1) I-95 in the Bronx is still only 6-lanes east of the Major Deegan (I-87).
2) original signage still exists on the US-40/former I-170 in Baltimore.
3) I-95 is only 4-lanes in eastern CT and western RI.
4) I-710 still isn't completed.
5) I-95 has a loop ramp to stay on itself just south of Boston.
add yours to the list.
6) There isn't an interchange between the PA Turnpike and I-95 yet. (Oh they are working on it... slowly... surely... eventually it'll be done...)
7) The US 206 Bypass in Hillsborough isn't complete yet.
8) Electric cars aren't common.
9) People still call I-95 "128".
9 3/4) I'm not a wizard yet.
10) Red light cameras and speed cameras still have errors.
11) FritzOwl's Interstate plan is not complete.
12) The Atlanta outer beltway has no progress on it whatsoever (it's been a proposal for decades, and the Atlanta area is sprawling quickly. C'mon GDOT, at least work on the northern arc :cool: )
13) it's not butter.
13) Breezwood still exists
14) There's an I-99 and it's not on the Delmarva peninsula
iPhone
16) Virginia's General Assembly agreed to allow 70-mph speed limits.
(16 rather than 15 to account for the duplicate 13s further up the thread)
Personally, I'd take doofy's #1 off the list. Given the context and right-of-way constraints/costs, I can very much believe I-95 through the Bronx being just 6 lanes.
#13 (first one) for the WIN.
17. I-76 in Philadelphia and I-376 in Pittsburgh haven't at least had their interchanges redesigned.
18. GA 316 hasn't been upgraded to a limited-access highway.
19. I-5 in California, I-35 in Texas, I-70 in Missouri and I-85 in Georgia still have long segments of only four lanes.
In before we don't have flying cars.
#8 I can believe.
18 - . . . the USA is still stuck 'popularly' using a mish-mash of measures that don't relate to each other and don't progress in powers of 10 (don't go from scale to scale by moving the decimal point).
19 - . . . the US 12 corridor is not the major route northwestward out of Chicagoland (towards Madison).
20 - . . . there is still not a complete free-flowing four-lane road corridor running southwestward out of NE Wisconsin.
21 - . . . the I-80/90/94 interchange in NW Indiana still uses the raggy old 'ticket' tollway interchange to make its turns.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on September 29, 2014, 08:22:05 PM
18 - the USA has not replaced the PLSS with a kilometer grid and moved all the roads to match.
Fixed for you.
Quote from: mgk920 on September 29, 2014, 08:22:05 PM
21 - . . . the I-80/90/94 interchange in NW Indiana still uses the raggy old 'ticket' tollway interchange to make its turns.
Well, something's happening at that interchange. I'm not sure if they're improving geometry or just replacing a bridge, but there is currently no bridge on the ramp from the Chicago-bound Toll Road.
22- that the Interstate-to-Interstate connections at the northern end of I-65 require doing at least a 360
23- that the I-74/80/280 interchange in Colona, IL is still a cloverleaf
24- that the US 127 freeway north of Lansing, MI is still not complete.
25) I-22 is still not complete between Birmingham and Memphis
26) There's still not a limited access highway leading towards Panama City
27) A viable solution for the gridlock and congestion on US 280 in Birmingham's south suburbs hasn't been developed and implemented
28) I-55 northbound still has that hairpin curve in Memphis
29) E-ZPass still isn't accepted west of the Mississippi River.
29½. We still have little buildings
in the middle of the road to collect tolls.
(number edited due to simultaneous post below)
Quote from: mgk920 on September 29, 2014, 08:22:05 PM18 - . . . the USA is still stuck 'popularly' using a mish-mash of measures that don't relate to each other and don't progress in powers of 10 (don't go from scale to scale by moving the decimal point).
I can't believe people want to replace a perfectly good binary system of linear measure at great cost when the market would have done so long ago were it practical.
Quote from: froggie on September 29, 2014, 05:42:26 PM
Personally, I'd take doofy's #1 off the list. Given the context and right-of-way constraints/costs, I can very much believe I-95 through the Bronx being just 6 lanes.
