Minor things that bother you

[kphoger]

To a larger point, why wouldn't on-street parking be allowed? I suspect it's something that wasn't much of an issue in earlier decades, as multi-vehicle households only became more common after the neighborhood was built.

Here's an example of a four-lane arterial in my area where parking is allowed on the southbound side except from 4-6 PM on weekdays. Drive past on a weekend and there could be as many as two dozen cars parked in the travel lane. Other roads have a rotation system - left side parking one day, right side the next.

I'm not aware of any places in Wichita where this is done.  Drivers here expect any street striped for four or more lanes to be a clearway, with no vehicles parked or stopped in the traveled way regardless of whether no-parking signs are actually posted (sometimes they are, sometimes they are not).

There is actually a set of 64 arterial roads that are written into the municipal code as no-parking zones.  There don't have to be any signs in order for parking on those streets to be illegal.

Title 11 – Traffic

Chapter 11.52 – Parking

§ 11.52.045. - Stopping or parking on main trafficway streets prohibited.

It is unlawful for any person or operator to stop or park a motor vehicle on any main trafficway as designated by Section 11.96.120 of this Code. For the purposes of this section no signs are required for enforcement of this section.

there are segments north of Kellogg that are about the same width curb-to-curb but are striped for two lanes and have parking bans only in the immediate vicinity of signalized intersections.

They even added left-turn lanes on Edgemoor at the Douglas stoplight a year or two ago without even widening the pavement at all.  Traffic occasionally treats the wide two-lane sections as if they were four lanes.

[webny99]

Nighttime parking is permitted, but not from 7am to 7pm.  It's a busy enough arterial that it wouldn't be good to allow daytime parking.

I'm used to the opposite: Almost every city, town, and village in Western NY has some sort of restriction of on-street parking during the overnight hours. Some are year-round, many are Nov. 1st - April 1st (thanks to frequent snowfall during those months).

I'm not aware of any places in Wichita where this is done.  Drivers here expect any street striped for four or more lanes to be a clearway, with no vehicles parked or stopped in the traveled way regardless of whether no-parking signs are actually posted (sometimes they are, sometimes they are not).

That's certainly the case here as well in the suburbs, but the city is a different beast. Lyell Ave and Monroe Ave, among others, also have segments striped for four lanes that are used for on-street parking.

It has been striped for four for as long as I can remember, going back to the early 1980's, but unit lane width is substandard (I would say about 10 ft), and there are segments north of Kellogg that are about the same width curb-to-curb but are striped for two lanes and have parking bans only in the immediate vicinity of signalized intersections.

I looked up those segments, and I must say, another "minor thing that bothers me" is when a street wide enough for four lanes but only used for two lacks shoulder stripes. It looks discombobulated and lacks the structure I like to see in a road network. Here is a local example that's always disgusted me. I vastly prefer the cleaner look of nearby Winton Road.

[US 89]

I looked up those segments, and I must say, another "minor thing that bothers me" is when a street wide enough for four lanes but only used for two lacks shoulder stripes. It looks discombobulated and lacks the structure I like to see in a road network. Here is a local example that's always disgusted me. I vastly prefer the cleaner look of nearby Winton Road.

Heh, your Clover Street example doesn't bother me at all. It may technically be wide enough for four lanes, but not comfortably and especially not if street parking is allowed. Yes, it's nice when a shoulder and/or bike lane is painted on the side, but not really a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned.

There is actually a set of 64 arterial roads that are written into the municipal code as no-parking zones.  There don't have to be any signs in order for parking on those streets to be illegal.

Title 11 — Traffic

Chapter 11.52 — Parking

§ 11.52.045. - Stopping or parking on main trafficway streets prohibited.

It is unlawful for any person or operator to stop or park a motor vehicle on any main trafficway as designated by Section 11.96.120 of this Code. For the purposes of this section no signs are required for enforcement of this section.

Do they expect all Wichita drivers (and visitors) to memorize the list of 64 streets? Granted most of them are probably pretty obvious, but having unsigned no-parking zones and giving tickets on them seems questionable from a legal standpoint.

[kphoger]

Do they expect all Wichita drivers (and visitors) to memorize the list of 64 streets? Granted most of them are probably pretty obvious, but having unsigned no-parking zones and giving tickets on them seems questionable from a legal standpoint.

But there are all sorts of traffic laws that people are just supposed to know.

For example, I wish you well if you try to get out of a traffic ticket for making a U-turn in the city of Chicago at an intersection that didn't have a sign specifically allowing them.

