toll gantries have a nicer look to them as well. The sign assemblies are of what I'd call a brown tubular design instead of the more-common metal trusses. It gives the road more of a parkway feel because the gantries have less of what I'd call an "industrial" look to them.

Quote from: froggie on January 17, 2014, 07:28:21 AM
"decorative and unnecessary" is in the eye of the beholder.  Quite often, public stakeholders (and the public in general) have demanded better aesthetics instead of a "dull, gray, bland" bridge.  It's quite plausible to consider that, without adding on these "unnecessary" aesthetics, such projects would have not had enough public support to be completed.

We had that happen recently. We replaced a bridge on a county road that was seriously substandard, had a three-ton weight limit, and was the only way in and out of that community. The bridge was a one-lane truss bridge and members of the community did not want to see their "blue bridge" taken away, even though fire trucks and even some standard commercial vehicles (like the telephone company repair truck) were too heavy for the bridge. The community got a standard concrete bridge, but forms were used when the barrier walls were poured to provide a decorative stone effect. This was deemed a suitable compromise.

Concrete pavement
Button copy - if we're talking about non-reflective backgrounds (because non-reflective backgrounds mean easier-to-read signs and less hazardous night glare)
and of course

Quote from: NE2 on January 10, 2014, 05:46:50 PM
Engine cranks. Sundown towns.

Quote from: froggie on January 17, 2014, 07:28:21 AM
"decorative and unnecessary" is in the eye of the beholder.  Quite often, public stakeholders (and the public in general) have demanded better aesthetics instead of a "dull, gray, bland" bridge.  It's quite plausible to consider that, without adding on these "unnecessary" aesthetics, such projects would have not had enough public support to be completed.

I tend to appreciate the idea of infrastructure as art, but I also feel that a certain ethic is lacking with regards to the way designed objects are perceived.  The utilitarian aesthetic of bridges, overpasses, retaining walls, light fixtures, etc., that prevailed for decades in the 20th century, has largely been supplanted by an urge to "beautify" anything deemed "harsh," "brutal," or "ugly" by the puritanical voices that decry the visual effects of an advanced machine age.  Our culture has lost sight of the idea that "less is more," and in so doing, it has lost the ability to see the beauty of functional materials in raw unconcealment.

I think decorative elements of infrastructure are appropriate when they honor the technological nature of the infrastructure at hand and provide a sense of optimism for an advanced future, as is sometimes achieved with geometric form, texture, and landscaping*, but devices such as pseudo-historic streetlamps and overly ornamented overpass railings** tend to convey an image that robs automobile infrastructure of its symbolic role in hyper-mobility.  Perhaps the essential task here is to discern between the tasteful and the rococo.

* https://maps.google.com/?ll=37.67949,-97.243139&spn=0.003374,0.005284&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=37.67949,-97.24303&panoid=Da6pjbmtwF-qYz3JlVe7ww&cbp=12,88.08,,0,-7.49

** https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.083022,-94.565785&spn=0.009361,0.021136&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.083075,-94.565873&panoid=zjTkV7jxo-gabBQOHdf11A&cbp=12,300.24,,0,-8.68

I am very surprised that people are more in favor of aesthetics than the only choice presented which could provide meaningful change: the return to reasonable speed limits.

as much as I love button copy and cutouts... I'd be okay with Arial Black stretched to 50% as the default signing choice, if only I didn't have to watch my speed to the detriment of watching my road safety.

(I'll bet most of you have not driven at 110mph during rush hour.  seriously, go drive the autobahn and we'll see where your priorities lie!)

There's nothing sexier than the Pulaski Skyway.

Quote from: stridentweasel on January 19, 2014, 03:09:44 PMI tend to appreciate the idea of infrastructure as art, but I also feel that a certain ethic is lacking with regards to the way designed objects are perceived.  The utilitarian aesthetic of bridges, overpasses, retaining walls, light fixtures, etc., that prevailed for decades in the 20th century, has largely been supplanted by an urge to "beautify" anything deemed "harsh," "brutal," or "ugly" by the puritanical voices that decry the visual effects of an advanced machine age.  Our culture has lost sight of the idea that "less is more," and in so doing, it has lost the ability to see the beauty of functional materials in raw unconcealment.

