Unpopular Anything Road-Related Opinions

[hotdogPi]

So how does it get reduced to under 78 signs then?

[webny99]

So how does it get reduced to under 78 signs then?

Overheads and interchange sequence signs.

However, I shouldn't have subtracted the 10 initially. That was my mistake.

[kphoger]

Rural exits should have 2 mile advance signs.

All exits should have at least 3 advance signs.

...

Do you mean that your under-2mile exception now applies to both of your opinions, not just the first one?

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. No, not necessarily.

If there's more than 2 miles between exits, the 3 signs would be:
2 MILES
1 MILE
➚


If there's less than 2 miles between exits, the 3 signs would be:
1 MILE
1/2 MILE
➚


If there's less than 1 mile between exits, the 3 signs would be:
1/2 MILE
1/4 MILE
➚

Exact mileages may vary, and of course, if there are any interchange sequence signs they would count towards the total.

1.  Each of those has two advance exit signs, not three.  ??

2.  In the last scenario, I think the ½-mile advance sign should be pushed back to the ¾-mile point.

[webny99]

1.  Each of those has two advance exit signs, not three.  ??

Well, what do you call this if not an advance exit sign? I didn't think it was worth distinguishing the ones with XX MILE(S) from the final one with the arrow.

2.  In the last scenario, I think the ½-mile advance sign should be pushed back to the ¾-mile point.

🠗 See below 🠗

Exact mileages may vary

[kphoger]

1.  Each of those has two advance exit signs, not three.  ??

Well, what do you call this if not an advance exit sign?

I just call that an exit sign.
Is my terminology wrong?

[webny99]

1.  Each of those has two advance exit signs, not three.  ??

Well, what do you call this if not an advance exit sign?

I just call that an exit sign.
Is my terminology wrong?

I don't know. It never occurred to me to differentiate, but maybe that's just me.

Also, what is this called? I know the area is the gore, but I don't know if that means the sign is the gore sign, or if it has another name.

[kphoger]

See here.



Interchange Sequence Signs


Advance Guide Signs


Exit Signs


Gore Signs

[SEWIGuy]

Do you really need two miles to prepare for an exit?  I think the usual one mile is plenty of time for most exits.  Two miles for the major interchanges with other major highways.

[webny99]

Do you really need two miles to prepare for an exit?  I think the usual one mile is plenty of time for most exits.  Two miles for the major interchanges with other major highways.

In rural areas with ample spacing between exits, yes. You may not need it personally, but it is a good thing to have in general. Especially on roads like the Thruway where there may be 15-20 miles between exits.

[webny99]

See here.


...

OK, I guess I misspoke.

All exits should have at least 3 2 advance guide signs.

You get the idea.

[sprjus4]

For rural areas, maybe 2 miles for important connections, but most rural interchanges are so desolate and underutilized that a mile and 1/2 mile sign suffice.

[webny99]

For rural areas, maybe 2 miles for important connections, but most rural interchanges are so desolate and underutilized that a mile and 1/2 mile sign suffice.

Prior to the new 2 mile installs on I-81, NY has historically posted just a 1 mile advance... that's it until the exit.

I think two advance signs should be required; I'm OK with 1 mile and 1/2 mile, but prefer 2 miles and 1 mile.

[kphoger]

In Kentucky, I've seen 2 miles for the first advance sign, then ½ mile for the second one.  I kind of like that approach.

[texaskdog]

Here's one: interstates could have just been a system upgrade instead of it's own system.  In some remote areas an expressway would have been fine.

[Roadgeekteen]

Here's one: interstates could have just been a system upgrade instead of it's own system.  In some remote areas an expressway would have been fine.

I agree. US and state Highways could have just been upgraded as needed. With GPS, nobody would care what is an Interstate or not.

[hotdogPi]

Here's one: interstates could have just been a system upgrade instead of it's own system.  In some remote areas an expressway would have been fine.

I agree. US and state Highways could have just been upgraded as needed. With GPS, nobody would care what is an Interstate or not.

