Myths/misconceptions/untrue things about road-related things

[vdeane]

Canada and Mexico don't actually use our MUTCD.

There are people who think they do?

[jon daly]

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).

Heh. I don't care about most of those things. What interests me is the historical evolution of roads; especially those near me.

I'm not sure if that makes me an outlier here, but this is only one of a number of interests I have. My wife thinks I'm not focused enough, but I'm working on a way to grandly unify or intersect my interest in roads, oil, sports, history, music et cetera.

[bing101]

I-238 should be renumbered as I-380 or CA-380 due to the Southern Crossing gap talks. It gets discussed sometimes but is never confirmed.

[Quillz]

Given how old the Southern Crossing discussion is, I doubt it will ever happen.

[hbelkins]

That interstate routes, and particularly US routes, are "federal routes."  Only a viatologist would believe such nonsense.

[1995hoo]

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).

Add to that:

–It is wrong to use "expressway"  to refer to what people in California call a "freeway."  (Some roadgeeks can get quite upset about that.)

[webny99]

I've made a point of using "freeway" instead of "expressway" ever since I discovered the latter is, by definition, a slightly different type of road.

Not what I'd call a "misconception", though. It's not like I go around correcting people who say "expressway" (which is everyone around here).

[hotdogPi]

I've made a point of using "freeway" instead of " "expressway" ever since I discovered the latter is, by definition, a slightly different type of road.

Not what I'd call a "misconception", though. It's not like I go around correcting people who say "expressway" (which is everyone around here).

He's implying the exact opposite.

[webny99]

I've made a point of using "freeway" instead of " "expressway" ever since I discovered the latter is, by definition, a slightly different type of road.

Not what I'd call a "misconception", though. It's not like I go around correcting people who say "expressway" (which is everyone around here).

He's implying the exact opposite.

Formulanone's list was of misconceptions possessed by roadgeeks, not about them.
In adding to that list, he's implying that some roadgeeks actually believe "expressway" cannot be used to refer to freeways.
That's a misconception, because it can be used that way.

Am I understanding correctly?

[hotdogPi]

I've made a point of using "freeway" instead of " "expressway" ever since I discovered the latter is, by definition, a slightly different type of road.

Not what I'd call a "misconception", though. It's not like I go around correcting people who say "expressway" (which is everyone around here).

He's implying the exact opposite.

Formulanone's list was of misconceptions possessed by roadgeeks, not about them.
In adding to that list, he's implying that some roadgeeks actually believe "expressway" cannot be used to refer to freeways.
That's a misconception, because it can be used that way.

Am I understanding correctly?

Maybe I misinterpreted your previous post.

[US 89]

I've made a point of using "freeway" instead of " "expressway" ever since I discovered the latter is, by definition, a slightly different type of road.

Not what I'd call a "misconception", though. It's not like I go around correcting people who say "expressway" (which is everyone around here).

He's implying the exact opposite.

Formulanone's list was of misconceptions possessed by roadgeeks, not about them.
In adding to that list, he's implying that some roadgeeks actually believe "expressway" cannot be used to refer to freeways.
That's a misconception, because it can be used that way.

Am I understanding correctly?

The way I understand it, no. Expressways can include some at-grade intersections, while freeways cannot. Access to freeways is fully controlled, whereas expressway access is partially controlled or limited (i.e. some intersections are allowed, but driveways and the like are not). The misconception is that the word "expressway" means the same thing as "freeway".

[webny99]

I've made a point of using "freeway" instead of " "expressway" ever since I discovered the latter is, by definition, a slightly different type of road.

Not what I'd call a "misconception", though. It's not like I go around correcting people who say "expressway" (which is everyone around here).

He's implying the exact opposite.

Formulanone's list was of misconceptions possessed by roadgeeks, not about them.
In adding to that list, he's implying that some roadgeeks actually believe "expressway" cannot be used to refer to freeways.
That's a misconception, because it can be used that way.

Am I understanding correctly?

Maybe I misinterpreted your previous post.

It's equally likely that I misinterpreted formulanone's post. I'm not sure.