[J N Winkler]

Do they expect all Wichita drivers (and visitors) to memorize the list of 64 streets? Granted most of them are probably pretty obvious, but having unsigned no-parking zones and giving tickets on them seems questionable from a legal standpoint.

I don't know if anyone has tried to get out of a ticket for parking on one of the 64 streets by arguing that the parking ban should have been signed but was not.  I suspect both municipal court and district court would rule that listing the streets in the city code is adequate publicity.

The key here is that parking on one of these streets is not reasonable behavior.  I would not do it and expect to come back to an undamaged car.  Even when dealing with a four-lane arterial where parking is legal for part of the 24-hour day, such as the length of Edgemoor near where Kphoger lives, I would much rather leave my car in a side street.

[jakeroot]

I looked up those segments, and I must say, another "minor thing that bothers me" is when a street wide enough for four lanes but only used for two lacks shoulder stripes. It looks discombobulated and lacks the structure I like to see in a road network. Here is a local example that's always disgusted me. I vastly prefer the cleaner look of nearby Winton Road.

Heh, your Clover Street example doesn't bother me at all. It may technically be wide enough for four lanes, but not comfortably and especially not if street parking is allowed. Yes, it's nice when a shoulder and/or bike lane is painted on the side, but not really a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I prefer not having shoulder lines for a couple reasons: (1) makes it clearer that parking is permitted along the edge; and (2) permits passing on the right, which is only permitted through a shoulder in maybe a couple states (Texas...maybe a couple others). Painting shoulder lines would negate both of these positives.

[webny99]

I looked up those segments, and I must say, another "minor thing that bothers me" is when a street wide enough for four lanes but only used for two lacks shoulder stripes. It looks discombobulated and lacks the structure I like to see in a road network. Here is a local example that's always disgusted me. I vastly prefer the cleaner look of nearby Winton Road.

Heh, your Clover Street example doesn't bother me at all. It may technically be wide enough for four lanes, but not comfortably and especially not if street parking is allowed. Yes, it's nice when a shoulder and/or bike lane is painted on the side, but not really a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned.

To be clear, the lack of a shoulder line (given the presence of the center yellow stripes) is what I object to. I definitely don't think they should stripe it for four lanes; it's not quite wide enough, and even if it was, it serves little through traffic.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I prefer not having shoulder lines for a couple reasons: (1) makes it clearer that parking is permitted along the edge; and (2) permits passing on the right, which is only permitted through a shoulder in maybe a couple states (Texas...maybe a couple others). Painting shoulder lines would negate both of these positives.

Oh, I disagree with (1). Painted lines makes it much more obvious what's going on. No lines basically looks and feels like a free for all. As for (2), I agree in principle, as I do appreciate being able to (legally) pass a turning vehicle on the right. But in practice, people are going to cross the shoulder line regardless of what the law says about it. That's a problem with the law, not a problem with the paint.

[jakeroot]

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I prefer not having shoulder lines for a couple reasons: (1) makes it clearer that parking is permitted along the edge; and (2) permits passing on the right, which is only permitted through a shoulder in maybe a couple states (Texas...maybe a couple others). Painting shoulder lines would negate both of these positives.

Oh, I disagree with (1). Painted lines makes it much more obvious what's going on. No lines basically looks and feels like a free for all. As for (2), I agree in principle, as I do appreciate being able to (legally) pass a turning vehicle on the right. But in practice, people are going to cross the shoulder line regardless of what the law says about it. That's a problem with the law, not a problem with the paint.

(1) Painted shoulder lines but with permitted parking is not exactly that common. Most streets with parallel parking are simply wide enough to allow parallel parking (almost every street in Tacoma looks like this), and painted parallel parking stalls generally aren't common unless you're in an urban area, or your local jurisdiction requires them. Plus, and this is a big one: parking to the right of a solid white line would constitute parking in a shoulder, and rarely is that permitted without signage.

That brings me to (2): passing on the right with a shoulder line is a problem with the law when you go and intentionally paint a shoulder line. It's not a problem if you just don't paint the damn line. Why paint a shoulder line when that would immediately make passing on the right and parallel parking illegal? The two main reasons why you'd have a wide lane?

The only way to achieve what you want is to either (A) make it four lanes, and have the outer lanes be combo through + parking lanes, or (B) paint a shoulder line, but install parking signs along the entire length. How either is better than no line is completely beyond me...

[Big John]

(2) permits passing on the right, which is only permitted through a shoulder in maybe a couple states (Texas...maybe a couple others). Painting shoulder lines would negate both of these positives.

