So inspired by the new WY 230 thread, I'll just mention that US 85 has been routed onto a "bypass" in Torrington and the old route is now 85 Business (still pointlessly co-signed with WY 92). I drove both this summer, so it exists. I have no idea how relevant this is, at all.
Based on the current Google Maps imagery that show a road under construction in a 1/4 loop to the east of existing US 85/Main Street, it appears that the "bypass" is little more than a viaduct that allows US 85 to cross over a grade-separated railroad crossing rather than cross at-grade on its original alignment (Main Street). The bypass can't be longer than a half-mile or so, making the new business route fairly short. Is this it?
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Torrington,+WY&hl=en&ll=42.058326,-104.178071&spn=0.009384,0.021136&sll=41.752649,-106.949887&sspn=0.018857,0.058622&oq=torring&t=h&hnear=Torrington,+Goshen+County,+Wyoming&z=16
Concurrent routes such as Wyoming 230 and Wyoming 92 are for me at least an endearing part of Wyoming's signed route system. Does it make total sense? No, but it's fun to locate and document these oddities. And I recall at least one person who drove all of multi-state route 92 from Illinois to Wyoming, so I'm sure that they enjoyed the extra three miles or so of route 92 that he didn't anticipate having to drive when casually looking at a map (in an era before Google Maps Street View existed).
https://earmarks.omb.gov/earmarks-public/2008-earmarks/earmark_460579.html
Thanks, Dubya!
http://www.starherald.com/news/local_news/highway-realignment-to-give-torrington-a-new-look/article_891a5568-7889-11e1-bc01-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm
http://www.city-of-torrington.org/images/agenda/Agenda1-21-14.pdf bottom of p. 3: was to open January 14, 2014
Quote from: andy3175 on September 13, 2014, 01:15:16 AM
Based on the current Google Maps imagery that show a road under construction in a 1/4 loop to the east of existing US 85/Main Street, it appears that the "bypass" is little more than a viaduct that allows US 85 to cross over a grade-separated railroad crossing rather than cross at-grade on its original alignment (Main Street). The bypass can't be longer than a half-mile or so, making the new business route fairly short. Is this it?
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Torrington,+WY&hl=en&ll=42.058326,-104.178071&spn=0.009384,0.021136&sll=41.752649,-106.949887&sspn=0.018857,0.058622&oq=torring&t=h&hnear=Torrington,+Goshen+County,+Wyoming&z=16
Concurrent routes such as Wyoming 230 and Wyoming 92 are for me at least an endearing part of Wyoming's signed route system. Does it make total sense? No, but it's fun to locate and document these oddities. And I recall at least one person who drove all of multi-state route 92 from Illinois to Wyoming, so I'm sure that they enjoyed the extra three miles or so of route 92 that he didn't anticipate having to drive when casually looking at a map (in an era before Google Maps Street View existed).
Yeah, it is. It surprised me when I came up on it this summer. I did not expect that to be there.
Signage is still somewhat confusing, but it's really nice.
How is traffic directed to use the bypass? From the driver's perspective, it is a risk game - continue straight and save time compared to the bypass generally, but be heavily punished by train delays occasionally; or take the bypass and spend more time generally, but save significant amounts of time occasionally.
For sake of demonstration I'll weigh the original route as 0, the bypass as +1 time, and train delays as +10.
1. Take original route, no train. Time: 0
2. Take original route, train. Time: +10.
3. Take bypass route, no train. Time: +1.
4. Take bypass route, train. Time: +10.
Option 1 beats 3 by 1, but Option 4 beats 2 by 9. If one wanted to give the route that the driver should take, the next step would be to incorporate data for the probability of a train crossing.
Quote from: Zmapper on September 19, 2014, 02:20:43 AM
How is traffic directed to use the bypass? From the driver's perspective, it is a risk game - continue straight and save time compared to the bypass generally, but be heavily punished by train delays occasionally; or take the bypass and spend more time generally, but save significant amounts of time occasionally.
For sake of demonstration I'll weigh the original route as 0, the bypass as +1 time, and train delays as +10.
1. Take original route, no train. Time: 0
2. Take original route, train. Time: +10.
3. Take bypass route, no train. Time: +1.
4. Take bypass route, train. Time: +10.
Option 1 beats 3 by 1, but Option 4 beats 2 by 9. If one wanted to give the route that the driver should take, the next step would be to incorporate data for the probability of a train crossing.
However, 3+4 have a convenience store. (There'd be no train delay on the bypass, BTW).
Right. I meant +1 in absolute terms, but a comparative advantage of -9.