Okay, this topic should cover a lot of ground, cause a lot of discussion and debate, and you might learn something before it's done:
1) Pick a decade...any decade..
2) What was the best innovation and/or the worst innovation in highways, or transportation during that decade?
For example:
The 00's:
WORST: The introduction of Clearview (for some ;-)).
BEST: LED Lighting for traffic signals and streetlights.
Now it may take a little research to determine if an innovation (like Clearview) did show up for the first time in the '00's, or maybe it came out earlier in the late 90's?
You have your assignment, now GO!
Quote from: thenetwork on September 26, 2013, 10:23:53 PM
Now it may take a little research to determine if an innovation (like Clearview) did show up for the first time in the '00's, or maybe it came out earlier in the late 90's?
Clearview first appeared at the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute in 1993. There were at least a few Clearview signs in the wild (in central PA) before 1995.
FHWA "highway Gothic" font: 1943, experiment on the Pentagon road network. released as a standard Dec 1945. made mandatory by 1948 MUTCD.
button copy: predecessors (discrete elements with reflectors, one glyph per element) were around by 1935, using glass. 1940s for plastic Stimsonite reflectors. the AGA style with cutout aluminum glyphs debuted in 1956.
cateye reflectors: around in England by 1916. first US application 1929 (Rayflector).
Stimsonite plastic reflectors: 1936.
beaded reflective paint: 1930s. first ad I've seen for it is 1937.
Scotchlite: 1938. 1950 for Engineer Grade. 1977 for the Engineer Grade that's white instead of light greenish yellow.
When did the "modern roundabout" come into general use in the US? Put that down for the worst in that decade.
As for "best" nominees, the diverging diamond certainly goes on that list.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 27, 2013, 11:51:06 AM
When did the "modern roundabout" come into general use in the US? Put that down for the worst in that decade.
As for "best" nominees, the diverging diamond certainly goes on that list.
I would say the SPUI would be one of the Bests. wasn't that a 90's innovation
Worst of the 1970s is easy, IMO: The National Maximum Speed Law.
I won't vote for its repeal as "best of the 1990s" because I don't consider a repeal of a bad law to be an "innovation." Instead, for best of the 1990s I'll vote for E-ZPass, or if you prefer electronic toll collection in general (I believe Colorado rolled out ETC prior to the implementation of E-ZPass, but it was E-ZPass that made it widely-used and well-known).
I am sure the SPUI was around prior to the 1990s because one was built in the early 1980s near where I used to live in Annandale, Virginia (intersection of Gallows Road and US-50–when I refer to Annandale I mean our house had an Annandale address, not that the SPUI is there...I think the Postal Service considers it to be in Falls Church).
1950s: The Jersey Barrier for best of
1810s: Cable Stay Bridges, designed in the 1590s but really got started in the 1810s
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2013, 09:39:25 AM
FHWA "highway Gothic" font: 1943, experiment on the Pentagon road network. released as a standard Dec 1945. made mandatory by 1948 MUTCD.
button copy: predecessors (discrete elements with reflectors, one glyph per element) were around by 1935, using glass. 1940s for plastic Stimsonite reflectors. the AGA style with cutout aluminum glyphs debuted in 1956.
cateye reflectors: around in England by 1916. first US application 1929 (Rayflector).
Stimsonite plastic reflectors: 1936.
beaded reflective paint: 1930s. first ad I've seen for it is 1937.
Scotchlite: 1938. 1950 for Engineer Grade. 1977 for the Engineer Grade that's white instead of light greenish yellow.
I'm surprised you didn't nominate the 1970 spec shields as the worst innovation of that decade.
QuoteWhen did the "modern roundabout" come into general use in the US? Put that down for the worst in that decade.
Disagree. Several on this forum (myself included) would argue it's one of the best for that decade.
Best of the 1990's: Roundabouts, electronic tolling, continuous flow intersections, the Big Dig
Worst of the 1990's: Traffic calming, road diets, route numbers dictated by Congress, induced demand/congestion defeatism
Honorable mention of the 1990's: Repeal of the NMSL
Best of the 1970's: Noise barriers, the SPUI, bus rapid transit
Worst of the 1970's: Drive 55, the safety lobby
Best of the 2000's: New highway lighting technologies, Clearview font, express toll lanes, arrow-per lane signs, diverging diamond interchanges
Worst of the 2000's: Actually implementing the worst of the 1990's
Best of the 2010's so far: Speed limits in Texas, strong momentum for raising speed limits elsewhere
Worst of the 2010's so far: Tolling existing Interstates, turning paved roads to gravel
To clarify on the 2010's, I'm talking about the idea for tolling existing Interstates, not the actual implementation, which hopefully will never happen.
Quote from: froggie on September 28, 2013, 01:40:22 AM
QuoteWhen did the "modern roundabout" come into general use in the US? Put that down for the worst in that decade.
Disagree. Several on this forum (myself included) would argue it's one of the best for that decade.
Yes, yes, yes - I'm a huge fan of modern roundabouts. It is widely claimed that the first modern roundabout appeared in the U.S. sometime in the early 1990's, and at any rate the 1990's was the first decade we saw any significant application of roundabouts, traffic calming, or CFIs, so I put all three in with the 1990's.
Curious why you think road diets are bad...
Quote from: froggie on September 28, 2013, 12:56:57 PM
Curious why you think road diets are bad...
Because Michelle Obama promotes them as part of her push to make young roads healthier.
Some of us don't like it when cities make it more difficult to navigate by car.
Quote from: 31E on September 28, 2013, 10:56:07 AM
Best of the 2000's: New highway lighting technologies, Clearview font, express toll lanes, arrow-per lane signs, diverging diamond interchanges
Best of the 2000's???
New highway lighting technologies --- agreed! :clap:
express toll lanes --- well, OK. :meh:
arrow-per-lane signs --- disagree (inefficient use of sign panel space) :angry:
Clearview font --- hell no! :verymad:
diverging diamond interchanges --- no opinion (haven't "experienced" one yet)
Road diets as a concept I'm neutral toward, but cities seem to think they can put a 'road diet' on any road they want and all of the traffic will just evaporate. It doesn't work that way–people still need to get to places, so that traffic has to go somewhere. It's particularly bad when they do this to a former major arterial. But even on minor collectors, a road diet is not the answer–usually people are using the collector to avoid some problem that plagues the arterials. Finding and fixing that problem is more sensible.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 27, 2013, 11:51:06 AM
When did the "modern roundabout" come into general use in the US? Put that down for the worst in that decade.
As for "best" nominees, the diverging diamond certainly goes on that list.
You dislike roundabouts that much? Why?
I do agree on diverging diamonds. They're incredibly clever.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 28, 2013, 02:42:30 PM
Road diets as a concept I'm neutral toward, but cities seem to think they can put a 'road diet' on any road they want and all of the traffic will just evaporate. It doesn't work that way–people still need to get to places, so that traffic has to go somewhere. It's particularly bad when they do this to a former major arterial. But even on minor collectors, a road diet is not the answer–usually people are using the collector to avoid some problem that plagues the arterials. Finding and fixing that problem is more sensible.
Depends on the road. If a road has significant pedestrian and bicycle traffic, reducing car capacity isn't a bad thing. Remember, roads belong to all users, not just cars; and they're maintained by departments of transportation, not departments of motoring.
1960s - Best: Michigan Lefts/Texas U-Turns
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 28, 2013, 02:42:30 PM
Road diets as a concept I'm neutral toward, but cities seem to think they can put a 'road diet' on any road they want and all of the traffic will just evaporate. It doesn't work that way–people still need to get to places, so that traffic has to go somewhere. It's particularly bad when they do this to a former major arterial. But even on minor collectors, a road diet is not the answer–usually people are using the collector to avoid some problem that plagues the arterials. Finding and fixing that problem is more sensible.
Exactly. In this era of history we have ubiquitous congestion, it gets worse all the time, and road capacity hasn't kept up with the increasing traffic. So, our bright planners conjured up a terrific solution -
decrease road capacity :-D. That's a surefire way to make the problem better :pan:. Traffic calming is annoying enough when applied on side streets, but on arteries it becomes nightmarish.