Passing on the right is permitted in Wisconsin is legal only if the shoulder is paved, but they usually add the paved shoulder in rural intersections where there is left-turning traffic.

[webny99]

(1) Painted shoulder lines but with permitted parking is not exactly that common. Most streets with parallel parking are simply wide enough to allow parallel parking (almost every street in Tacoma looks like this), and painted parallel parking stalls generally aren't common unless you're in an urban area, or your local jurisdiction requires them. Plus, and this is a big one: parking to the right of a solid white line would constitute parking in a shoulder, and rarely is that permitted without signage.

Maybe it's uncommon in your area, but it's very common - basically the norm - in this area. Here, here, and here are just a few of countless examples. And even just panning around the area you linked to, I found this example, which I think is great, exactly how it should be, and complete with the bike lane.

Also, I've never heard of parking in a shoulder being illegal on a local street. That's what the line is there for - to separate between the lane of traffic and the parked cars! Sure, it's illegal on state highways and interstates, but I've never heard of it being illegal or any reason why it would be on any local or city street.

That brings me to (2): passing on the right with a shoulder line is a problem with the law when you go and intentionally paint a shoulder line. It's not a problem if you just don't paint the damn line. Why paint a shoulder line when that would immediately make passing on the right and parallel parking illegal? The two main reasons why you'd have a wide lane?

The only way to achieve what you want is to either (A) make it four lanes, and have the outer lanes be combo through + parking lanes, or (B) paint a shoulder line, but install parking signs along the entire length. How either is better than no line is completely beyond me...

Well, as noted above, painting the line wouldn't make parallel parking illegal. If anything, on a city street, it would make it more explicitly legal. And, of course, the solution to passing on the right is simply to taper the line prior to the intersection (as shown here). In many cases, especially when there's parking on both sides, tapering the line has the added bonus of creating space for a turning lane.

[CoreySamson]

Here's a street in Angleton, TX that is probably worse than the Clover Street one. The center stripe is nearly invisible.

[kphoger]

No lines basically looks and feels like a free for all.

Here's a street in Angleton, TX that is probably worse than the Clover Street one. The center stripe is nearly invisible.

See, I guess I'm just fine with having a free-for-all.  Nothing wrong with stripe-less streets, in my opinion.

[hotdogPi]

See, I guess I'm just fine with having a free-for-all.

You're probably used to it because Mexico doesn't have as stringent design standards as the US. Most US drivers aren't as used to situations that are free-for-alls.

[ethanhopkin14]

Do they expect all Wichita drivers (and visitors) to memorize the list of 64 streets? Granted most of them are probably pretty obvious, but having unsigned no-parking zones and giving tickets on them seems questionable from a legal standpoint.

But there are all sorts of traffic laws that people are just supposed to know.

For example, I wish you well if you try to get out of a traffic ticket for making a U-turn in the city of Chicago at an intersection that didn't have a sign specifically allowing them.

Yes, especially when a new law has been enacted, the police don't like to hear "I wasn't aware of that law" as a response to them pulling you over.  They say it's your duty as a citizen to keep up with the laws.

[kphoger]

See, I guess I'm just fine with having a free-for-all.

You're probably used to it because Mexico doesn't have as stringent design standards as the US. Most US drivers aren't as used to situations that are free-for-alls.

No, I might be used to it from growing up and learning to drive in a town where the streets look like this and this, then going to a college where the streets nearby look like this and this, then moving out to where they look like this and the street my apartment was on looks like this–all before having driven a single mile in Mexico–and currently living in a neighborhood where the streets look like this and this.

[webny99]

No lines basically looks and feels like a free for all.

Here's a street in Angleton, TX that is probably worse than the Clover Street one. The center stripe is nearly invisible.

See, I guess I'm just fine with having a free-for-all.  Nothing wrong with stripe-less streets, in my opinion.

I don't have a problem with those examples. I have a problem with there being no shoulder lines when there's both a center yellow stripe and extra wide lanes. Your examples (including all the ones you just posted while I was typing this) only have extra wide lanes, with no center stripe. Here is an example that only has a yellow stripe, but not extra wide lanes. Either one on its own is fine, but the combination, as seen in the Clover St. example upthread, is what bothers me.

