Myths/misconceptions/untrue things about road-related things

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Bruce

A few:

Building more lanes automatically means traffic relief forever.

That using parking or thru lanes for transit and bicycling is a net loss in transportation capacity.

Suburban life is not necessarily the end-all be-all, especially for younger Americans.


sparker

Quote from: Bruce on July 15, 2018, 07:36:16 PM
A few:

Building more lanes automatically means traffic relief forever.

That using parking or thru lanes for transit and bicycling is a net loss in transportation capacity.

Suburban life is not necessarily the end-all be-all, especially for younger Americans.

Bruce -- are you sure the word "not" in your last line is really what you wanted to say?  Phrased that way, it indicates (since the thread specifies misconceptions and myths) that suburban life actually is a universal aspiration (not your usual position on such things!).   

Beltway

Most major cities already had extensive urban freeway system planning underway even before the 1943 Interregional Highways system.  I have Richmond, D.C. and Baltimore extensively documented on my websites.  Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Houston, just to cite a few of the many others.

It was a logical matter to include some of these routes in the Interstate system when that was developed.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

Beltway

I recently got a copy thru Amazon of "Superhighway - Superhoax", by Helen Leavitt, 1970.  Good for a laugh!

"From Sea to Shining Sea: we are strangling in a concrete straitjacket that pollutes the environment and makes driving a nightmare."
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

Bruce

Quote from: sparker on July 15, 2018, 07:44:22 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 15, 2018, 07:36:16 PM
A few:

Building more lanes automatically means traffic relief forever.

That using parking or thru lanes for transit and bicycling is a net loss in transportation capacity.

Suburban life is not necessarily the end-all be-all, especially for younger Americans.

Bruce -- are you sure the word "not" in your last line is really what you wanted to say?  Phrased that way, it indicates (since the thread specifies misconceptions and myths) that suburban life actually is a universal aspiration (not your usual position on such things!).   

I no English good. Must be the heat.

vdeane

Quote from: Beltway on July 15, 2018, 02:53:20 PM
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.
Are you daring to contradict Dan McNichols's The Roads That Built America (aka the Roadgeek Bible)?

OK, maybe I've overselling it, but this book really was my very first exposure to the interstate system outside of what I was able to see on a state map of New York, so I hold it in extremely high regard.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

RobbieL2415

Quote from: jon daly on July 15, 2018, 03:34:13 PM
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.
I believe that I-91 was worse.  They cut everybody off from the riverfront and displaced apartments and businesses there.  Took a larger chunk of land than you might think.

Beltway

Quote from: vdeane on July 15, 2018, 09:17:53 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 15, 2018, 02:53:20 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 15, 2018, 11:44:45 AM
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.
Are you daring to contradict Dan McNichols's The Roads That Built America (aka the Roadgeek Bible)?
OK, maybe I've overselling it, but this book really was my very first exposure to the interstate system outside of what I was able to see on a state map of New York, so I hold it in extremely high regard.

If he teaches something contrary to what I summarized, yes.  You can see what was in the 1943 plan and in the 1955 plan, the links have been posted upthread.  I know of no document about the Interstate system that "Eisenhower originally gave Congress" at least not in the detail of specifying where routes would go.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

bzakharin

I've heard someone say that the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway are the same thing. "I've never heard of a state with more than one toll road", she said to me when I tried to disabuse her of this notion.

jon daly

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 15, 2018, 09:27:35 PM
Quote from: jon daly on July 15, 2018, 03:34:13 PM
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.
I believe that I-91 was worse.  They cut everybody off from the riverfront and displaced apartments and businesses there.  Took a larger chunk of land than you might think.

Wasn't part of that due to Constitution Plaza? IIRC, that displaced the East Side. I-91 also separates the South Meadows and the North Meadows from the rest of Hartford. I don't know much of the history of the South Meadows or the North. However, I remember going to a concert years ago at the ampitheater in the North Meadows and it looked like that part of Hartford was separated from the North End by a huge railyard that may've predated I-91.

jon daly

Regarding damage caused by new expressways back in the day, I considered my current commute route. I mainly know the surface streets in Stonington, Conn. and East Providence, R.I.. I-95 cut inland in Stonington and didn't seem to cause any damage. In fact, it encouraged some development inland such as the Mystic Aquarium and Old Mystick Village.

The situation was different in East Providence. I see some streets that were cut in half by I-195.

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.

What about noise pollution? Growing up in greater Hartford, I noticed that a lot of wooden and concrete sound barriers were installed in the 1980s on suburban portions of I-91 & I-84. But I'm not sure if the nearby residential developments predated or came after freeway construction.

Rothman

The development predated the barriers, which were installed when the HOV lanes were built, at least on I-91 north of Hartford.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Paulinator66

Quote from: formulanone on July 13, 2018, 05:33:50 PM
Let's get one thing straight: you can land aircraft on an interstate, but there's a high probability that the airplane can't be used again, and a 100% percent chance of traffic disruption.
This just happened up the road from me.  I think the only reason it didn't turn out well is because the pilot veered into the median and ended up in oncoming traffic

Edit to add link to the story:
https://fox2now.com/2018/07/11/small-plane-crash-lands-on-i-55-near-lincoln-illinois/

Paulinator66

Quote from: english si on July 13, 2018, 04:03:34 PM
Interstates have to cross state lines - ie not be intra-state.