For decades the dominant thinking about highway aesthetics (which received far less attention in the US during the boom years of Interstate construction than it did elsewhere, especially in Europe) was that if the alignment were well-chosen, most of the aesthetic faults associated with highways would either not emerge at all or would be easy to solve through inconspicuous treatments such as slope rounding, carefully sited landscaping, etc.  This is the philosophy you see expressed in books such as Tunnard and Pushkarev's Man-made America and Hans Lorenz' Trassierung und Gestaltung von Strassen und Autobahnen, and it is one in which it is considered far more important to get right the basic shapes of things such as bridges, so that they look attractive when presented in (to borrow your terminology) "raw unconcealment."

Context-sensitive design is a modern animal and, to my mind, is a completely different thing altogether.  I consider it a product of the post-NEPA culture of environmental appraisal, where multiple stakeholders effectively have a veto over a project--not in the direct sense that they can force an EIS to recommend against its being built, but rather by discouraging other parties from funding it in preference to dozens of other projects which are seen as equally deserving of the money.  The aesthetic treatments that typically develop within a CSD context are surface-only, and often rely on mass-production methods (e.g. concrete formliners which simulate the appearance of hand-laid natural stone, or color-wash treatments which rely on repeating patterns that can be clearly shown on a construction plan sheet).  These types of treatments are particularly useful for recruiting support from local partners such as cities because, as public art, they signal a given city's willingness to provide the cultural and environmental amenities that are necessary to attract commerce and inward investment--the convention trade, white-collar businesses seeking to relocate, etc.  In cases where a city is actually in charge of a project to improve state-owned infrastructure (as has been the case with the various Kellogg contracts in Wichita), the city typically includes these features on its own accord.

QuoteI think decorative elements of infrastructure are appropriate when they honor the technological nature of the infrastructure at hand and provide a sense of optimism for an advanced future, as is sometimes achieved with geometric form, texture, and landscaping*, but devices such as pseudo-historic streetlamps and overly ornamented overpass railings** tend to convey an image that robs automobile infrastructure of its symbolic role in hyper-mobility.  Perhaps the essential task here is to discern between the tasteful and the rococo.

** https://maps.google.com/?ll=39.083022,-94.565785&spn=0.009361,0.021136&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.083075,-94.565873&panoid=zjTkV7jxo-gabBQOHdf11A&cbp=12,300.24,,0,-8.68

While I see your point, it sounds to me like you are trying to sketch out an objective criterion for what is essentially a value judgment, and the very example you cite (one of the overpasses on Bruce Watkins Drive) illustrates some of the problems with such an approach.  Looking at the overpass in question, what strikes me is not the excess of ornamentation so much as the retro-futurism--it is the highway design equivalent of steampunk, if you will.  The use of what appears to be hand-laid limestone on the bridge supports is a deliberate reference to the vernacular tradition of rough-cut limestone buildings in the Kansas River valley.  Decorative fixtures and railings on the bridge recall similar provision on 1920's and 1930's parkways in the vicinities of New York and Washington, DC, where the purpose was generally to stay within a pleasure-park aesthetic through the use of natural-looking materials at near-human scale and an architectonic approach toward ornamentation.   In short, the bridge is part of an attempt to recall the parkway design approach of that period, without accepting its technological constraints (part of what steampunk is all about).  This is not surprising since Watkins Drive was intended to be--in fact, was virtually ordered by a federal judge to be--a parkway.  Yes, you can say that it is overblown, and that it has too many historicist references in too small a volume of space, and so is a manipulative pastiche.  I wouldn't disagree with any of these judgments, but I would also note that it fits right in with nearby Country Club Plaza with its fake Giralda and reconstructed, dressed-up, faked-down neo-Moorish architecture.  In general much the same observation applies to a lot of steampunk, which you can reject as not according with your own tastes or accept fully on its own terms.

Edit:  Returning to the surface treatments associated with CSD, there is also one very pragmatic justification for them.  Research has shown that vandals are much less likely to target public spaces that appear to be cared for.  Surface treatments reduce the risk of vandalism by defining the highway as a curated space, thus making it less attractive to mischief-makers.

Quote from: NE2 on January 19, 2014, 06:37:57 PM
There's nothing sexier than the Pulaski Skyway.

Hi adma.

Since when are concrete road surfaces going away? They're still using it here in Florida. The newly widened stretch of I95 between SR519 and SR528 is concrete. On the I95 project, they switched back to asphalt when the cost of oil went back down but it's still used elsewhere.

Doesn't CA use concrete for most of its urban freeways?

Quote from: realjd on January 20, 2014, 07:36:44 AM
Since when are concrete road surfaces going away? They're still using it here in Florida. The newly widened stretch of I95 between SR519 and SR528 is concrete. On the I95 project, they switched back to asphalt when the cost of oil went back down but it's still used elsewhere.

