2019 Rand McNally road atlas

Started by txstateends, April 20, 2018, 04:18:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

briantroutman

^ Rand McNally colors just the section between interchanges where a toll is unavoidable as green. Note also the short section of blue between the NJ Turnpike and the Delaware Memorial Bridge.



oscar

Quote from: briantroutman on May 17, 2018, 11:40:54 AM
^ Rand McNally colors just the section between interchanges where a toll is unavoidable as green. Note also the short section of blue between the NJ Turnpike and the Delaware Memorial Bridge.

Which helpfully flags shunpike options, such as in the above map how to skip around the $4 toll on the Delaware Turnpike (I-95).
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

hbelkins

Quote from: oscar on May 17, 2018, 11:47:18 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on May 17, 2018, 11:40:54 AM
^ Rand McNally colors just the section between interchanges where a toll is unavoidable as green. Note also the short section of blue between the NJ Turnpike and the Delaware Memorial Bridge.

Which helpfully flags shunpike options, such as in the above map how to skip around the $4 toll on the Delaware Turnpike (I-95).

If traffic is heavy on the shunpike routes, or if there are a bunch of signals along it, I honestly don't think saving $4 is worth what extra time it might take. It should be noted, however, that I have never shunpiked this section of I-95.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: hbelkins on May 17, 2018, 12:06:50 PM
Quote from: oscar on May 17, 2018, 11:47:18 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on May 17, 2018, 11:40:54 AM
^ Rand McNally colors just the section between interchanges where a toll is unavoidable as green. Note also the short section of blue between the NJ Turnpike and the Delaware Memorial Bridge.

Which helpfully flags shunpike options, such as in the above map how to skip around the $4 toll on the Delaware Turnpike (I-95).

If traffic is heavy on the shunpike routes, or if there are a bunch of signals along it, I honestly don't think saving $4 is worth what extra time it might take. It should be noted, however, that I have never shunpiked this section of I-95.

Some people do it religiously.  I used to do it fairly often before the express lanes were built because of the congestion issues approaching the toll plaza.  Since they were built, I can fly freely thru this area.  Maybe if I'm going thru the area twice in a day or weekend, or if I'll be stopping somewhere in Delaware anyway, I'll shunpike it.  But otherwise, it's not worth the time.

The issue of religiously using McNally's maps to find shunpike routes is if the toll is one way.   I'm sure the stretch of I-95 and US 40 in Maryland near the Susquehanna is labeled as a toll road, but someone driving southbound could be needlessly driving 30 extra minutes over 15 extra miles towards US 1 to shunpike a toll that doesn't exist in their direction.

PHLBOS

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 17, 2018, 12:21:16 PM
The issue of religiously using McNally's maps to find shunpike routes is if the toll is one way.   I'm sure the stretch of I-95 and US 40 in Maryland near the Susquehanna is labeled as a toll road, but someone driving southbound could be needlessly driving 30 extra minutes over 15 extra miles towards US 1 to shunpike a toll that doesn't exist in their direction.
While true for the Rand McNally atlases (& probably other atlases); the actual folding road map versions typically list the tolled crossings and whether such are one or two-way tolls.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

tallfull

Here is a summary of the changes to the inset map coverage that I noted in the 2019 edition of the Rand McNally Road Atlas:

  • AZ: An inset of Central Grand Canyon N.P. was added. It was placed in the northwest corner of the Grand Canyon N.P. inset, resulting in loss of coverage area in the Moapa area.
  • AZ: The Petrified Forest National Park inset was shifted eastward, including more of the National Park area, but excluding Holbrook.
  • AR: The Hot Springs/Hot Springs National Park inset was enlarged, and the map scale was increased.  The net result was more detail, but a slight loss of coverage area to the north, west and south. To accommodate this change, the positions of the Hot Springs and Pine Bluff insets were switched.
  • CA: A Central Yosemite N.P. inset was added. It was mostly placed in the Pacific Ocean, but there was a slight reduction in coverage area on the north edge of the Yosemite National Park inset.
  • CA: The Joshua Tree National Park inset was slightly enlarged, and the map scale was slightly increased. The net result was more detail, but a slight loss of coverage area to the west and south.
  • ME: The proportions were changed on the Acadia National Park inset, and the scale was decreased. The net result was inclusion of the Schoodic Peninsula and the Maine Coastal Islands N.W.R., but a slight loss of coverage area to the south, and to the north on the Isle au Haut map. The accommodate this change, the positions of the Portland and Lewiston/Auburn insets were switched.
  • MI: The Central Detroit inset was enlarged, and the scale was decreased.  The net result was more coverage area. Although the details are more compact, there was little loss of detail. To accommodate this change, the positions of the Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, and Ann Arbor insets were changed. Also, there was loss of coverage to the south on the Ann Arbor inset, and slight loss of coverage to the northeast on the Grand Rapids inset.
  • NE: Insets were added for Scottsbluff, North Platte, and Kearney.
  • NJ: The Newark inset was eliminated. As noted previously, this inset mostly duplicated coverage on the New York City map, although there was a small loss of coverage area in the northwest corner of the former inset (around North Caldwell).
  • NJ: Insets were added for New Brunswick and Jersey Shore.
  • NJ: The Trenton inset was enlarged, and the scale was increased. The net result was a slight gain of coverage area on the north and east edges, but a slight loss of coverage area on the west and south edges. The position of the inset was changed, as was that of the Cape May inset.

Following is a list of cities over 100,000 in the U.S. (2017 estimate) and Canada (2016 census) that have no or minimal inset map coverage:

  • Santa Clarita, CA 210,888 (the southern edge is present on the Los Angeles inset)
  • Port St. Lucie, FL 189,344
  • Brownsville, TX 183,299
  • Elk Grove, CA 171,844
  • Clarksville, TN 153,205
  • Escondido, CA 151,969 (the southern edge is present on the San Diego inset)
  • Murfreesboro, TN 136,372
  • Visalia, CA 133,010
  • Gainesville, FL 132,249
  • Thousand Oaks, CA 128,995 (the eastern edge is present on the Los Angeles inset)
  • Athens, GA 125,691
  • Victorville, CA 122,441
  • Fairfield, CA 116,266
  • Temecula, CA 114,327 (the western edge is present on the Los Angeles inset)
  • Everett, WA 110,079
  • Santa Maria, CA 107,014
  • Hillsboro, OR 106,894
  • San Angelo, TX 100,119
  • Vacaville, CA 100,032


  • Markham, ON 328,966
  • Richmond Hill, ON 195,022
  • Oakville, ON 193,832
  • Burlington, ON 183,314 (the southwest corner is present on the Hamilton inset)
  • Oshawa, ON 159,458
  • Barrie, ON 141,434
  • Abbotsford, BC 141,397
  • Guelph, ON 131,794
  • Whitby, ON 128,377
  • Kelowna, BC 127,380
  • Ajax, ON 119,677
  • Milton, ON 110,128
  • Chatham-Kent, ON 101,647
  • Red Deer, AB 100,418

Galaga King

Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 16, 2018, 04:59:51 PM
I finally saw some copies in the nearest Wal-Mart, and I recently bought the 2018 Rand McNally Road Atlas last month.
I haven't seen any 2019 copies at Wal-Mart.  Are they cheaper than cover price?

Seems like the new editions should also be in truck stops by now.


Alex

Quote from: sparker on May 08, 2018, 03:52:47 AM
Noticed a few things in the 2019 iteration that weren't there last year:

(3) A U.C. southwest bypass of Dubuque, IA extending from US 20 east to US 61 near the US 52 "split" is shown. 

Picked up a copy at Walmart in Davenport, Iowa.

The Dubuque inset shows the Southwest Arterial: http://www.cityofdubuque.org/1225/Southwest-Arterial-Project

The Iowa page however omits the new four lane alignment of U.S. 61 at Grandview. This includes a new interchange with IA 92.

Also the Quad Cities inset still shows US 67 split between State and Grant Street at I-74. State St east was removed to make way for the new I-74 bridge with Grant St widened for two way traffic in early 2017.

There could also be new linework for the US 30 freeway u/c south of Lisbon and Mt Vernon.

txstateends

Quote from: Galaga King on May 28, 2018, 07:57:20 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 16, 2018, 04:59:51 PM
I finally saw some copies in the nearest Wal-Mart, and I recently bought the 2018 Rand McNally Road Atlas last month.
I haven't seen any 2019 copies at Wal-Mart.  Are they cheaper than cover price?

Seems like the new editions should also be in truck stops by now.