Quote from: realjd on September 28, 2013, 02:48:54 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 28, 2013, 02:42:30 PM
Road diets as a concept I'm neutral toward, but cities seem to think they can put a 'road diet' on any road they want and all of the traffic will just evaporate. It doesn't work that way–people still need to get to places, so that traffic has to go somewhere. It's particularly bad when they do this to a former major arterial. But even on minor collectors, a road diet is not the answer–usually people are using the collector to avoid some problem that plagues the arterials. Finding and fixing that problem is more sensible.
Depends on the road. If a road has significant pedestrian and bicycle traffic, reducing car capacity isn't a bad thing. Remember, roads belong to all users, not just cars; and they're maintained by departments of transportation, not departments of motoring.
The fact is most roads have more people driving than walking or cycling, including most cases where road diets have been tried or suggested. If a road isn't used much by cars but would be useful to other users it would be a good thing, but the application in the real world amounts to "if we shrink this road that's been a problem the drivers will cease to exist". The term "road diet" implies current roads are too fat and need to be shrunk, which is quite loaded and offensive; if I had to pick a fat analogy, I'd pick "malnourished", not "needs a diet". In the real world it is extremely rare to have a problem of
too much capacity. In fact, considering the horrors of having too little, I wouldn't complain about having too much.
1990s: EzPass/ Similar products for best of
1990s: Seasonal Fuel Blends for worst of, increases the cost of fuel in the summer, can create shortages twice a year
1980s
-Best: Actuated traffic signals
-Worst: Red light cameras
1990s
-Best: The idea of road diets (I have seen many successful implementations of this), ped buttons with feedback (beep, display a light when activated)
-Worst: Traffic calming circles (NOT to be confused with modern roundabouts)
2000s
-Best: LEDs, wet-reflective pavement markings, fluorescent & high-intensity sheeting, national 511 system
-Worst: Flashing yellow arrow, Clearview, HAWK signals (not so much the idea, but with regards to the approved sequencing)
2000s
Best: This forum
Worst: Clearview
2000s
best: DDI's. efficient innovation for busy interchanges
worst: Arrow Per Lane. Can really be bad when done wrong:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5452%2F9413668511_ec2d0bf9c2.jpg&hash=16b8bf040b4220fa43e98d2e5d016679ea08b8fa)
Quote from: DaBigE on September 28, 2013, 05:23:35 PM
1980s
-Best: Actuated traffic signals
I'd consider this a worst from the way IDOT overuses them on every flipping major road. It makes it very hard to tell when a signal is about to turn yellow, even though the others nearby are green.
Best of the 1950s: jughandles! :biggrin:
Best of the 1910s: the cloverleaf
I've never liked roundabouts because so many people don't know how to drive in them, and they can sometimes be difficult to enter if there is a lot of traffic in the circle. At least with a signal, you know that you're eventually going to get to go. Same goes for a four-way stop.
Most road diets I've seen involve converting a road with four lanes, divided only by striping, into a two-lane road with a center turn lane. This allows through traffic to proceed mostly unimpeded, and left-lane traffic doesn't have to stop for left-turning vehicles waiting for a break in traffic. Example: US 127 through Harrodsburg, Ky.
Just curious, why are so many people here against Clearview? That seems like one of those things people don't like just because it's a recent development. To me, it's just letters on a street sign. I realize some fonts would be bad for street signs, but I honestly don't see the reason for the fuss over Clearview.
Quote from: DandyDan on September 29, 2013, 04:57:52 AM
Just curious, why are so many people here against Clearview? That seems like one of those things people don't like just because it's a recent development. To me, it's just letters on a street sign. I realize some fonts would be bad for street signs, but I honestly don't see the reason for the fuss over Clearview.
Clearview is like new coke around here. Just like new coke it was tested, and came out tops in testing, but in real world use people perfer the flavor of Highway Gothic over ClearView, mostly due to the fact that clearview just looks off to the eye.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 29, 2013, 05:54:56 AM
Clearview is like new coke around here. Just like new coke it was tested, and came out tops in testing, but in real world use people perfer the flavor of Highway Gothic over ClearView, mostly due to the fact that clearview just looks off to the eye.
That's an interesting analogy, because Coca-Cola tastes awful, and everyone knows that; taste tests consistently show that result. People prefer it as an intellectual response, because of all the advertising and mental conditioning. When you know you're drinking Coke, you like it because you're conditioned to. In blind taste tests, in which emotional responses prevail, Coke scores poorly. MRI tests show the difference between intellectual and emotional responses.
I don't mean to go off topic, but I suspect it's the same for a font. People like what's always been there, because they're accustomed to it, and view anything new with doubt. I'd leave it to scientists to find which is more readable. Which people prefer is really irrelevant since the goal is readability.
As for me, I never even noticed a difference, except for the tail on the Clearview lower-case L, until I read all the complaints on here (and I'm a real stickler for details).
Quote from: wxfree on September 29, 2013, 06:46:18 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 29, 2013, 05:54:56 AM
Clearview is like new coke around here. Just like new coke it was tested, and came out tops in testing, but in real world use people perfer the flavor of Highway Gothic over ClearView, mostly due to the fact that clearview just looks off to the eye.
That's an interesting analogy, because Coca-Cola tastes awful, and everyone knows that; taste tests consistently show that result. People prefer it as an intellectual response, because of all the advertising and mental conditioning. When you know you're drinking Coke, you like it because you're conditioned to. In blind taste tests, in which emotional responses prevail, Coke scores poorly. MRI tests show the difference between intellectual and emotional responses.
I don't mean to go off topic, but I suspect it's the same for a font. People like what's always been there, because they're accustomed to it, and view anything new with doubt. I'd leave it to scientists to find which is more readable. Which people prefer is really irrelevant since the goal is readability.
As for me, I never even noticed a difference, except for the tail on the Clearview lower-case L, until I read all the complaints on here (and I'm a real stickler for details).
I don't mind it, it has kind of a "hey it's different" look to me, becuase A: the sign is newer and brighter than the one it replaced, at least around here. and B: the subtle changes to the font.
I wonder if clear view will age well?
Supposedly with new coke, people sip Coke Classic so the lower sweetness will not be a problem, but having an overly sweet pepsi like taste is bad if you want to sip, since some people get sick of the taste after maybe a can.
Quote from: DaBigE on September 28, 2013, 05:23:35 PM
1980s
-Best: Actuated traffic signals
Actually, the actuated traffic signals/trip signals goes back to at least the 1960's -- and maybe earlier.
Let me add these to the list of best innovations of the 70s:
-- The implementation of the Right Turns On Red countrywide, (although that's more of a law than a physical creation).
-- Variable Message Boards (which I believe started in California in the 70s.)
-- Diagrammatical overhead BGSs -- IMHO still beats the hell out of the European-style OAPL signs.
-- Doghouse signals.
Other BESTs for the 80s (maybe as early as the 70s)
-- Lightweight, stack-able plastic construction barrels replacing the bulky 55 gallon metal drums.
-- Lightweight, stack-able skinny 4' tall construction skinny sticks (I liken them to the jumbo-sized whiffleball bats)
Quote
Other BESTs for the 80s (maybe as early as the 70s)
-- Lightweight, stack-able plastic construction barrels replacing the bulky 55 gallon metal drums.
-- Lightweight, stack-able skinny 4' tall construction skinny sticks (I liken them to the jumbo-sized whiffleball bats)
I have a video made in TN in 1985 showing the plastic barrels. Texas still used the oil drums in the 80's. We didn't get the 4' channelizer cones until 2005.
It is a good thing that they stopped using wood vertical panels. Those were always getting broken and there would be boards with nails in them all over the road.
Quote from: DandyDan on September 29, 2013, 04:57:52 AM
Just curious, why are so many people here against Clearview? That seems like one of those things people don't like just because it's a recent development. To me, it's just letters on a street sign. I realize some fonts would be bad for street signs, but I honestly don't see the reason for the fuss over Clearview.