Doesn't CA use concrete for most of its urban freeways?

Concrete is S.O.P. here in Wisconsin for major highway paving.  Even County 'A' between US 151 and WI 26 in the Beaver Dam area was concrete paved within the past few years (I'm expecting it to be a reroute for WI 26 in the near-term future, though) and is far and away the best two-lane rural road that I've ever driven on.

Lesser highways in Wisconsin normally do get asphalt, though.

Mike

Quote from: realjd on January 20, 2014, 07:36:44 AM
Since when are concrete road surfaces going away? They're still using it here in Florida. The newly widened stretch of I95 between SR519 and SR528 is concrete. On the I95 project, they switched back to asphalt when the cost of oil went back down but it's still used elsewhere.

Doesn't CA use concrete for most of its urban freeways?

You bet. Drive around LA or San Diego or the Bay Area and the freeways are primarily concrete (often chewed-up concrete but that's another issue).

I'm wondering what you folks prefer about concrete road surfaces. I've generally preferred asphalt because, when maintained correctly, it's usually smoother and quieter, whereas on many concrete roads I find the seams a lot more noticeable to the point where your car makes what I've always thought of as a "clopping noise."

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 21, 2014, 03:10:38 PMI'm wondering what you folks prefer about concrete road surfaces. I've generally preferred asphalt because, when maintained correctly, it's usually smoother and quieter, whereas on many concrete roads I find the seams a lot more noticeable to the point where your car makes what I've always thought of as a "clopping noise."

Joint noise is one disadvantage of concrete (though less pronounced with modern dowelled joints), but there are many countervailing advantages:

*  Greater resistance to rutting, which means you don't usually have to worry about hydroplaning on concrete

*  Higher albedo, which facilitates night driving and allows longitudinal joints to be used as lane markers when striping is worn or faded

*  Better conformity to as-designed geometry, which in turn further reduces the likelihood of hydroplaning (even freshly laid asphalt tends to wet unevenly on either side of a construction joint)

I voted for cutouts.......my second choice would be colored shields as long as colors were logical rection or other factors that did not impinge upon ease of use for motorists (and to an earlier post, US 1 was red in many parts of the country....Florida, Connecticut, and a red Mass US 1 was recently on the 'Bay).

your choices for US cutouts are below:

A.   (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FConnecticut%2520Signs%2Fctus1-20.jpg&hash=3cc703137c37eab39c720480338765ff5884d9ff) (http://s166.photobucket.com/user/ctsignguy/media/Connecticut%20Signs/ctus1-20.jpg.html)

B.   (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FConnecticut%2520Signs%2Fctus5greal.jpg&hash=57cd2f9761919f4db7d96658837007d404b3e6d5) (http://s166.photobucket.com/user/ctsignguy/media/Connecticut%20Signs/ctus5greal.jpg.html)

C.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Fohus30bar.jpg&hash=86c2c92af11a2e205a4f03406f0c96a0ece9beda) (http://s166.photobucket.com/user/ctsignguy/media/ohus30bar.jpg.html)

D.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Fohus3316.jpg&hash=792d4f652cb24acb94dabf769f8a891b2bfb6665) (http://s166.photobucket.com/user/ctsignguy/media/ohus3316.jpg.html)

E.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Fohus212.jpg&hash=cfa1c50cd640bb98330629848c8456d4c6c6f784) (http://s166.photobucket.com/user/ctsignguy/media/ohus212.jpg.html)

F.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2Fus1.jpg&hash=f5f0b0aab8400f3e1953e5fb0dd0b70f9b0586f6) (http://s166.photobucket.com/user/ctsignguy/media/us1.jpg.html)

QuoteI'm wondering what you folks prefer about concrete road surfaces. I've generally preferred asphalt because, when maintained correctly, it's usually smoother and quieter, whereas on many concrete roads I find the seams a lot more noticeable to the point where your car makes what I've always thought of as a "clopping noise."

Besides what Mr. Winkler mentioned, there's another big advantage concrete has over asphalt:  durability.  Asphalt wears down much faster than concrete does.  A well-built concrete road will go 25-30 years before needing anything above basic maintenance, and the pavement itself will often last much longer than that.  Whereas even the best-built asphalt road will usually need a mill-and-overlay by year 15, if not sooner (definitely sooner if there's a lot of weather changes or heavy traffic or even moderate truck traffic).