[kenarmy]

Ok so imma make just one.
- GA 20's shape. Georgia must've been playing around when they assigned this. Really? A capital J?
- 206 missing it's parent by literal walking distance
- Every single digit route besides 6. 1 being indirect of itself for half its route, 2's gap, 3, 5, and 7 being 1's forgotten children, 4 looking like a long division bar, 8 deserves more hate than it gets, 9 gets on my nerves.
- I-15's routing,  is literally so unattractive
- US 411 paralleling its parent for so long but never connecting with it.
- US 160 going to Tuba instead of 64.
- 180's entire existence west of its junction with 62.
- US 43 not being a branch route of 45
- 80 and 180 not quite making it to DFW.
- 183 and 283 no longer connecting with 83.
-  US 54 no longer going to Chicago. Why not?
-  US 159.. why does it exist again?
- Interstate 90 not being swapped with 94.
- I-15 AGAIN
- US 34 paralleling/ overlapping/ being more indirect of 6 for pretty much its entire route
- US 33, 35, and 42's entire existence.
- I-22 ending abruptly at 269.
- US 278 overlapping with 61/49, 82, and 65 just to realign with itself. But this is pretty inevitable.
- US 72 and 76/74 not being one route
- US 73 being so short now.. 75, 59, and 69 just ate it up.
- US 71, 75, 77, 81, and 59 being so close together.
- US 57 being so short. This route makes sense as it connects to Mexico 57, but why not extend it so it can actually go somewhere important? Why not have it overlap with 35 and SR 21 to replace US 79?
- US 1 being so indirect of 95 (for the most part). It should be swapped with US 17 (from Jacksonville to its terminus)
- 27 existing south of Tallahassee. It is so indirect of 98.
- 82 and 84 swapping terminuses. Yes, 84 aligns with it more but it fit perfectly in the grid.
- I-220 not being named 255
- The gap in MS 18
- When water bottles start shrinking when you drink and they make that loud noise when you finish
- US 220 not connecting with 20. Like literally it is so easy for it to be extended.
- US 49 not using AR 1. Like seriously why not use the most direct route?? Also that curve is so UGLY it bothers me daily.
- US 98's route in MS. That dip down to Tylertown and that dip back up to Mccomb is so ugly.
- Everyone still thinking State Street is 51 (even google maps).. it hasn't used that for over 40 years
- US 190 being so close to MS but not entering it
- LA not using US 265 (recommended by AASHTO) for (mostly) what would eventually become 425..
- I-81 and I-59 not being one continuous route. It would be two lengthy interstate concurrencies but 75 is the one in the wrong.
- 87 being overlapped with 85 and 25 for like 1 million miles. The northern part and the southern part both could be branches of 85.
- US 90 having 3 or 4 concurrencies with 98 between Mobile and Pensacola.
- US 87 and 89 swapping terminuses. LITERALLY WHY?

[Scott5114]

- 27 existing south of Tallahassee.

Nah, Lubbock is way north of Florida.

[hotdogPi]

- US 33, 35, and 42's entire existence.

So you think diagonal routes shouldn't exist at all?

[zzcarp]

- US 33, 35, and 42's entire existence.

So you think diagonal routes shouldn't exist at all?

Things that annoy me: people who diss major corridors that cross Ohio. 42 connects the 3 C-s and Louisville-so important that they routed an interstate parallel with and not too close to disrupt US 42's independent utility the entire route. US 33 connects northern Indiana to Columbus to Athens through West Virginia and Virginia (and is expressway or freeway through much of Ohio). US 35 is also expressway through much of Ohio and West Virginia, connecting Dayton through to Charleston.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

(Reposting because the original poster I replied deleted his/her/its messages and instead combined them into one)

- US 87 and 89 swapping terminuses. LITERALLY WHY?

In that vein (US 87 actually ended at the Canadian border at Piegan before 1934), why was US 470 changed to US 366? Sure, it did no longer connect to US 70, but that alone didn't make US 470 invalid (it was around the same time US 138 became a orphan, and that one is still around today). This is a moot point anyway, since US 366 would soon disappear.

Also, why was US 566 changed to US 380 instead of just being extended East? Why was US 241 changed to US 431 instead of just being extended North (and realigned through Alabama)? The US 666 to US 491 change is another thing.

[kenarmy]

- US 33, 35, and 42's entire existence.

So you think diagonal routes shouldn't exist at all?

I don't really like diagonal routes but I hate them even more because of their numbers. And they're not even long.

- 27 existing south of Tallahassee.

Nah, Lubbock is way north of Florida.

Oops, sorry for not making it clear which 27 touches Tallahassee   

[tolbs17]

When a pretty girl sniffs me (especially my armpit) she goes "you smell good!".

[Scott5114]

When a pretty girl sniffs me (especially my armpit) she goes "you smell good!".

what the fuck

[Takumi]

When a pretty girl sniffs me (especially my armpit) she goes "you smell good!".