I can't believe people in 2014 still think you can build any highway to any capacity in any surroundings. This is a perfect example. If you lived through a generation and counting of simply modernizing the BQE, you get some idea of the magnitude of rebuilding the Cross Bronx (never mind expanding it).
Quote#13 (first one) for the WIN.
Agree 100%.
30) that I-95 still is not complete.
Quote from: doofy103 on September 29, 2014, 04:13:57 PM
3) I-95 is only 4-lanes in eastern CT and western RI.
The I-95 corridor is mostly 10 lanes between New Haven and Boston - 6 for express traffic via Hartford and 4 for local traffic via Providence.
31) Most of the northeast uses sequential numbering
32) NY 17 exists north of Harriman
33) I-99 doesn't have a direct Interstate connection on either end
34) I-90 east of Cleveland remains under construction
35. I-95 through South Carolina is still 4 lanes wide for almost the entire route.
36. There are still 55 mph speed limits in areas where traffic typically moves 15 mph faster than that.
37. I-485 around Charlotte is still not finished.
38. Gas is "cheap" if it's under $3.20 a gallon.
39. Left-lane hogs still exist.
40. I-26 in South Carolina has yet to be widened to 6 lanes.
41 The skyway and IN tollway still have gates in the ETC only lanes even at the unnamed ramps.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on September 29, 2014, 11:27:39 PM
41 The skyway and IN tollway still have gates in the ETC only lanes even at the unnamed ramps.
41.5) MTA facilities in New York still have gates in E-ZPass-only lanes, as does the Peace Bridge in Ontario
42. Some states still don't allow the installation of logo signs in urban areas despite the MUTCD including provisions for them since 2000.
Quote from: cl94 on September 29, 2014, 11:40:42 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on September 29, 2014, 11:27:39 PM
41 The skyway and IN tollway still have gates in the ETC only lanes even at the unnamed ramps.
41.5) MTA facilities in New York still have gates in E-ZPass-only lanes, as does the Peace Bridge in Ontario
41.75) The Ohio Turnpike also does, if I recall correctly.
---
43) Plans to build I-73 outside of the Carolinas STILL haven't progressed.
44. I just lost THE GAME
45. US 64 still exits to itself in Williamston (where US 13/17 split off)
46. Any state uses Clearview
48. That I skipped 47
47. It's cheaper to fly out of RDU than PTI
49. That signs in Greensboro now say PTI-GSO airport.
50. Removing the left exiting/entering ramps at the I-35E/I-635 interchange wasn't part of the LBJ Express project
51. ......we found 50 items....
52. That states haven't yet eliminated all remaining rest areas or converted them over to truck only areas...
53. There's still temporary orange signage for exit 14 on the FDR Drive southbound, and the exit itself is still a mess. It's been like that for four years now, and they haven't been doing any construction in that time.
Quote from: doofy103 on September 29, 2014, 04:13:57 PM
1) I-95 in the Bronx is still only 6-lanes east of the Major Deegan (I-87).
Given how dense and urbanized the area is, I'm not convinced that that one is ever going to change. It would probably alleviate a lot of the traffic through there, though.
Quote from: dgolub on September 30, 2014, 08:49:57 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on September 29, 2014, 04:13:57 PM
1) I-95 in the Bronx is still only 6-lanes east of the Major Deegan (I-87).
Given how dense and urbanized the area is, I'm not convinced that that one is ever going to change. It would probably alleviate a lot of the traffic through there, though.
Example 1 of why using traffic as a synonym for traffic jams is problematic.
Quote from: NE2 on September 29, 2014, 08:01:15 PMIn before we don't have flying cars.
They'll come next year and they'll run on trash. I saw a documentary.