Because of MnDOT's preference for concrete for freeway construction/reconstruction (and even on non-freeways), Minnesota has done a lot of research into concrete pavement, including noise abatement.  Some of the newer rebuilt sections of I-35W in Minneapolis and Richfield are pretty darn quiet.

I actually enjoy the clopping noise of concrete pavement!

Quote from: J N Winkler on January 21, 2014, 05:29:22 PM
*  Higher albedo, which facilitates night driving and allows longitudinal joints to be used as lane markers when striping is worn or faded

Or you can be like California and not make sure the lane markings line up with the joints. It's obnoxious because the joints are often easier to see.

Quote from: realjd on January 22, 2014, 12:31:03 PM

Or you can be like California and not make sure the lane markings line up with the joints. It's obnoxious because the joints are often easier to see.

and keep changing them as the years go by.  the San Bernardino Freeway driving into sunset has at least 6 sets of visible lane stripes.  the intended one is not visible.

QuoteI'm wondering what you folks prefer about concrete road surfaces. I've generally preferred asphalt because, when maintained correctly, it's usually smoother and quieter, whereas on many concrete roads I find the seams a lot more noticeable to the point where your car makes what I've always thought of as a "clopping noise."

But I love the clopping noise!

Yeah, it evokes strong feelings of having entered a big city whenever I pass over concrete, even if its just a small overpass in rural Montana.

For me it's mostly the opposite; when I was little, the following were the roads we went on with concrete:
-NY 590 between exit 9 (Norton St) and Lake Ontario; resurfaced with asphalt between exit 9 and Titus Ave, rebuilt into Sea Breeze Dr (asphalt) north of there
-NY 390 between exit 21 (NY 31/Lyell Ave) and exit 27 (the parkway); the older section between exits 21 and 24 (NY 104) has been resurfaced with asphalt
-I-490 between exits 9 (I-390/NY 390) and 13 (Inner Loop); since rebuilt with a concrete base and asphalt surface
-I-490 between exits 25 (NY 31F) and the Thruway; between exits 25 and 27 (NY 96/Bushnell's Basin) it's been resurfaced with asphalt, and to the east rebuilt/widened with new concrete
-Thruway between exits 45 (I-490) and 44 (NY 332)
-I-390 south of the Thruway (it now stops at Mount Morris, but used to go down all the way to NY 17)

Voted for cutout shields.  As independent Interstate shields are supposed to be cutout by design, it seems logical that US and applicable state routes should be as well.

Quote from: roadman on January 22, 2014, 06:06:06 PM
Voted for cutout shields.  As independent Interstate shields are cutout by design, it seems logical that US and applicable state routes should be as well.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2For%2F84%2F30bypto30%2F1.JPG&hash=cdd20e8334aa35d37fe6ed5cbf02f45fa9a66281)
:bigass:

The vast majority of new construction I see in Indiana is concrete, including most of I-69 and US-31. Most local projects are concrete too. I agree from personal observation, since I've been around long enough to actually see roads wear out, that concrete is far more durable. I dislike the clomping, but that can be avoided if properly designed and maintained.

Quote from: roadman on January 22, 2014, 06:06:06 PM
Voted for cutout shields.  As independent Interstate shields are cutout by design, it seems logical that US and applicable state routes should be as well.

You need to visit Wisconsin sometime.  There is no such thing as a cutout-mounted interstate shield erected within the past 20+ years in the state.  The Cheeseheads are rather famous for their unisigns.

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=43.14947,-89.30402&spn=0.009096,0.021136&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=43.149293,-89.30393&panoid=rj1J8B6Nu0ZhL3vkTqfDfQ&cbp=12,26.09,,2,2.44

Quote from: Brandon on January 23, 2014, 09:37:24 AM

Quote from: roadman on January 22, 2014, 06:06:06 PM
Voted for cutout shields.  As independent Interstate shields are cutout by design, it seems logical that US and applicable state routes should be as well.

You need to visit Wisconsin sometime.  There is no such thing as a cutout-mounted interstate shield erected within the past 20+ years in the state.  The Cheeseheads are rather famous for their unisigns.