Yup, I-72 in Illinois proves that wrong.

hotdogPi

Quote from: Paulinator66 on July 17, 2018, 04:52:21 PM
Quote from: english si on July 13, 2018, 04:03:34 PM
Interstates have to cross state lines - ie not be intra-state.

Yup, I-72 in Illinois proves that wrong.

I-72 enters Missouri, but barely. 4, 16, 37, 97, and others truly are intrastate, though.
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.

RobbieL2415

Quote from: jon daly on July 16, 2018, 12:06:31 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 15, 2018, 09:27:35 PM
Quote from: jon daly on July 15, 2018, 03:34:13 PM
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.
I believe that I-91 was worse.  They cut everybody off from the riverfront and displaced apartments and businesses there.  Took a larger chunk of land than you might think.

Wasn't part of that due to Constitution Plaza? IIRC, that displaced the East Side. I-91 also separates the South Meadows and the North Meadows from the rest of Hartford. I don't know much of the history of the South Meadows or the North. However, I remember going to a concert years ago at the ampitheater in the North Meadows and it looked like that part of Hartford was separated from the North End by a huge railyard that may've predated I-91.
The rail yard is on NECR/CSOR RoW.  Formerly NYNHH, then Penn Central then Conrail.  It owns the spur immediately abutting I-91, not the tracks that run SW towards Union Station.  Those are ConnDOT-owned as well as the rest of the New Haven-Springfield Line.

jon daly


bing101

CA-60 Pomona Freeway is not on a former segment of US-60.

US-60's former Los Angeles alignment is on where I-10 San Bernardino Freeway is today.

bing101

Sacramento is the largest city without a 3di is a misconception.

However Sacramento previously had a 3di as I-880 now resigned as I-80.

I-305 is unsigned as is on the West end of US-50.


sparker

Quote from: bing101 on July 18, 2018, 12:22:33 PM
CA-60 Pomona Freeway is not on a former segment of US-60.

US-60's former Los Angeles alignment is on where I-10 San Bernardino Freeway is today.

Both partially correct; the portion of CA 60/Pomona Freeway east of Mira Loma (SE of Ontario) to the I-215/CA 91 interchange in Riverside was originally US 60; the signage changed to CA 60 in the spring of 1968 (I was attending UCR at the time and remembered seeing the sign crews doing their job near Rubidoux, west of Riverside).  And until the 1964 renumbering, US 60 was signed, along with US 70 and US 99, along the I-10/San Bernardino Freeway from the US 101 "split" east of downtown L.A. out to the Holt Avenue exit in Pomona, where US 60 diverged to go its separate path through Pomona and Ontario en route to Riverside.  The Pomona Freeway segment in L.A. County, pre-renumbering, was slated to be US 60; of course the renumbering effort, which included deletion of several U.S. routes in CA, shifted this to state highway designation.  When opened in 1967, the original section of the Pomona Freeway from the ELA interchange to I-605 was the first to carry CA 60 signage; when extended to Hacienda Heights early in 1968, that signage was extended.  When the US 60 signage in Riverside County was replaced by CA 60 shields in early '68, the state highway, rather than follow the former US 60 route multiplexed with CA 71 from 5th Street in Pomona NW to I-10, continued west on Brea Canyon Road through Diamond Bar to Colima Road, where it turned west to Hacienda Heights, jogging north there about a quarter-mile to the end of the Pomona Freeway.  This surface route was replaced one piece at a time as the Pomona Freeway's construction advanced further east; that construction had reached Euclid Ave. (CA 83) in south Ontario by early 1971, and connected to the former US 60 route in Mira Loma some 2 years later, effectively completing the corridor (although there were some remaining grade crossings between Mira Loma and Rubidoux on the original US 60 4-lane expressway; those were eliminated by interchanges and freeway widening by 1977. 

hotdogPi

Quote from: bing101 on July 18, 2018, 12:25:48 PM
Sacramento is the largest city without a 3di is a misconception.

I've never seen or heard anyone mention that, either by believing it or debunking it. Probably because Phoenix is larger.
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.

TEG24601

Quote from: 1 on July 17, 2018, 04:53:51 PM
I-72 enters Missouri, but barely. 4, 16, 37, 97, and others truly are intrastate, though.


You for got I-2!  :D
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

RobbieL2415


formulanone

Quote from: bing101 on July 18, 2018, 12:25:48 PM
Sacramento is the largest city without a 3di is a misconception.

On the flip side, there's many Roadgeek Misconceptions: That anyone besides those in the hobby, in the direct career fields, or those involved with those related agencies...will actually care about...

- Hidden route designations / transportation agency doesn't bother to sign something
- Whether a sign is 100% MUTCD-compliant, ugly, or uses the wrong font
- Whether a route number is "out of the grid"
- Who pays for the route maintenance (it's always perceived to be the taxpayer).



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.