The following website has a great example of exactly that:
http://typographyforlawyers.com/what-is-typography.html
FWIW, I think Clearview is ugly but I find it a lot easier to read at a distance than the old typefaces, and I think the ease of reading is the most important thing.
Quote from: thenetwork on September 29, 2013, 09:27:01 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 28, 2013, 05:23:35 PM
1980s
-Best: Actuated traffic signals
Actually, the actuated traffic signals/trip signals goes back to at least the 1960's -- and maybe earlier.
I figured that might be the case, however my quick Google searches didn't yield any specific dates. I was just going by when their use seemed to be more wide-spread/standard (around here).
19th century: posted route numbers (France)
Just another Clearview font topic.
Well that escalated quickly.
(I assumed even before clicking on the thread link that this would be the case)
Not sure when, Highway information service radios
Widespread use of cellular telephones (yes, I understand it's not a highway innovation per se) in the 1980's, which have greatly improved reporting of and responses to freeway incidents.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 28, 2013, 10:49:02 PM
I've never liked roundabouts because so many people don't know how to drive in them, and they can sometimes be difficult to enter if there is a lot of traffic in the circle. At least with a signal, you know that you're eventually going to get to go. Same goes for a four-way stop.
I disagree. Roundabouts,
where appropriate (and that means
not where traffic will overwhelm them) reduce crashes
and especially severity of same, lowers operating costs and can improve traffic flow.
There's one on U.S. 1 in the Town of Mount Rainier, Prince George's County, Maryland, just over the border from the District of Columbia (Google Maps here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=mount+rainier+md&ll=38.936371,-76.96072&spn=0.002349,0.004823&hnear=Mt+Rainier,+Prince+George%27s,+Maryland&gl=us&t=h&z=18)), which has had another (probably unplanned and unanticipated) benefit - stopping drunk drivers after a night of partying in D.C., who somewhat frequently crash into the massive planter in the middle of the roundabout (GSV here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=mount+rainier+md&ll=38.936279,-76.961015&spn=0.002349,0.004823&hnear=Mt+Rainier,+Prince+George%27s,+Maryland&gl=us&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.936327,-76.960915&panoid=-fcaqJjfh5Yi02INsW1S2g&cbp=12,34.15,,0,8.01))
2000s: Nixlie, and being used for drawbridge openings. Now you know via a text if the bridge is open or not
Quote from: hbelkins on September 28, 2013, 10:49:02 PM
Most road diets I've seen involve converting a road with four lanes, divided only by striping, into a two-lane road with a center turn lane. This allows through traffic to proceed mostly unimpeded, and left-lane traffic doesn't have to stop for left-turning vehicles waiting for a break in traffic.
And therein is the key benefit.
Still, there can be other reasons...
In an urban area, narrowing a road can be done simply in order to make it more pedestrian friendly. Yes, it makes driving more difficult. But it makes walking easier and they've prioritized accordingly. Also increases safety by slowing traffic down in a pedestrian heavy area.
And while it's tougher to identify, sometimes narrowing a road has a benefit due to Braess' Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox).
Most road diets I've seen aren't so much to add a shared left turn lane as to add bike lanes, and parking, and maybe a wider sidewalk. And often times as a traffic calming measure, which really shouldn't be the case.
Some people (especailly property owners) may consider noise barriers to be a good innovation. However, something that is totally funded from highway monies soley for the benefit of private abutters, yet gives no benefits to the highway users AND saddles the DOT with future maintenance and replacement costs can hardly be called a positive transportation improvement.
Quote from: roadman on October 02, 2013, 10:12:17 AM
Some people (especailly property owners) may consider noise barriers to be a good innovation. However, something that is totally funded from highway monies soley for the benefit of private abutters, yet gives no benefits to the highway users AND saddles the DOT with future maintenance and replacement costs can hardly be called a positive transportation improvement.
Quoted in its entirety. Just because what.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 29, 2013, 03:16:48 PM
Not sure when, Highway information service radios
Several states started using Highway Advisory Radio on an experimental basis in the 1970s. However, it didn't become more widely adopted until the early 1980s. Some HAR transmitters have the capability to broadcast the message (once every two to five minutes) on CB Channel 19. For certian messages (like hazmat restrictions), that to me is more effective than broadcasting on AM.
Quote from: roadman on October 02, 2013, 10:12:17 AM
Some people (especailly property owners) may consider noise barriers to be a good innovation. However, something that is totally funded from highway monies soley for the benefit of private abutters, yet gives no benefits to the highway users AND saddles the DOT with future maintenance and replacement costs can hardly be called a positive transportation improvement.
Some highway authorities have started to make these private property owners pay for, build, and maintain their own sound barriers. ISTHA has done this along the South I-355 Extension. If the property owner wanted a sound barrier, they had to pay for and build it themselves. Hence, there are about three or four styles of sound barrier along the road.
Quote from: Brandon on October 02, 2013, 10:32:09 AM
Quote from: roadman on October 02, 2013, 10:12:17 AM
Some people (especailly property owners) may consider noise barriers to be a good innovation. However, something that is totally funded from highway monies soley for the benefit of private abutters, yet gives no benefits to the highway users AND saddles the DOT with future maintenance and replacement costs can hardly be called a positive transportation improvement.
Some highway authorities have started to make these private property owners pay for, build, and maintain their own sound barriers. ISTHA has done this along the South I-355 Extension. If the property owner wanted a sound barrier, they had to pay for and build it themselves. Hence, there are about three or four styles of sound barrier along the road.
A very good idea. As these barriers can cost upwards of $1 million per half-mile (average cost in MA), all highway agencies should be required to follow suit. However, I would require that the barriers be built according to the highway agency specs, and not just what a local condo developer decides is "good enough".
Quote from: Brandon on October 02, 2013, 10:32:09 AM
Quote from: roadman on October 02, 2013, 10:12:17 AM
Some people (especailly property owners) may consider noise barriers to be a good innovation. However, something that is totally funded from highway monies soley for the benefit of private abutters, yet gives no benefits to the highway users AND saddles the DOT with future maintenance and replacement costs can hardly be called a positive transportation improvement.
Some highway authorities have started to make these private property owners pay for, build, and maintain their own sound barriers. ISTHA has done this along the South I-355 Extension. If the property owner wanted a sound barrier, they had to pay for and build it themselves. Hence, there are about three or four styles of sound barrier along the road.
If you build along an existing road, then by all means I can see either paying for the barrier yourself or living with the noise. But if a new highway comes through an area, it negatively impacts homeowners along the right-of-way and it's proper for the government to abate the nuisance. It's no different, really, than building drainage structures so that the homeowners along the new highway don't get flooded every time it rains.
There are other considerations, as well. The town of Sharpsburg, Ky. was bypassed by a new alignment of KY 11 a few years ago. Because of something having to do with historical significance, a noise barrier was built even though two-lane KY 11 carries nowhere close to the amount of traffic of an urban interstate, where noise barriers are more common.
For each decade that I've been alive, I will give Best and Worst of lists. Here we go!
Best of the...
1970s: Small, fuel-efficient cars
1980s: Cell phones for emergencies
1990s: EZPass
21st century: (tie) AARoads and other similar roadgeek sites, LED streetlights
Worst of the...
1970s: (tie) NMSL and sodium-vapor streetlights
1980s: Decommissioning of US Route 66
1990s: Congressional designations of new route numbers
21st century: Clearview font
Quote from: Henry on October 02, 2013, 11:11:02 AMBest of the...
1970s: Small, fuel-efficient cars
Actually, those were around well before the 1970s; they just didn't sell in as large numbers prior to then in the U.S. or survive.
Example: 1954-1961(?) Nash Metropolitan
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F7%2F7a%2FNash_Metropolitan.jpg&hash=ad84a83875734f910d9d69ee420b9e114a275a90)
1870s - asphalt pavement (U.S.)
1880s - pneumatic tires (U.K.)