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=43.14947,-89.30402&spn=0.009096,0.021136&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=43.149293,-89.30393&panoid=rj1J8B6Nu0ZhL3vkTqfDfQ&cbp=12,26.09,,2,2.44

List of things that Wisconsin and Rhode Island have in common:

unisigns
calling water fountains "bubblers" ("bubblahs" if you're in Rhode Island)

Quote from: Molandfreak on January 22, 2014, 10:04:01 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2For%2F84%2F30bypto30%2F1.JPG&hash=cdd20e8334aa35d37fe6ed5cbf02f45fa9a66281)
:bigass:

Aaaauuuugggghhhh!!!!!!  :banghead: x 1,000,000 = :ded:

Quote from: spooky on January 23, 2014, 09:46:04 AM

Quote from: Brandon on January 23, 2014, 09:37:24 AM

Quote from: roadman on January 22, 2014, 06:06:06 PM
Voted for cutout shields.  As independent Interstate shields are cutout by design, it seems logical that US and applicable state routes should be as well.

You need to visit Wisconsin sometime.  There is no such thing as a cutout-mounted interstate shield erected within the past 20+ years in the state.  The Cheeseheads are rather famous for their unisigns.

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=43.14947,-89.30402&spn=0.009096,0.021136&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=43.149293,-89.30393&panoid=rj1J8B6Nu0ZhL3vkTqfDfQ&cbp=12,26.09,,2,2.44

List of things that Wisconsin and Rhode Island have in common:

unisigns
calling water fountains "bubblers" ("bubblahs" if you're in Rhode Island)

I think that list is complete.

Quote from: Brandon on January 23, 2014, 09:37:24 AM

Quote from: roadman on January 22, 2014, 06:06:06 PM
Voted for cutout shields.  As independent Interstate shields are cutout by design, it seems logical that US and applicable state routes should be as well.

You need to visit Wisconsin sometime.  There is no such thing as a cutout-mounted interstate shield erected within the past 20+ years in the state.  The Cheeseheads are rather famous for their unisigns.

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=43.14947,-89.30402&spn=0.009096,0.021136&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=43.149293,-89.30393&panoid=rj1J8B6Nu0ZhL3vkTqfDfQ&cbp=12,26.09,,2,2.44

That's not entirely true anymore... sometime in the last six months, WisDOT has gone on an Alternate Hwy signing binge, which placed a bunch of Alt I-39 signs along US 51 in the Madison area. Sprinked amongst the typical WisDOT "unisigns" (we call them J-assemblies after their bid spec name), are some genuine brand-new cutout interstate shields. :-o

I found this poll from here:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20229.0

And I tried to take the poll. I voted "Other". because I share an equal love for Truss Bridges and / or Truss Style bridges as well as Cement Roads. At the same time I do not like high speed limits.

The other options in the poll I am not familiar with.

Prioritizing black neighborhoods in freeway location studies.

Button copy, then let's get cutout shields too.

Cutout shields:

  -  With the state name listed within the I- and US- route shields
  -  On BGS's with a black outline around the US- and SR- shields
 
And ALL routes are to be listed prominently along Multiplexed byways (no hidden routes) and at all intersections where routes meet (Exception: Indiana, since they put every route known to man on their bypass routes).

In this order:

Cutout shields
Concrete surfacing
Colored shields

Real, honest-to-goodness route signage, particularly at junctions (Caltrans, are you listening?).  Don't mind a good "sign salad" if it actually conveys real information about what route is using what street or road, and where the route you're on goes.  I know bucks are tight, but this is a percentage of a percentage of your operating costs.  And while I've got you on the phone (so to speak) -- get your shit together regarding how your signs look -- no undersized numbers crowded into the corner of a shield, no "patching" on stand-along reassurance shields, etc.  Drivers don't really want to squint when trying to discern a sign -- so please do it right at the outset!

Quote from: Molandfreak on January 22, 2014, 10:04:01 PM

Quote from: roadman on January 22, 2014, 06:06:06 PM
Voted for cutout shields.  As independent Interstate shields are cutout by design, it seems logical that US and applicable state routes should be as well.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2For%2F84%2F30bypto30%2F1.JPG&hash=cdd20e8334aa35d37fe6ed5cbf02f45fa9a66281)
:bigass:

Touche'    Have amended my post.

Other: Concrete that actually has a sound to it. HATE this new longitudinal grooving and diamond grinding that is being rolled out everywhere, especially across MO. Puts me to sleep the same way asphalt does.

Quote from: brycecordry on July 28, 2017, 12:30:38 AM
Other: Concrete that actually has a sound to it. HATE this new longitudinal grooving and diamond grinding that is being rolled out everywhere, especially across MO. Puts me to sleep the same way asphalt does.

The longitudinal tining also has a way of catching the treads on my car's tires, making it difficult at times to hold a straight, true line.

Mike