News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Recent posts

#1
Pacific Southwest / Re: Was highway 237 ever plann...
Last post by DTComposer - July 20, 2024, 11:50:07 PM
If you look at traffic patterns in the 1940s:


Traffic Flow Diagram, Santa Clara County, California (1942) by Erica Fischer, on Flickr

What would become 237 was not necessarily a heavy-traffic route, so it makes sense that the Stevens Creek Freeway (the north section of CA-85) would be adequate for Milpitas-to-Los Altos traffic. Here's the earliest freeway planning map I've seen, from 1952:

Freeways, Northwesterly Section, Santa Clara County, California (1952) by Erica Fischer, on Flickr
#2
General Highway Talk / Re: Road Work Ahead Signs
Last post by pderocco - July 20, 2024, 11:48:05 PM
Steal it.
#3
Traffic Control / Re: Guess the speed limit chal...
Last post by sprjus4 - July 20, 2024, 11:44:03 PM
75 mph
#4
Traffic Control / Re: Guess the speed limit chal...
Last post by Hunty2022 - July 20, 2024, 11:26:23 PM
60 MPH?
#5
Great Lakes and Ohio Valley / Re: Mackinac Bridge congestion
Last post by Flint1979 - July 20, 2024, 11:25:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 20, 2024, 09:05:58 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 20, 2024, 12:49:36 PMThey aren't going to be adding EZPass so it doesn't make any difference. It's not going to benefit anyone by adding it, first of all they would need to rebuild the toll plaza, secondly it's not going to stop congestion ON the bridge. I'm talking from knowledge not just what I think. People already do drive through the toll plaza instead of being forced to stop and hand over $4 it's called MacPass. Nobody is upset over having to stop for less than 30 seconds to pay a toll and then move on. Having EZPass on the Mackinac Bridge would compete with their own MacPass. The Mackinac Bridge Authority isn't out to screw themselves over.
Why would they need to rebuild the toll plaza to make MacPass and E-ZPass compatible?  Wouldn't they just let E-ZPass users use the existing MacPass lanes and other states would do the reverse?  And what would be "competing"?  Transponders aren't profit centers, at least they're not supposed to be.
They probably could do that. There isn't much room there though.
#6
Photos, Videos, and More / Re: END signs
Last post by Rothman - July 20, 2024, 11:25:37 PM
END! VT 67A:

#7
Traffic Control / Re: Unique, Odd, or Interestin...
Last post by Rothman - July 20, 2024, 11:24:57 PM
Liked this construction modification to a diagrammatic:

#8
Great Lakes and Ohio Valley / Re: Mackinac Bridge congestion
Last post by Flint1979 - July 20, 2024, 11:20:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 20, 2024, 08:33:06 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 20, 2024, 12:49:36 PM
Quote from: rhen_var on July 20, 2024, 12:40:14 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on July 19, 2024, 09:56:10 AMWe don't support EZ Pass because we don't have toll roads. What difference does it make it any of you if Michigan has EZ Pass or not? And how many people on here actually use the Mackinac Bridge? They aren't getting EZ Pass no matter how much people bicker about it. It's not happening.
What difference would it make to you if they did add support for EZ-Pass?  You're so adamant that they shouldn't add it but you haven't given any good reason why not other than "I personally don't like it."  I'm sure there are a couple other old grumpy people that hate change and would be angry that other people would gain the option to just drive through the toll barrier instead of being forced to stop and hand over $4, but I would bet most normal people would be elated, and pick up an EZ-Pass for themselves if they don't already have one (which many Michiganders do).
They aren't going to be adding EZPass so it doesn't make any difference. It's not going to benefit anyone by adding it, first of all they would need to rebuild the toll plaza, secondly it's not going to stop congestion ON the bridge. I'm talking from knowledge not just what I think. People already do drive through the toll plaza instead of being forced to stop and hand over $4 it's called MacPass. Nobody is upset over having to stop for less than 30 seconds to pay a toll and then move on. Having EZPass on the Mackinac Bridge would compete with their own MacPass. The Mackinac Bridge Authority isn't out to screw themselves over.

"Nobody is upset over having to stop for less than 30 seconds" but congestion is a problem.

Claiming that your experience driving over the bridge means that AET or even adding AET lanes and keeping cash lanes would be useless towards mitigating congestion is a non sequitur.
Congestion is a problem because the bridge is two lanes in each direction and almost always has a lane closed for one reason or another. Trucks exceeding 30 tons the speed limit is 20 mph, how is the toll plaza the reason for the congestion? You stop for about 5 seconds and then go at the toll booth. Every time I cross the bridge there is truck traffic holding the flow up. The lack of EZPass is not the reason for congestion on the Mackinac Bridge.
#9
Traffic Control / Re: Unique, Odd, or Interestin...
Last post by TheCatalyst31 - July 20, 2024, 11:13:14 PM
Quote from: Amaury on July 20, 2024, 05:45:48 PMInterstate 84 westbound in Umatilla County, Oregon, before milepost 204: https://maps.app.goo.gl/kUuX8FkaB3SHJvYv8

There's a similar sign on I-39 in Wisconsin south of Plover, though that one's due to a crop dusting operation in the area: https://maps.app.goo.gl/CnzvR683LWGsBG4LA

Incidentally, that same crop dusting operation is the reason for the famous "Watch for Low Flying Planes" sign, which I'm surprised hasn't been posted in this thread yet. I've seen the planes in action a couple times while driving that stretch.
#10
Great Lakes and Ohio Valley / Re: Indiana Notes
Last post by Revive 755 - July 20, 2024, 11:11:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 20, 2024, 03:15:47 AMTechnically, everything along US-30 west of US-421 (east of Valparaiso) is within 10 miles of the Toll Road.

If they're trying to stay within the terms of a non-compete clause, build a north-south toll road "extension" parallel to US-421 connecting the Toll Road to US-30, then upgrade US-30 east of there. Brand the new toll road as a US-421 bypass, arguing it's not intended for east-west traffic, despite it deliberately funneling traffic from the main Toll Road to a free US-30.

May be better to just build a new southern alignment for US 30 from about US 421 over to IN 49 that meets the 10 mile separation requirement.  IN 49 is three overpasses away from being a full freeway from US 30 to the Toll Road (not counting the stoplight at the Toll Road interchange).  I don't think that part of Indiana has grown enough yet to justify another freeway along US 421.

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.