1930s - limited access, high-speed highways (Germany)
Quote from: kkt on October 02, 2013, 05:33:59 PM
1930s - limited access, high-speed highways (Germany)
Italy was first (1924) unless you count Germany's AVUS (1921): http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostrada_dei_Laghi
Quote from: NE2 on October 02, 2013, 05:54:56 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 02, 2013, 05:33:59 PM
1930s - limited access, high-speed highways (Germany)
Italy was first (1924) unless you count Germany's AVUS (1921): http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostrada_dei_Laghi
what about that road on Long Island whose name escapes me. wasn't that 1919?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 02, 2013, 06:03:23 PM
what about that road on Long Island whose name escapes me. wasn't that 1919?
1908. Another "unless you count" case, given at-grade left turns onto connecting ramps.
Quote from: NE2 on October 02, 2013, 06:05:34 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 02, 2013, 06:03:23 PM
what about that road on Long Island whose name escapes me. wasn't that 1919?
1908. Another "unless you count" case, given at-grade left turns onto connecting ramps.
got it.
speaking of the AVUS, I looked it on Street View and accidentally crossed to an underpass, which has cobblestone.
http://goo.gl/maps/U2f2e
is that original? looks to be very 1930s-or-older design.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 29, 2013, 07:23:13 AM
Supposedly with new coke, people sip Coke Classic so the lower sweetness will not be a problem, but having an overly sweet pepsi like taste is bad if you want to sip, since some people get sick of the taste after maybe a can.
The reason New Coke failed is that it didn't have the quality taste of Old Coke. It tasted cheap. It really wasn't much sweeter than Old Coke. It had a sort of a chocolatey flavor to it, and didn't have the harsh bite of Old Coke. I drank it for years because it was much cheaper than Old Coke (then Classic) but it was just missing something. It was better than RC but not as good as Pepsi (which isn't as good as Old Coke.)
Does anyone remember the gold top Coke cans? They were the first New Coke cans before they changed the logo and can design. They were just like the Old Coke cans except the top of the can was gold colored. The gold top New Coke tasted nothing like the redesigned can New Coke. I read somewhere that Coke adjusted some flavor levels during the 3 months that Old Coke was off the market.
I seem to recall in the 90s that a gold top was used for caffeine-free Coke.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2013, 04:34:07 AM
I seem to recall in the 90s that a gold top was used for caffeine-free Coke.
A gold top was always used for caffeine-free Coke, which first rolled out a year or two prior to New Coke. The original design/label of the can/bottle was mostly gold with red pin stripes.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthumbs3.ebaystatic.com%2Fd%2Fl225%2Fm%2FmZljHCkigll-7MsZEUxH63w.jpg&hash=68e4afe0c5ce32e1f2700bf4437dbe78899b5239)
Couldn't find a copy-able pic. of the original label in can form; but the can itself was indeed gold-colored.
My vote for best:
1990's: Online highway construction plans (Ohio DOT was the first, in 1998)
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 02, 2013, 12:46:13 PM
Quote from: Henry on October 02, 2013, 11:11:02 AMBest of the...
1970s: Small, fuel-efficient cars
Actually, those were around well before the 1970s; they just didn't sell in as large numbers prior to then in the U.S. or survive.
Example: 1954-1961(?) Nash Metropolitan
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F7%2F7a%2FNash_Metropolitan.jpg&hash=ad84a83875734f910d9d69ee420b9e114a275a90)
I'm aware of a fellow neighbor out in Frenchtown, MT that has that same car.
The best:
1930's: Missoula's first bridge over the Clark Fork River along Orange Street, the original US 93, now Business 93.
1960's: Commissioning of US 12 extending west of Missoula over into Idaho
1990's/2000's (?): Decommissioning of US "Triple Six" or "The Devil's Sign"/renumbering of 666 to 491.
Worse:
1970's: Fuel crisis
1980's: Decommissioning of US 10 in Montana, US 66
1990's: Congressional reformatting of highway numbers
2010's so far: Google buying out YouTube, crappy mapping system in Google Maps,
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on October 09, 2013, 03:49:46 PM
crappy mapping system in Google Maps,
Apple replacing it with something significantly worse.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 02, 2013, 12:46:13 PM
Quote from: Henry on October 02, 2013, 11:11:02 AMBest of the...
1970s: Small, fuel-efficient cars
Actually, those were around well before the 1970s; they just didn't sell in as large numbers prior to then in the U.S. or survive.
Example: 1954-1961(?) Nash Metropolitan
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F7%2F7a%2FNash_Metropolitan.jpg&hash=ad84a83875734f910d9d69ee420b9e114a275a90)
I remember quite well a TV show where one of the characters gave birth in the backseat of this exact car. Whoa!
Only two things I can think of:
Worst of the 1990s: Directional tabs and directions on BGS featuring the first letter bigger than the others. Also my home state of TX using 3-di shields for Interstates and vice versa.
Worst of the 2010s: Designating Interstates on freeways that don't end at other Interstates (eg I-69 and its offspring in TX; and also I-2 in the Rio Grande Valley).
Quote from: msubulldog on October 09, 2013, 11:22:47 PM
Worst of the 1990s: Directional tabs and directions on BGS featuring the first letter bigger than the others.
The only thing I don't like about the "elongated inital letter" (to use the official FHWA term) is when states use it on words other than cardinal directions, like "TO". New Hampshire has been one of the worst offenders in this regard.
And, IMO, one of the best innovations of the 2000s is the "LEFT" exit tab. Although I wish the MUTCD would adopt the MassDOT standard and require "LEFT" to be mounted on a separate plate above the exit tab, as opposed to the current E1-5bP "combined" tab.
Quote from: roadman on October 10, 2013, 02:39:27 PM
Quote from: msubulldog on October 09, 2013, 11:22:47 PM
Worst of the 1990s: Directional tabs and directions on BGS featuring the first letter bigger than the others.
The only thing I don't like about the "elongated inital letter" (to use the official FHWA term) is when states use it on words other than cardinal directions, like "TO". New Hampshire has been one of the worst offenders in this regard.
And, IMO, one of the best innovations of the 2000s is the "LEFT" exit tab. Although I wish the MUTCD would adopt the MassDOT standard and require "LEFT" to be mounted on a separate plate above the exit tab, as opposed to the current E1-5bP "combined" tab.
Arkansas uses the "elongated first letter" on BGS's for "jct". There is also one on my daily commute that has "alt" in that setup.
Quote from: roadman on October 10, 2013, 02:39:27 PM
And, IMO, one of the best innovations of the 2000s is the "LEFT" exit tab. Although I wish the MUTCD would adopt the MassDOT standard and require "LEFT" to be mounted on a separate plate above the exit tab, as opposed to the current E1-5bP "combined" tab.
I would have to disagree. Including the LEFT tab is redundant/negates the placement of the EXIT tab on the left vs. the right side of the sign. IMHO, it was a solution looking for a problem. Another place where more education could have saved a lot of money in sign edits.
Another one I'd add to the 'worst of' for the 2000s would be the Google Map Maker editor. It's good in concept, but
far too many inexperienced and unknowledgeable users have changed map data for the worse. I try and make edits on stuff I drive nearly every day just to be denied from someone in India. :banghead: On another note, I'm surprised we've gotten to page 3 and no one's mentioned Google Street View +/-.
Quote from: DaBigE on October 10, 2013, 11:09:12 PM
I'm surprised we've gotten to page 3 and no one's mentioned Google Street View +/-.
This was indeed a great innovation for road geeks. I often drive roads vicariously that I don't have the time to travel to to actually drive them. It's also helped me to know the layout of roads and lane configurations in unfamiliar territory before I physically got there.
Quote from: signalman on October 11, 2013, 03:26:18 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 10, 2013, 11:09:12 PM
I'm surprised we've gotten to page 3 and no one's mentioned Google Street View +/-.
This was indeed a great innovation for road geeks. I often drive roads vicariously that I don't have the time to travel to to actually drive them. It's also helped me to know the layout of roads and lane configurations in unfamiliar territory before I physically got there.