1995hoo's post looks to me like a false statement worded as a true one.
My position on that issue: I try to use "freeway", even though there's nothing wrong with using "expressway" in the same context. If I thought there was something wrong with using "expressway", then I'd be one of the roadgeeks holding the misconception 1995hoo describes.

[webny99]

Expressways can include some at-grade intersections, while freeways cannot. Access to freeways is fully controlled, whereas expressway access is partially controlled or limited (i.e. some intersections are allowed, but driveways and the like are not). The misconception is that the word "expressway" means the same thing as "freeway".

Now you've got me doubting my previous conclusions! 

The way I see it, a freeway is a type of expressway. Therefore, it's OK (although not necessarily desireable) to call a freeway an expressway - it is, after all, an expressway with certain additional characteristics.

[formulanone]

"Expressways" may have a traffic light, missing grade separations, contain turn pockets, or even driveway access...though not always.

"Freeways" should generally have only grade separations (i.e. ramps, overpasses, flyovers) except (possibly) at its termini.

"Highway" can be any length of road.

All of these probably have an exceptions in the field.

[bing101]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road

Vasco road should have been signed as CA-84.

Do not link to mobile sites, the phone will do the work --sso

[hotdogPi]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road

Vasco road should have been signed as CA-84.

Don't link to mobile Wikipedia.

[1995hoo]

I've made a point of using "freeway" instead of " "expressway" ever since I discovered the latter is, by definition, a slightly different type of road.

Not what I'd call a "misconception", though. It's not like I go around correcting people who say "expressway" (which is everyone around here).

He's implying the exact opposite.

Formulanone's list was of misconceptions possessed by roadgeeks, not about them.
In adding to that list, he's implying that some roadgeeks actually believe "expressway" cannot be used to refer to freeways.
That's a misconception, because it can be used that way.

Am I understanding correctly?

The way I understand it, no. Expressways can include some at-grade intersections, while freeways cannot. Access to freeways is fully controlled, whereas expressway access is partially controlled or limited (i.e. some intersections are allowed, but driveways and the like are not). The misconception is that the word "expressway" means the same thing as "freeway".

This discussion, as well as further posts in this thread, is sort of making the point I was trying to make. Take note of the emphasized comments below.

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).

Add to that:

–It is wrong to use "expressway"  to refer to what people in California call a "freeway."  (Some roadgeeks can get quite upset about that.)

My point was, most ordinary people couldn't give a rat's arse what the FHWA, the MUTCD, people in California, or the roadgeek community consider a "freeway" or an "expressway"–to many people, those terms (as well as "highway") either mean the same thing as each other or else they only use one of them and would look at you funny if you used the other. (When my brother-in-law from Arizona visited us a few years ago, it was very weird to hear him calling the highways here "freeways." We don't say that unless it's the name of a specific road.) But some roadgeeks do think the distinction matters for more than technical purposes, by which I mean, of course if you're a DOT employee or a highway engineer when you're working you use the appropriate term for your agency or your line of work–although even there, some agencies do not use "expressway" and "freeway" in the way the FHWA does–but in ordinary day-to-day conversation you use whatever the local convention is. I'm thinking, for example, of a Wikipedia article–I don't remember which one–where someone who was almost certainly a hypertechnical roadgeek had put in a sentence (later removed) that said something like, "Despite this road's name, it is not really an expressway because it is actually a freeway due to [whatever]." Perhaps technically true, but unnecessary and unhelpful to the average Wikipedia reader!

[SSOWorld]

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

That tollways are not freeways.

TECHNICAL TERMS: Tollway is part of the name of the road.  freeway is the type of road and the term has nothing to do with how much extra $$ you put into the coin bucket/transponder account.  They are free as in free of interference from crossing traffic (maniac weavers non-withstanding).   that being saidMike's statement is correct that locals of Chicagoland and state and ISTHA officials do refer to the system as tollway to distinguish it by name.  Same is held true for other agencies (Houston (Harris County), Dallas (North Texas))

It's just a name, kids!