54. The M25 between the M4 and M40 is still only 8-lanes, when it had too much traffic for that 25 years ago, with no plans (even as part of Heathrow expansion) to widen it and relieve the perma-jam! (and unlike the Bronx, isn't running through a dense urban area)
Quote from: Alex on September 30, 2014, 08:12:49 AM
52. That states haven't yet eliminated all remaining rest areas or converted them over to truck only areas...
They're cash cows. Why eliminate them?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 30, 2014, 09:59:38 AM
Quote from: Alex on September 30, 2014, 08:12:49 AM
52. That states haven't yet eliminated all remaining rest areas or converted them over to truck only areas...
They're cash cows. Why eliminate them?
Virginia's former governor, Tim Kaine, ordered a bunch of them (but not all of them) closed to save money, but it was mainly political grandstanding because the amount saved was minuscule in the context of the whole budget. His successor, Bob McDonnell, had them re-opened. The Kaine Administration told people to stop at McDonald's if they needed to use the toilet.
Quote from: mgk920 on September 29, 2014, 08:22:05 PM
18 - . . . the USA is still stuck 'popularly' using a mish-mash of measures that don't relate to each other and don't progress in powers of 10 (don't go from scale to scale by moving the decimal point).
Check!
55. ...there still is no permanent funding mechanism for the Federal Highway Trust Fund (that would pay for a lot of the unfinished items listed above.)
56. That A-25 and A-30 in Quebec have transponders that aren't even inter-operable with each other, let alone anything else.
57. The US still relies on writing out everything instead of using symbols and pictograms.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on September 30, 2014, 10:07:12 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 29, 2014, 08:22:05 PM
18 - . . . the USA is still stuck 'popularly' using a mish-mash of measures that don't relate to each other and don't progress in powers of 10 (don't go from scale to scale by moving the decimal point).
Check!
Another check!
Quote from: OracleUsr on September 30, 2014, 12:14:55 AM
47. It's cheaper to fly out of RDU than PTI
49. That signs in Greensboro now say PTI-GSO airport.
Oddly, I find that flying into GSO is rather cheap (and quite hassle-free), presumably to woo passengers from going to Charlotte. It did bug me that the signs used to solely have "PTI", which is an acronym, but not the airport code.
56. That there's still a lot of dirt and gravel roads left to be improved. I used to think every gravel road that wasn't a driveway would get paved someday.
Quote from: formulanone on September 30, 2014, 12:54:03 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on September 30, 2014, 12:14:55 AM
47. It's cheaper to fly out of RDU than PTI
49. That signs in Greensboro now say PTI-GSO airport.
Oddly, I find that flying into GSO is rather cheap (and quite hassle-free), presumably to woo passengers from going to Charlotte. It did bug me that the signs used to solely have "PTI", which is an acronym, but not the airport code.
56. That there's still a lot of dirt and gravel roads left to be improved. I used to think every gravel road that wasn't a driveway would get paved someday.
56.5) Several states have unpaved
state routes (and not just the Moki Dugway)
7,392: That speed limits have risen on highways to 80 & 85 mph. Yet, speed limits on local roads continue to go lower, and towns and planners find more ways to slow traffic down even further.
Quote from: riiga on September 30, 2014, 12:50:41 PM
57. The US still relies on writing out everything instead of using symbols and pictograms.
Not exactly true, and the European countries use their fair share of text as well.
Quote from: dgolub on September 30, 2014, 08:49:57 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on September 29, 2014, 04:13:57 PM
1) I-95 in the Bronx is still only 6-lanes east of the Major Deegan (I-87).
Given how dense and urbanized the area is, I'm not convinced that that one is ever going to change. It would probably alleviate a lot of the traffic through there, though.
The biggest problems one would have in widening the Cross Bronx are:
--The fact that much of the road runs in an open cut with concrete walls and literally no extra room on either side.
--Blasting out the extra room for two more lanes would mean blasting through some of the hardest rock known in the US, Fordham gneiss. It was a slow-go in the 1960's to blast out the initial six-lane ROW and would be no less problematical today.
--Atop the open cut on both sides are service roads connecting to local streets.
--Dozens of buildings immediately adjacent to the service roads would have to be condemned and torn down. Given what buildings are worth today, the condemnation costs alone would be prohibitive.