It takes about the same amount of time to drive in Google Street View compared to real life.
Quote from: roadman on October 10, 2013, 02:39:27 PM
Quote from: msubulldog on October 09, 2013, 11:22:47 PM
Worst of the 1990s: Directional tabs and directions on BGS featuring the first letter bigger than the others.
The only thing I don't like about the "elongated inital letter" (to use the official FHWA term) is when states use it on words other than cardinal directions, like "TO".
^^This.
Quote from: roadman on October 10, 2013, 02:39:27 PMAnd, IMO, one of the best innovations of the 2000s is the "LEFT" exit tab. Although I wish the MUTCD would adopt the MassDOT standard and require "LEFT" to be mounted on a separate plate above the exit tab, as opposed to the current E1-5bP "combined" tab.
^^Again, this.
For those that may not be completely familiar w/MassDOT's new LEFT EXIT tab design layout; one pic. = 1000 words:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billburmaster.com%2Frmsandw%2Fmassachusetts%2Fimages%2Fma128bgs450812a.jpg&hash=9255a57f4be2f7406634f717f3d6954f3bb07d0d)
Quote from: DaBigE on October 10, 2013, 11:09:12 PM
I would have to disagree. Including the LEFT tab is redundant/negates the placement of the EXIT tab on the left vs. the right side of the sign. IMHO, it was a solution looking for a problem. Another place where more education could have saved a lot of money in sign edits.
Educating hundreds of millions of motorists, vs. a few dollars as signs are upgraded anyway?
Many motorists don't know basic rules of the road, much less how exit tabs work.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2013, 12:11:51 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 10, 2013, 11:09:12 PM
I would have to disagree. Including the LEFT tab is redundant/negates the placement of the EXIT tab on the left vs. the right side of the sign. IMHO, it was a solution looking for a problem. Another place where more education could have saved a lot of money in sign edits.
Educating hundreds of millions of motorists, vs. a few dollars as signs are upgraded anyway?
Many motorists don't know basic rules of the road, much less how exit tabs work.
The cost may be small for new sign installation, but updating existing signs adds up.
Ignorance is no excuse in my book (or just about any LEO). Another perfect reason IMO to require re-testing with license renewals. From a highway designer's perspective, it's making our job more difficult every time we dumb-down the driving task to serve the lazy. In the photo posted above, how much more help can the LEFT tab be? You already have a large diagrammatic arrow in addition to the tab being on the left side. That's my last $0.02, since this could go into a whole new topic thread of its own.
Quote from: DaBigE on October 11, 2013, 12:43:22 PMThe cost may be small for new sign installation, but updating existing signs adds up.
You might want to re-read Jeffandnicole's post a tad more carefully; reposted below w/
bold emphais added:
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2013, 12:11:51 PM
Educating hundreds of millions of motorists, vs. a few dollars as signs are upgraded anyway?
All of the LEFT EXIT tab BGS' I've seen have been done as
part of an
overall sign replacement project. My earlier-posted example of I-95/MA 128 in Peabody was part of an I-95 sign replacement project that recently took place.
The only time I've seen
one BGS get replaced with another with the only change being an updated format was because the original BGS was either damaged in an accident or vandalized.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 11, 2013, 01:03:03 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 11, 2013, 12:43:22 PMThe cost may be small for new sign installation, but updating existing signs adds up.
You might want to re-read Jeffandnicole's post a tad more carefully; reposted below w/bold emphais added:
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2013, 12:11:51 PM
Educating hundreds of millions of motorists, vs. a few dollars as signs are upgraded anyway?
All of the LEFT EXIT tab BGS' I've seen have been done as part of an overall sign replacement project. My earlier-posted example of I-95/MA 128 in Peabody was part of an I-95 sign replacement project that recently took place.
The only time I've seen one BGS get replaced with another with the only change being an updated format was because the original BGS was either damaged in an accident or vandalized.
No, I understood the post just fine. Replacing a sign while
adding extra square footage (Read: adding the yellow LEFT tab) still costs
more than just a 1:1 in-kind replacement. Installations I've seen have retrofitted the new LEFT tab onto an otherwise OK sign.
Quote from: 1 on October 11, 2013, 06:32:38 AM
Quote from: signalman on October 11, 2013, 03:26:18 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 10, 2013, 11:09:12 PM
I'm surprised we've gotten to page 3 and no one's mentioned Google Street View +/-.
This was indeed a great innovation for road geeks. I often drive roads vicariously that I don't have the time to travel to to actually drive them. It's also helped me to know the layout of roads and lane configurations in unfamiliar territory before I physically got there.
It takes about the same amount of time to drive in Google Street View compared to real life.
I wasn't talking about not having the time to drive an undriven road (for me). I said to destinations that I don't have time to travel to. For example, I've never been to Los Angeles because it is too far from my home in northern NJ to travel to southern CA and back in my short window of free time. I have driven the entire mess of LA freeways in GSV, however.
For something positive: Georgia in recent years getting rid of their pseudo-Clearview font on interstates, while including "normal" exit tabs and text that is not redundant(simply saying, for example, 3/4 MILE and not EXIT 3/4 MILE
Quote from: Lytton on October 13, 2013, 01:14:59 AM
Your mileage may vary on this but personally I think one of the worst highway innovations were the metrication of freeways, specifically Interstate 19 in Arizona and Delaware Highway 1 in Delaware. It seemed really unnecessary, even though at the time of their constructions, both transportation departments were anticipating the metrication of the United States, which fortunately never happened. Also, on both of these freeways, the speed limits are still in miles, so for the first-time driver on Interstate 19 might drive in kilometers per hour, slowing cars down.
I'm not sure why you say, "fortunately never happened." I've never understood why people would oppose changing to a measurement system that is immensely easier to use than the U.S. system. Unless you're some sort of savant, it's practically impossible to memorize all of the conversions in the U.S. system if you don't use them on a regular basis, but with metric, all conversions are multiples of 10. To bring this back on topic, the only problem I see with converting road signs to metric is the fact that most U.S. cities' grid systems are based on miles and fractions thereof. So, in relatively flat areas with mostly straight roads, you would lose the neat order of interchange guide signs showing distances at regular one-mile intervals. But aside from that, I can't think of a single disadvantage to making all road signs consistent with the easier system.
Quote from: Lytton on October 13, 2013, 01:14:59 AM
Another is Clearview. First of all, what the fuck is wrong with Highway Gothic and second of all, it is a major eyesore to the eyes. I find Clearview to be unnecessary. If the font ain't broken don't fix it but for some reason most states are starting to replace their Highway Gothic signs with Clearview signs. There are only a few states left that didn't convert to Clearview (Washington State for example). Also, no protest can change the direction Clearview is going since most states will be using it in the next few decades. Terminal Design, Inc, you're really a major eyesore.
I kind of like Clearview. Highway Gothic is nice, but Clearview looks crisper and fresher. I'm not sure how I'll feel about it in 10 to 20 years, though, after the newness has worn off. I can see how the tail on the lowercase L makes it look a bit too "fun" (although that's probably there to help distinguish it from the capital I), but I think the typeface strikes a good balance between "lively" and "formal."
Quote from: Lytton on October 13, 2013, 01:14:59 AM
Another is Clearview. First of all, what the fuck is wrong with Highway Gothic and second of all, it is a major eyesore to the eyes. I find Clearview to be unnecessary. If the font ain't broken don't fix it but for some reason most states are starting to replace their Highway Gothic signs with Clearview signs. There are only a few states left that didn't convert to Clearview (Washington State for example). Also, no protest can change the direction Clearview is going since most states will be using it in the next few decades. Terminal Design, Inc, you're really a major eyesore.