GPS existed in the 1950s?

[SkyPesos]

For advanced BGS distances, I like 1 mi -> 1/2 mi -> Exit for the 3 signs. 2 mi is a bit long, but could be used at freeway to freeway interchanges. In places that use metric, I think every 100 m number has been used as an advanced distance somewhere out there. BC uses 1200 m -> 600 m -> Exit. I commonly see 2 km -> 1 km -> 500 m -> Exit used in China and Japan. I also looked at some Dutch freeways on GSV, and it looks like 1300 m and 700 m are used there.

[webny99]

Here's one: interstates could have just been a system upgrade instead of it's own system.  In some remote areas an expressway would have been fine.

I agree. US and state Highways could have just been upgraded as needed. With GPS, nobody would care what is an Interstate or not.

This just goes to show that we take interstate standards for granted. Oftentimes you don't miss something until you don't have it. Downgrading to expressways instead of full freeways in rural areas would be a prime example.

[Roadgeekteen]

Here's one: interstates could have just been a system upgrade instead of it's own system.  In some remote areas an expressway would have been fine.

I agree. US and state Highways could have just been upgraded as needed. With GPS, nobody would care what is an Interstate or not.

GPS existed in the 1950s?

Today nobody would care. Paper maps that show what routes are freeways would have sufficed back then.

[SEWIGuy]

Here's one: interstates could have just been a system upgrade instead of it's own system.  In some remote areas an expressway would have been fine.

I agree. US and state Highways could have just been upgraded as needed. With GPS, nobody would care what is an Interstate or not.

This just goes to show that we take interstate standards for granted. Oftentimes you don't miss something until you don't have it. Downgrading to expressways instead of full freeways in rural areas would be a prime example.

Agreed.  Building interstates in rural areas probably was pretty cost effective too.  And simply upgrading US highways would have been more hassle over time.  Had they needed upgrades.

Building to one standard was a smart idea.

What we SHOULD have seen less of is building interstates through city centers.  That is one where I agree with the "Stroad" video.  Keep the freeways out of the cities and upgrade some streets to non-interstate standards to connect with the freeways.

[Roadgeekteen]

Here's one: interstates could have just been a system upgrade instead of it's own system.  In some remote areas an expressway would have been fine.

I agree. US and state Highways could have just been upgraded as needed. With GPS, nobody would care what is an Interstate or not.

This just goes to show that we take interstate standards for granted. Oftentimes you don't miss something until you don't have it. Downgrading to expressways instead of full freeways in rural areas would be a prime example.

Agreed.  Building interstates in rural areas probably was pretty cost effective too.  And simply upgrading US highways would have been more hassle over time.  Had they needed upgrades.

Building to one standard was a smart idea.

What we SHOULD have seen less of is building interstates through city centers.  That is one where I agree with the "Stroad" video.  Keep the freeways out of the cities and upgrade some streets to non-interstate standards to connect with the freeways.

It would have saved costs to leave some at-grade interchanges in very rural areas out west.

[kphoger]

It would have saved costs to leave some at-grade interchanges in very rural areas out west.

But how many of those would have needed to be upgraded to grade separation later?  That's the question.  Upgrading them later would have been more expensive, for several reasons.

[Roadgeekteen]

It would have saved costs to leave some at-grade interchanges in very rural areas out west.

But how many of those would have needed to be upgraded to grade separation later?  That's the question.  Upgrading them later would have been more expensive, for several reasons.

It depends where. In places in the east yes probably. In rural North Dakota I doubt it.

[Angelo71]

I don't know if this is unpopular but I like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2360601,-83.739006,3a,49.8y,34.02h,91.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbP95ttFOancIyvcIvTLl9w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[SEWIGuy]

It would have saved costs to leave some at-grade interchanges in very rural areas out west.

But how many of those would have needed to be upgraded to grade separation later?  That's the question.  Upgrading them later would have been more expensive, for several reasons.

It depends where. In places in the east yes probably. In rural North Dakota I doubt it.

Or you could simply design to one standard and not leave it open to question.