They usually are cheaper than the RMcN price at any other store.
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

oscar

#59
Quote from: txstateends on May 28, 2018, 10:01:33 PM
Quote from: Galaga King on May 28, 2018, 07:57:20 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 16, 2018, 04:59:51 PM
I finally saw some copies in the nearest Wal-Mart, and I recently bought the 2018 Rand McNally Road Atlas last month.
I haven't seen any 2019 copies at Wal-Mart.  Are they cheaper than cover price?

They usually are cheaper than the RMcN price at any other store.

Plus, a free bonus is the latest directory of Wal-Marts in the U.S. and Canada. That's a feature I find useful, though the lower price is also nice since I always get at least two for each year (one to use at home, the other in my car(s) to use on the road).

Before I retired, I usually got four, including one for the mapstand in my office, which I used to lure visitors much like most people use candy jars.

I haven't yet seen the 2019 at any Wal-Mart, in part because there aren't any near where I live so I only shop at Wal-Mart on road trips.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

webny99

I hadn't even clicked this thread until now, because quite honestly I'm not a fan of Rand McNally atlases. My family had one some ten-odd years ago, but I'd never really consider buying one now.

Maybe there's been a debate here on the forum before; I'm not sure, but I'm going to share my thoughts anyways: Rand McNally atlases always seem to be faded, as if from age, even when they're new. The uncolored route shields and narrow route lines add to this problem, making them hard to read. At least my Nat Geo atlas is legible from a distance, has proper coloration and looks like it was actually printed this century. Just my two cents.

(no popcorn needed, because I'm not trying to spark an argument, just being honest with my observations - there are much better atlases around :meh:)

Henry

Quote from: webny99 on May 28, 2018, 10:16:57 PMMaybe there's been a debate here on the forum before; I'm not sure, but I'm going to share my thoughts anyways: Rand McNally atlases always seem to be faded, as if from age, even when they're new. The uncolored route shields and narrow route lines add to this problem, making them hard to read. At least my Nat Geo atlas is legible from a distance, has proper coloration and looks like it was actually printed this century. Just my two cents.
You're entitled to your opinion, but this point has been rendered moot by the fact that my parents would buy a new Rand McNally every couple of years, and I picked up on the tradition when I moved out of Chicago.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

webny99

Quote from: Henry on May 29, 2018, 09:56:47 AM
Quote from: webny99 on May 28, 2018, 10:16:57 PMMaybe there's been a debate here on the forum before; I'm not sure, but I'm going to share my thoughts anyways: Rand McNally atlases always seem to be faded, as if from age, even when they're new. The uncolored route shields and narrow route lines add to this problem, making them hard to read. At least my Nat Geo atlas is legible from a distance, has proper coloration and looks like it was actually printed this century. Just my two cents.
You're entitled to your opinion, but this point has been rendered moot by the fact that my parents would buy a new Rand McNally every couple of years, and I picked up on the tradition when I moved out of Chicago.

Likewise, of course. But there are a number of much better atlases around, so I guess I really don't know why Rand McNally became the popular one.

hbelkins

I have yet to see the new one on the shelf at Walmart. My iPad app did get upgraded a few weeks ago, but I haven't explored it fully yet.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

oscar

I got two copies at the Wal-Mart in Tysons Corner VA. I was pleasantly surprised, since that is a smallish store serving an urban neighborhood. I only stopped by there since it is right next to a Metrorail station, and had to take the train there to retrieve my car from one of the nearby car dealerships that have not yet been demolished to make room for new high-rises.

The only thing I checked so far is the new highway to Tuktoyaktuk NT on the Arctic coast. It's shown, but sans route number. Now what we need is for the highway to be fully reopened (after serious spring thaw damage) in time for corco to drive it on his way back from the Alaska roadmeet.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

bugo

Arkansas:
AR 282 north of Van Buren is still shown as AR 280 on the Fort Smith inset. This error has existed for years.
US 270 shown duplexed along the US 70 freeway east of Malvern Avenue on the Hot Springs inset. Of course, US 270 exits off the freeway onto Malvern Road.
As somebody mentioned, the AR 612 (Future US 412) freeway is shown as "Future US 412 Byp." in the NWA inset between AR 112 and I-49/US 62/US 71.

Oklahoma:
OK 165/OK 351 duplex is shown on Muskogee inset.
All of US 59 between I-40 at Sallisaw and OK 9 is shown as an expressway.



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.