[webny99]

My point was, most ordinary people couldn't give a rat's arse what the FHWA, the MUTCD, people in California, or the roadgeek community consider a "freeway" or an "expressway"–to many people, those terms (as well as "highway") either mean the same thing as each other or else they only use one of them and would look at you funny if you used the other... But some roadgeeks do think the distinction matters for more than technical purposes, by which I mean, of course if you're a DOT employee or a highway engineer when you're working you use the appropriate term for your agency or your line of work–although even there, some agencies do not use "expressway" and "freeway" in the way the FHWA does–but in ordinary day-to-day conversation you use whatever the local convention is. I'm thinking, for example, of a Wikipedia article–I don't remember which one–where someone who was almost certainly a hypertechnical roadgeek had put in a sentence (later removed) that said something like, "Despite this road's name, it is not really an expressway because it is actually a freeway due to [whatever]." Perhaps technically true, but unnecessary and unhelpful to the average Wikipedia reader!

I agree with all that. In the context of misconceptions, however, it was not entirely clear whether you were saying  roadgeeks or the general population were the ones with the misconception.

After reading the above, it seems clear that my original interpretation upthread was correct:

1995hoo's post (inserted for clarity):

–It is wrong to use "expressway"  to refer to what people in California call a "freeway."

looks to me like a false statement worded as a true one.

My position on that issue: I try to use "freeway", even though there's nothing wrong with using "expressway" in the same context. If I thought there was something wrong with using "expressway", then I'd be one of the roadgeeks holding the misconception 1995hoo describes.

[1995hoo]

^^^

Sorry if I was unclear. I had assumed when I said "Add to that" that it indicated I intended my comment to be an add-on to formulanone's list. I should know better than to assume anything!

[sparker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road

Vasco road should have been signed as CA-84.

Do not link to mobile sites, the phone will do the work --sso

As it sits, Vasco is still county property; while the improvements "over the hill" were in fact done to Caltrans state highway standards, there are no present plans for Caltrans to adopt the route.  That being said, there are long-range plans to extend Isabel Ave. (the east end of present CA 84 in the Livermore area) north and east to intersect with Vasco near the Alameda/Contra Costa county line.  If this happens, there's the possibility that Caltrans may be convinced to take over maintenance of that composite route.  Besides the fact that Caltrans is currently disinterested in assuming maintenance of any more surface facilities in general, having to sign a CA 84 multiplex over I-580 for the 6 or so miles between Isabel and Vasco roads is also something to which they're also averse.  But don't hold your breath on any of this; it'll be 15 or so years down the line before any such connection is made.

Also -- considering the peak levels of traffic on Vasco, it may be construed that "advertising" it by slapping state highway shields on the facility would only make matters worse -- and the money's just not there to further increase the capacity of the road, which would likely entail either bringing it out to 2+ 2 -- plus periodic passing lanes or simply twinning it.  If the Isabel/84 connection is made, something like that may yet happen -- but no finalized plans have been made nor funding identified for this within either of the counties served by the facility.

[bing101]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin_Parkway

Freeways must have a route number designation.

But interestingly Summerlin Parkway in Las Vegas is one of a few freeways without a route number assigned by the state due to Summerlin Development.

[1995hoo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road

Vasco road should have been signed as CA-84.

Do not link to mobile sites, the phone will do the work --sso

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road

Vasco road should have been signed as CA-84.

Don't link to mobile Wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin_Parkway

Freeways must have a route number designation.

But interestingly Summerlin Parkway in Las Vegas is one of a few freeways without a route number assigned by the state due to Summerlin Development.

[webny99]

^^^
Sorry if I was unclear. I had assumed when I said "Add to that" that it indicated I intended my comment to be an add-on to formulanone's list. I should know better than to assume anything!

It was clear that's what you intended. It was just that your statement didn't follow directly from his, and it threw me off. Anyways, all good. Consider the case closed and let the thread continue...   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road
Do not link to mobile sites, the phone will do the work --sso

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road
Vasco road should have been signed as CA-84.

Don't link to mobile Wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin_Parkway

I recall issues with bing101 in the past... I believe it was with him repeatedly posting in a miniscule font size.
He seems benign, yet he keeps doing stuff like this as if he is completely unaware that (a) it's annoying, and (b) he has been admonished for it by both mods and other users.

[D-Dey65]

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."

I've read that once or twice. The BS in that book got annoying and irritating to no end.