--There are multiple overpasses carrying the Bronx's major local streets, and all those overpasses would need to be reconstructed. Those streets cannot be closed for any length of time without major disruptions. Atop the overpass at Jerome Avenue is the Woodlawn branch of the #4 subway line, which also must be held in place and kept operating during any construction. It was no less than a miracle that Robert Moses managed to do so in the 1960's.
--And, of course, you must have the political will to even imagine such a project, never mind financing it and seeing it through.
If you never read another book about road construction, you should read the chapter "One Mile" in Robert Caro's
The Power Broker. What it takes to hack out the ROW for a major highway through a densely populated city is presented in graphic detail...both the construction details and the human cost.
Cars still burn gasoline, and gasoline is still relatively cheap.
Quote from: english si on September 30, 2014, 09:31:13 AM
54. The M25 between the M4 and M40 is still only 8-lanes, when it had too much traffic for that 25 years ago, with no plans (even as part of Heathrow expansion) to widen it and relieve the perma-jam! (and unlike the Bronx, isn't running through a dense urban area)
Uhh, what about the M23 north of the M25? Certainly that should have been cleaned up long ago (though the Coulsdon Bypass was a step in the right direction).
When I first went to England, this was the first image I took (M23 north of J8):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fg4O2RyE.jpg&hash=b87a7c2323cee903c0b7ebbb04ea49238e7c2d7e)
Quote from: jake on September 30, 2014, 05:16:46 PM
Quote from: english si on September 30, 2014, 09:31:13 AM
54. The M25 between the M4 and M40 is still only 8-lanes, when it had too much traffic for that 25 years ago, with no plans (even as part of Heathrow expansion) to widen it and relieve the perma-jam! (and unlike the Bronx, isn't running through a dense urban area)
Uhh, what about the M23 north of the M25? Certainly that should have been cleaned up long ago.
When I first went to England, this was the first image I took (M23 north of J8):
*pic of cars in traffic*
Apparently the issue with the M23 is that there's no way to widen the A23, the road it empties out on, and even if they simply rerouted it around part of it, it would still end on that substandard A23, merely moving the problem a mile or so north.
Quote from: kj3400 on September 30, 2014, 05:20:43 PM
Quote from: jake on September 30, 2014, 05:16:46 PM
Quote from: english si on September 30, 2014, 09:31:13 AM
54. The M25 between the M4 and M40 is still only 8-lanes, when it had too much traffic for that 25 years ago, with no plans (even as part of Heathrow expansion) to widen it and relieve the perma-jam! (and unlike the Bronx, isn't running through a dense urban area)
Uhh, what about the M23 north of the M25? Certainly that should have been cleaned up long ago.
When I first went to England, this was the first image I took (M23 north of J8):
*pic of cars in traffic*
Apparently the issue with the M23 is that there's no way to widen the A23, the road it empties out on, and even if they simply rerouted it around part of it, it would still end on that substandard A23, merely moving the problem a mile or so north.
I could come up with a good routing. First thing would be to re-utilize the old bypass (rebuild it, obviously) and then route it east of the Hooley city center. North of that, it would squeeze over Hollymeoak Road and then plug into the Coulsdon Bypass.
Let's not forget that TFL is no stranger to massive infrastructure projects (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ie=UTF-8&q=tfl%20ring%20road)...this wouldn't be that crazy. From what I could tell on my last visit, traffic was pretty well dissipated by the time we hit the Croydon Costco. IF we could sort of fix it up to that point, I think things would at least moderately improve.
Quote55. ...there still is no permanent funding mechanism for the Federal Highway Trust Fund (that would pay for a lot of the unfinished items listed above.)
Curious why you don't consider the Federal gas tax a "permanent" funding mechanism (even though it's currently inadequate)...
58: There's no direct freeway between Columbus, OH and Toledo (and by extension, Detroit and SE Michigan)
59: Despite incredible technology leaps in areas like computers, the mainstay of our transportation system remains the good old-fashioned internal-combustion engine.
Electric pants: what's the holdup?
60. that 2014 is only 3 months away from becoming 2015!