Oookay. :rolleyes: Not sure where you go with this, but let me just say this. Every roadgeek has a specific taste. You have those that are keen to Highway Gothic and those keen to Clearview. I don't see how you can make a case that Clearview was a bad choice. I just don't The only thing I see wrong with Clearview are the numbers. I just can't see a highway marker with numbers. The words are okay for Clearview application. Just not digits. I can't see an Interstate shield with Clearview digits. That's just ugly. There are states that are "changing with the times" and obviously, the way I see it, you're one of those people not willing to change with it and you suddenly get all butthurt thinking Clearview is an atrocity. I agree with stridentweasel in the fact that there may be a few nuances that hinder the application of Clearview. Road markers are one of them. Fractions is another. Plus the fact that interchange signs would have a pretty big pitfall in the one-mile intervals with Clearview applied. So, obviously, I can't agree with your notion that this is an eyesore. I actually find this to be a flat-out false excuse to ignore the fact that Clearview will arrive in all 48 contiguous states in due time. Will that happen next year? No. Ten years from now? Possible. I'd give it 20. So, there is where I go with Clearview. You go with however you wish to go with it.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on October 13, 2013, 02:06:56 PMI actually find this to be a flat-out false excuse to ignore the fact that Clearview will arrive in all 48 contiguous states in due time. Will that happen next year? No. Ten years from now? Possible. I'd give it 20. So, there is where I go with Clearview. You go with however you wish to go with it.
If anything, it's trending in the opposite direction with the FHWA. So I Doubt You.
Candidate Obama said he'd get rid of Clearview. We're waiting...
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on October 13, 2013, 02:06:56 PM
I actually find this to be a flat-out false excuse to ignore the fact that Clearview will arrive in all 48 contiguous states in due time.
Ummm...that can be interpreted many ways. Are you referring to just showing up, as in a few cities on their street name signs, or are you referring to state DOT's blessing Clearview as their official font? And why exclude Alaska and Hawaii? If your intention is the latter interpretation, it should be no higher than at least 47, as Wisconsin is one of the state DOTs that has tested Clearview and rejected it. It has, however, been adopted by a few Wisconsin cities for their SNSs. As far as your bold prediction, I don't see it happening on that wide of scale, especially if the MUTCD and the Standard Highway Signs Manual continue to exclude it in their publications.
The only reason I included Clearview in my "worst of" list, is how it was brought to market and subsequent field mis-use. Many of the agencies that have tested and/or switched to Clearview have bastardized its implementation (as noted on several occasions on this forum), with incorrect applications (BGS numbers, black on yellow usage), incorrect letter spacing and kerning, and comparisons between signs with differing quality of sign materials (Clearview on new, modern substraight vs. FHWA on old/existing panels). I also felt that the FHWA Gothic should have been given a better shot. To the best of my knowledge, tweaking aspects of the FHWA fonts was not attempted (opening up the letters 'a' and 'e' for example).
[/beating-a-dead-horse]
Quote from: DaBigE on October 11, 2013, 02:22:14 PM
No, I understood the post just fine. Replacing a sign while adding extra square footage (Read: adding the yellow LEFT tab) still costs more than just a 1:1 in-kind replacement. Installations I've seen have retrofitted the new LEFT tab onto an otherwise OK sign.
That presumes that you're not replacing the support at the same time you're replacing the sign panel. And if it happens that you're retaining the support, it's usually not that difficult to slightly downsize the main sign panel to accommodate the extra area of the "LEFT" tab.
The problem with the MUTCD "LEFT" exit tab design, as opposed to the MassHighway/MassDOT one that PHLBOS's photo illustrates, is that the yellow "LEFT" tends to get lost within the green of the tab. This is the reason MassHighway shifted from using "LEFT EXIT" banners within the main sign panel to separate "LEFT" tabs above the exit tab several years before the MUTCD recommended the practice.
BTW, I totally agree with you about periodic re-testing of drivers when they go to renew their licenses. However, it would be both very expensive to implement and a very tough sell politically in most states.
Quote from: signalman on October 11, 2013, 03:26:18 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 10, 2013, 11:09:12 PM
I'm surprised we've gotten to page 3 and no one's mentioned Google Street View +/-.
This was indeed a great innovation for road geeks. I often drive roads vicariously that I don't have the time to travel to to actually drive them. It's also helped me to know the layout of roads and lane configurations in unfamiliar territory before I physically got there.
I recently used Google Street View to vicariously drive Kaumualii Highway (Hawaii 50) and Maluhia Road (Hawaii 520) between Lihue and Koloa. Thirty years ago I lived in Koloa and used that route all the time, and I remember much of it passing sugar cane fields. Well, sugar is pretty much a dead industry in Hawaii and has been for years, but still, I was amazed when I "drove" through what used to be miles of sugar cane and instead there are entire forests of large (thanks to Hawaii's year-round growing season) trees in its place. The road has been widened to just west of a little town called Puhi, and the plant nursery that I used to work at is now two miles west of where it used to be.
I'll have to "drive" Kuhio Highway (Hawaii 56) next.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 03, 2013, 12:54:24 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 03, 2013, 04:34:07 AM
I seem to recall in the 90s that a gold top was used for caffeine-free Coke.
A gold top was always used for caffeine-free Coke, which first rolled out a year or two prior to New Coke. The original design/label of the can/bottle was mostly gold with red pin stripes.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthumbs3.ebaystatic.com%2Fd%2Fl225%2Fm%2FmZljHCkigll-7MsZEUxH63w.jpg&hash=68e4afe0c5ce32e1f2700bf4437dbe78899b5239)
Couldn't find a copy-able pic. of the original label in can form; but the can itself was indeed gold-colored.
No, this was different. The can was exactly the same, but the top was gold. It tasted different from the new Coke that came in the cans with the NEW!
Quote from: stridentweasel on October 13, 2013, 01:36:42 PM
I'm not sure why you say, "fortunately never happened." I've never understood why people would oppose changing to a measurement system that is immensely easier to use than the U.S. system. Unless you're some sort of savant, it's practically impossible to memorize all of the conversions in the U.S. system if you don't use them on a regular basis, but with metric, all conversions are multiples of 10.
I hate the semi-British Imperial system of weights and measures that we seem incapable of getting rid of (though the auto/truck manufacturing, liquor and pharmaceutical industries have gone almost entirely to SI).
Quote from: stridentweasel on October 13, 2013, 01:36:42 PM
I'm not sure why you say, "fortunately never happened." I've never understood why people would oppose changing to a measurement system that is immensely easier to use than the U.S. system. Unless you're some sort of savant, it's practically impossible to memorize all of the conversions in the U.S. system if you don't use them on a regular basis, but with metric, all conversions are multiples of 10. To bring this back on topic, the only problem I see with converting road signs to metric is the fact that most U.S. cities' grid systems are based on miles and fractions thereof. So, in relatively flat areas with mostly straight roads, you would lose the neat order of interchange guide signs showing distances at regular one-mile intervals. But aside from that, I can't think of a single disadvantage to making all road signs consistent with the easier system.
1. Imperial/Customary fits with what is on the ground. Everything has been surveyed in it, not similarly arbitrary kilometers, but in miles, chains, and links. It apparently is a problem in western Canada where everything has been surveyed in Imperial. The only difficult conversion is 5,280 feet to 1 mile. I'd rather dump feet and use furlongs (8 to the mile), chains (10 to the furlong), and links (100 to the chain). It makes acres make sense (1 furlong (10 chains) by 1 chain).
2. How are multiples of 10 any more natural than multiples of 4? A multiple of 4 makes far more sense to subdivide easily than a multiple of 10 for most everything. A quart makes sense as 1/4 of a gallon. WTF do you use in metric? Jack shit. It's either 1 liter or 4 liters. Not easily sub-dividable into basic units required for cooking. If anything, we should have modified our ounces to those used by the Imperial System (which I think is superior to the so-called SI).
/end rant.