61. That eastbound I-20 to northbound I-285 on the west side of ATL is still a one-lane loop ramp. :banghead:
EDIT:
62. That there's still no proper overhead advance sign for the I-85-GA 400 split. I know that the fact that the I-85 viaduct was built without provision for supporting a sign gantry complicates things, but today I found myself wondering today what happened to the gantry that used to span twelve lanes of I-85 a few miles north of there. Couldn't they have mounted it on some really tall posts and spanned the entire width of the viaduct? Or did it go in the dumpster?
EDIT: My bad-- the gantry is still in use for the northbound side. Sometimes my bad attitude toward GDOT gets out of hand. :paranoid:
2nd EDIT: That gantry, now scrap, I presume:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FXSdWSgo.jpg&hash=cd0b9a678ff6a1e944b39383fdfc7c3d49c7ed2b)
The new S.F.-Oakland Bay Bridge east span project still isn't quite done.
Quote from: stridentweasel on September 29, 2014, 10:04:03 PM
29) E-ZPass still isn't accepted outside of the northeast and midwest.
Fixed it for you.
No E-Pass/SunPass, Geaux Pass or Peach Pass compatibility, maybe partial NC Quick Pass (which is interoperable with SunPass). We might get SunPass compatibility in 2018? Ugh.
63: We have all these sophisticated CADD packages and sign production programs yet quality control still seems to be lacking for newly-erected signs
Quote from: doofy103 on September 29, 2014, 04:13:57 PM
2) original signage still exists on the US-40/former I-170 in Baltimore.
Why wouldn't it? Baltimore City has no reason to put a single cent more into improving the "Highway to Nowhere"
64) That US-40/former I-170 in Baltimore isn't permanently closed. It has been "temporarily closed" on and off for years now, and no one has seemed to notice...
Quote from: DeaconG on October 01, 2014, 11:49:50 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on September 29, 2014, 10:04:03 PM
29) E-ZPass still isn't accepted outside of the northeast and midwest.
Fixed it for you.
No E-Pass/SunPass, Geaux Pass or Peach Pass compatibility, maybe partial NC Quick Pass (which is interoperable with SunPass). We might get SunPass compatibility in 2018? Ugh.
With the amount of Northeasterners who now live in Florida, I'm surprised there hasn't been a push for interoperability between SunPass and EZPass.
65. ...the I-74 in NC will never connect back to the one in Cincinnati!
66. ...I-73 is on the wrong side of I-77 (and I-75, for that matter).
67) I-14 is not built yet.
68) Baton Rouge has not fixed or begun an alternative to the mess that is I-10/I-110
69) Texas has not done more to convert/ build I-69. Oh wait.....that's Louisiana & Arkansas :pan:
70) US 57 and US 96 have not switched spots in Texas
71) I-49 has not been completely finished between I-20 and I-30. (I am not complaining about this. I think it's great how close it is to being done. I just would have thought it would have been finished years before now.
72) I-10 is not more than 2 lanes in many places from Beaumont, TX to Mobile
73) There are still threads on "What Intestates are not up to standard?"
74) The Alaskan Way Viaduct, damaged in the 2001 Nisqually earthquake, is still being used by motorists. Tear it down now and argue about its replacement later.
CA 17 I-880 through Oakland is still crumbling to bits, along with sharp curves, narrow lanes, insufficient sightlines, and deep standing water when it rains. Seems like it's been that way since the 1960s. Why didn't it get upgraded along with the rest of 880?
This isn't the "this is really bad" thread, but the "unbelievable in 2014" thread. That the A23 is dire is understandable (as I expound below). That the M25 is awful between J15 and J16 with no plan for relief isn't - given widening elsewhere, Heathrow expansion plans improving the road network in the vicinity (Runway 3 now, but Terminal 5 before it), and that the widening done in the 90s was insufficient then and known to be so.
Quote from: kj3400 on September 30, 2014, 05:20:43 PMApparently the issue with the M23 is that there's no way to widen the A23, the road it empties out on, and even if they simply rerouted it around part of it, it would still end on that substandard A23, merely moving the problem a mile or so north.