One of the fallacies pushed by the anti-metric crowd is that if the US were to switch over, cooking would be difficult and you'd never know what the temperature is outside. That's a silly argument because there would be nothing prohibiting the individual from continuing to use all the same kitchen equipment, outdoor thermometer, etc. As a practical matter, for example, most ovens sold in the US tell temperature only in Fahrenheit (my Breville toaster oven is an exception), and it's not like we'd all be going out and buying new ovens and the like just because Congress finally changed us over. It doesn't matter much if milk is sold by the litre (or multiple thereof) if your recipe calls for a "cup"–you just pull out your existing measuring cup and pour in enough milk to reach the appropriate line. (Shopping could be complicated slightly if you needed a larger quantity of something and your recipe were in old-fashioned units, but frankly it's easy enough just to go online as you make your grocery list and work out how much you need.)
Shopping is confusing as it is with the way American recipes always measure everything by volume, even for ingredients sold by weight. I have a very useful iPhone/iPad app for that purpose called "Kitchen Calculator." It converts units, not just from American to metric but from American to American as well. It drives me crazy when a recipe tells me I need a "cup" of something that isn't sold by the "cup" because the recipe doesn't help me know how much I need to buy. The Kitchen Calculator app will do the conversion once I see what unit is used at the store. Very helpful.
I frequently use grams on my kitchen scale for precision. Since so many recipes are for four or more servings, I often cut them in half to serve the two of us. So I determine how many grams the full recipe requires and then I measure out half that amount. It's more precise than the fractions of a pound the scale uses (I think it uses eighths of a pound).
But to return this to highways....the dumbest argument I ever heard against metric was by a secretary at the firm where I used to work. She said, "How would you know how fast you're going with a metric speed limit?" I replied, with a perfectly straight face, "You look at your speedometer and see where the needle is pointing. If you want to have a sense for what that is in miles per hour, you look at the other ring, since almost nobody would buy a new car just to get bigger metric numbers."
5280 has a weird factor of 11 in there. 4800 would have been fine.
Quote from: DaBigE on October 14, 2013, 12:36:35 AM
The only reason I included Clearview in my "worst of" list, is how it was brought to market and subsequent field mis-use. Many of the agencies that have tested and/or switched to Clearview have bastardized its implementation (as noted on several occasions on this forum), with incorrect applications (BGS numbers, black on yellow usage), incorrect letter spacing and kerning, and comparisons between signs with differing quality of sign materials (Clearview on new, modern substraight vs. FHWA on old/existing panels). I also felt that the FHWA Gothic should have been given a better shot. To the best of my knowledge, tweaking aspects of the FHWA fonts was not attempted (opening up the letters 'a' and 'e' for example).
If I could 'plus' comments, I'd give this a +500.
Quote from: roadman on October 24, 2013, 12:33:02 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 14, 2013, 12:36:35 AM
The only reason I included Clearview in my "worst of" list, is how it was brought to market and subsequent field mis-use. Many of the agencies that have tested and/or switched to Clearview have bastardized its implementation (as noted on several occasions on this forum), with incorrect applications (BGS numbers, black on yellow usage), incorrect letter spacing and kerning, and comparisons between signs with differing quality of sign materials (Clearview on new, modern substraight vs. FHWA on old/existing panels). I also felt that the FHWA Gothic should have been given a better shot. To the best of my knowledge, tweaking aspects of the FHWA fonts was not attempted (opening up the letters 'a' and 'e' for example).
If I could 'plus' comments, I'd give this a +500.
Ditto.
the one change I'd make to FHWA is 4 vs 6 in Series E. I once got a ticket because I parsed a '45' as a '65'. in my defense, the previous sign was 65, the subsequent sign was 65, I was driving into the sun, and the sign was flat on the ground.
fuck Arizona.
Quote from: Brandon on October 24, 2013, 09:53:07 AM
2. How are multiples of 10 any more natural than multiples of 4?
I don't think "more natural" is the right term, but I would still say they're easier, simply due to the way our numbering system is configured in relation to the number 10.
10^0=1; 10^1=10; 10^2=100; 10^3=1,000; 10^4=10,000; 10^5=100,000; 10^6=1,000,000; 10^7=10,000,000
4^0=1; 4^1=4; 4^2=16; 4^3=64; 4^4=256; 4^5=1,024; 4^6=4,096; 4^7=16,384
Sure, it's not too hard to count powers of 4 up to 4,096 if you think about it, but 16,384? That requires multiplying 96 by 4 in your head. Congratulations if you can quickly get that far without a calculator! But for the rest of us, what could be easier than putting zeros at the end of a number? And why does this make metric conversions easy? All you have to remember is the simple relationship within every metric measurement. Let's use meters as an example:
1,000 millimeters = 100 centimeters = 10 decimeters = 1 meter = 0.1 dekameters = 0.01 hectometers = 0.001 kilometers
To convert meters to decimeters, you multiply them by 10^1, to convert meters to centimeters, you multiply them by 10^2, and to convert meters to millimeters, you multiply them by 10^3. AND, to convert meters to dekameters, you multiply them by 10^-1, to convert meters to hectometers, you multiply them by 10^-2, and to convert meters to kilometers, you multiply them by 10^-3. This relationship is universal in the metric system but largely lacking in the U.S./Imperial/Customary system(s). Even if the Imperial/Customary system was based entirely on multiples of 4, which it isn't, it would still be inherently more difficult to use, due to the nature of our common numbering system being configured as such around the number 10.
Quote from: Brandon on October 24, 2013, 09:53:07 AM
1. Imperial/Customary fits with what is on the ground.
Yes, I acknowledge that converting to metric would cause a loss in the neatness of the relationship between the measuring units and some of the entities being measured, but such entities can still be fully represented in metric, and most measured entities in the field, as it were, do not maintain simple numeric relationships among one another for long.
Quote from: stridentweasel on October 25, 2013, 10:08:11 PM
That requires multiplying 96 by 4 in your head. Congratulations if you can quickly get that far without a calculator!
96 x 4 = (100 - 4) x 4 = 400 - 16 = 384. Easy peasy. It also helps if you've done some assembly language programming.
Hm, maybe mental arithmetic and assembly language programming both belong in the "if you're too old" thread.
Quote from: kkt on October 25, 2013, 11:38:03 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on October 25, 2013, 10:08:11 PM
That requires multiplying 96 by 4 in your head. Congratulations if you can quickly get that far without a calculator!
96 x 4 = (100 - 4) x 4 = 400 - 16 = 384. Easy peasy. It also helps if you've done some assembly language programming.
Hm, maybe mental arithmetic and assembly language programming both belong in the "if you're too old" thread.
Mental math, not so much. I do it all the time. Assembly, definitely. :P C is the lowest-level I've done.
EDIT: Spelling. Also, I don't think you can get any lower than C.
Quote from: sammi on October 26, 2013, 12:57:44 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 25, 2013, 11:38:03 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on October 25, 2013, 10:08:11 PM
That requires multiplying 96 by 4 in your head. Congratulations if you can quickly get that far without a calculator!
96 x 4 = (100 - 4) x 4 = 400 - 16 = 384. Easy peasy. It also helps if you've done some assembly language programming.
Hm, maybe mental arithmetic and assembly language programming both belong in the "if you're too old" thread.
Mental math, not so much. I do it all the time. Assembly, definitely. :P C is the lowest-leve I've done.
Yeah, I figured out the shortcut to multiplying 96 by 4 without a calculator, shortly after I made that post. It's not terribly
difficult, but it still takes longer than counting powers of 10, so I think my point still stands.
Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2013, 10:43:37 AM5280 has a weird factor of 11 in there. 4800 would have been fine.
It's 3 (yard) x 22 (chain) x 80 (mile). A link is 7.92 inches, which is annoying (1% off 8 inches).
A 4800ft mile is 1600yds, would mean a 20yd chain, and a 7.2 inch link.
A 5760ft mile is 1920yds, so a 24yd chain (the magic number). 8.64 inch link.
It seems to me that the pseudo-metric 'link' is fine as long as you don't change to inches as the factor of 100 doesn't sit well.
Quote from: stridentweasel on October 25, 2013, 10:08:11 PMTo convert meters to decimeters, you multiply them by 10^1, to convert meters to centimeters, you multiply them by 10^2, and to convert meters to millimeters, you multiply them by 10^3. AND, to convert meters to dekameters, you multiply them by 10^-1, to convert meters to hectometers, you multiply them by 10^-2, and to convert meters to kilometers, you multiply them by 10^-3.
These 'conversions' (I treat the prefixes as just misplaced suffixes to the numbers, and when doing the maths, simply treat p, f, μ, m, k, M, G, T as constants. I despise centi-, deci-, deca- and hecto- as they ruin the 1000 intervals and as such, refuse to use them) are much more common in metric than customary.
95% of the time with customary, you don't need to care how many x in a y (even with mixed unit stuff like people height, as you compare more than calculate). The 5280ft (or even the 1760yds) in a mile might be an annoying number, but it's a useless factoid, not a necessary part of life under customary.
Customary is much more natural for doing tasks (as many units designed for specific tasks, hence the odd factors) and comparison, metric is deliberately arbitrary and not tethered to the real world. As such, customary has harder numbers for conversion but metric has harder number for measurement and estimation.
Quote from: english si on October 26, 2013, 02:42:51 PM
Customary is much more natural for doing tasks (as many units designed for specific tasks, hence the odd factors) and comparison, metric is deliberately arbitrary and not tethered to the real world. As such, customary has harder numbers for conversion but metric has harder number for measurement and estimation.
I don't know about this. A meter is very roughly a yard, a kilogram is very roughly 2 pounds, and a liter is very roughly a quart. In many cases, it's just getting used to different words, plus or minus a few percentage points.
And Celsius is most definitely tethered to the real world. One of the reasons I've heard for Fahrenheit's invention is that the difference between freezing and boiling is exactly 180 degrees, and that's "useful" because 180 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, etc. When on earth is that important!?
Metric is more useful for whenever something needs to be scaled or added, and it's not like comparison between two items is any
harder in metric. I've been to the grocery store plenty of times and had to stop and figure out how many ounces are in a liquid... am I confusing pints and quarts again, do I multiply by 2 or 4 here, etc. 1 liter = 1000 mL comes instantly and you can convert between them in your head a lot faster.
There's also the benefit of one word always meaning the same thing. U.S. gallons vs. U.K. gallons (same with pints!), liquid ounces vs. ounces of weight, or troy pounds vs. avoirdupois pounds are such a mess.
Quote from: getemngo on October 26, 2013, 03:04:27 PM
And Celsius is most definitely tethered to the real world.
Yeah, it's so useful in the real world to measure the boiling point of water. Only yesterday I stuck a thermometer in me bum, read 101 C, and cooked some poo pasta.
PS: the whole advantage of being able to multiply or divide by 10 fails completely when you don't set zero at absolute zero.
Wow, I contradicted myself there, didn't I? "Fahrenheit is dumb because who needs to divide by things, but Celsius is good because you can divide by things!" Dammit, I know the difference between an interval and ratio scale. :banghead:
My point is that English Si said metric is less "tethered to the real world" than customary. So here's a counterexample: Mr. Fahrenheit determined zero degrees by finding the lowest temperature he could get a bucket of water, ice, and NH4Cl to be. The Celsius scale makes zero the freezing point of water. Which one of these are you more likely to encounter?
Quote from: getemngo on October 26, 2013, 03:04:27 PM
And Celsius is most definitely tethered to the real world. One of the reasons I've heard for Fahrenheit's invention is that the difference between freezing and boiling is exactly 180 degrees, and that's "useful" because 180 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, etc. When on earth is that important!?
Fahrenheit's scale originally was based on the human body temperature being 100 and the coldest mixture he came up with was 0. Later refined for body temperature being 98.6.
I've heard a couple different things. What you quoted from my first post was apparently a change that came later and not something that Fahrenheit himself did.
Wikipedia does agree about the coldest mix being 0 (which I said in my last post), but it also claims that he planned for the freezing point of liquid water to be 32 and human body temperature to be 96, so the difference between them would be 64, a power of 2, and it would be easier for him to mark his instruments.
But like you, I've also heard before that human body temperature was originally supposed to be 100. :hmmm:
Looks like Fahrenheit is based on the Romer scale, in which water freezes at 7.5. Fahrenheit multiplied the Romer temperatures by 4 to eliminate fractions and recalibrated a few things so that water would freeze at an integer and to make it easier to mark instruments. Thus, it was designed for scientific purposes, with little thought on general public use (after all, what's so hard about memorizing that water freezes at 32 degrees when you already have to memorize so much else?).
Quote from: english si on October 26, 2013, 02:42:51 PM
Customary is much more natural for doing tasks (as many units designed for specific tasks, hence the odd factors) and comparison, metric is deliberately arbitrary and not tethered to the real world. As such, customary has harder numbers for conversion but metric has harder number for measurement and estimation.
+1
There's really no point to using feet (or any other smaller unit) if you are driving other than miles and fractions thereof. Ditto with buying/selling land. Acres are fine at one scale (farms, lots), and square footage at another (commercial buildings, houses).
Hell, we use different names for money even if it is decimalized: penny, nickle, dime, quarter, not centi-dollar or deci-dollar.
Quote from: getemngo on October 26, 2013, 03:04:27 PM
And Celsius is most definitely tethered to the real world. One of the reasons I've heard for Fahrenheit's invention is that the difference between freezing and boiling is exactly 180 degrees, and that's "useful" because 180 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, etc. When on earth is that important!?
It's those factors that, IMHO, make Imperial/Customary so much more useful than the so-called SI.
10 only has factors of 1, 2, and 5 and their multiples. Try dividing 10 or any power of it (100, 1000, etc) by any other prime number? You cannot possibly do so without a small fraction left over. That's why 180 is a far better number for this.
We get too focused on making things far too "rational" by base 10 without realizing there may be a better base number than 10 to use. Should we use metric time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time) instead of the base 6 system we have that fits the moon and sun cycles better?
Or, for that matter, the French Republican Calendar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_Calendar)?
Quote from: Brandon on October 27, 2013, 05:03:41 PM
Quote from: english si on October 26, 2013, 02:42:51 PM
Customary is much more natural for doing tasks (as many units designed for specific tasks, hence the odd factors) and comparison, metric is deliberately arbitrary and not tethered to the real world. As such, customary has harder numbers for conversion but metric has harder number for measurement and estimation.
+1
There's really no point to using feet (or any other smaller unit) if you are driving other than miles and fractions thereof. Ditto with buying/selling land. Acres are fine at one scale (farms, lots), and square footage at another (commercial buildings, houses).
Hell, we use different names for money even if it is decimalized: penny, nickle, dime, quarter, not centi-dollar or deci-dollar.
Quote from: getemngo on October 26, 2013, 03:04:27 PM
And Celsius is most definitely tethered to the real world. One of the reasons I've heard for Fahrenheit's invention is that the difference between freezing and boiling is exactly 180 degrees, and that's "useful" because 180 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, etc. When on earth is that important!?
It's those factors that, IMHO, make Imperial/Customary so much more useful than the so-called SI.
10 only has factors of 1, 2, and 5 and their multiples. Try dividing 10 or any power of it (100, 1000, etc) by any other prime number? You cannot possibly do so without a small fraction left over. That's why 180 is a far better number for this.
We get too focused on making things far too "rational" by base 10 without realizing there may be a better base number than 10 to use. Should we use metric time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time) instead of the base 6 system we have that fits the moon and sun cycles better?
Or, for that matter, the French Republican Calendar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_Calendar)?
If 10 is a useful number for you, metric is great. But while 10 is easy, it is not always the most useful. If you ever do any construction, 96" is the standard length in inches of many materials, and divides evenly by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 32, 48, and 96. 100 only divides by the whole numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 25, and 50. I've noticed hardware stores in Canada still sell everything by the inch. I wonder if this is why.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 18, 2013, 08:48:51 PM
100 only divides by the whole numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 25, and 50.
What about 10 and 20?
Quote from: 1 on November 18, 2013, 09:17:54 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 18, 2013, 08:48:51 PM
100 only divides by the whole numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 25, and 50.
What about 10 and 20?
Fine, be picky. 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, and 50.