If you extend the M23, or upgrade the A23 you either do a pretty useless job at dealing with the traffic (though removing traffic through Hooley) or need 10 miles of M23 and another 4 miles of distribution at about Streatham - if not more.
And anyway, an upgraded '23 corridor won't make traffic flow freer or quicker without at least $50bn's worth of construction.
Quote from: jake on September 30, 2014, 05:26:01 PMI could come up with a good routing. First thing would be to re-utilize the old bypass (rebuild it, obviously) and then route it east of the Hooley city center. North of that, it would squeeze over Hollymeoak Road and then plug into the Coulsdon Bypass.
Hooley a city??? It's a small village. Add in the fact that it's on a narrow ridge and going east of the village (as well as needing a massive rework of the M23 north of the M25) has the additional problem of the railway pretty much next to it at the same level and needing to cross that twice. A key reason why the M23 never got further north was that it would have been on a long and tall viaduct over the Chipstead valley.
Hooley isn't demanding a bypass, unlike many other places (including Coulsden in the 90s) and it's not really the bottleneck (arguably the entirety of south London is), just the start of it. Plus the insane cost per mile on the edge of London would wipe it out politically.
QuoteLet's not forget that TFL is no stranger to massive infrastructure projects (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ie=UTF-8&q=tfl%20ring%20road)...this wouldn't be that crazy. From what I could tell on my last visit, traffic was pretty well dissipated by the time we hit the Croydon Costco. IF we could sort of fix it up to that point, I think things would at least moderately improve.
Lets also remember that TfL's has never approved a bypass, flyover or road widening (for cars) on its road network - they institutionally dislike motor vehicles that aren't big and red. The Coulsden bypass was approved before its creation, the A13 is a DBFO dating from before its creation too and the only road widenings have been to add bus/cycle lanes.
That ring road is planned for 35 years time, was lambasted as insane on this forum, and is merely an attempt to try and remove as many cars from the surface as possible rather than increasing capacity or decreasing journey times. Expect similar for the A23 - like with the Coulsden bypass, a Hooley bypass' point would be so you sit in traffic away from where people do stuff outside of cars, rather than improve traffic flow.
Plus the A23 at Hooley is the preserve of the Highways Agency, who don't give a rat's ass about non-core trunk roads, not TfL.
Quote from: bassoon1986 on October 01, 2014, 03:19:08 PM
69) Texas has not done more to convert/ build I-69. Oh wait.....that's Louisiana & Arkansas :pan:
69a) I-69 is still a thing in Louisiana and Arkansas. Oink.
70)...we still use the FHWA typeface (---cowers in corner---).
70a)...we still use Series E Modified even after the phase-out of button copy.
71) automobiles still need dangerous animals to operate them
Quote from: kkt on October 01, 2014, 03:53:09 PM
CA 17 I-880 through Oakland is still crumbling to bits, along with sharp curves, narrow lanes, insufficient sightlines, and deep standing water when it rains. Seems like it's been that way since the 1960s. Why didn't it get upgraded along with the rest of 880?
I presume that's what the ongoing construction between 980 and High Street over the last few years has been about.
Seems to be some right-of-way constraints there compared to the newer section to the northwest (from 1997) that replaced the old Cypress Freeway.
72) NW Indiana is still under construction after over 14 years :-| :-|
Quote from: jake on October 02, 2014, 01:45:35 AM
70)...we still use the FHWA typeface (---cowers in corner---).
70a)...we still use Series E Modified even after the phase-out of button copy.
And I'm glad we still use FHWA fonts. Much better than Clearview. Plus, there is research to indicate that it is no better (sometimes worse) than FHWA fonts used with identical reflectivity, hence why the FHWA is no longer issuing interim approvals and might kill it off.
Quote from: cl94 on October 03, 2014, 03:55:40 PM
Quote from: jake on October 02, 2014, 01:45:35 AM
70)...we still use the FHWA typeface (---cowers in corner---).
70a)...we still use Series E Modified even after the phase-out of button copy.
And I'm glad we still use FHWA fonts. Much better than Clearview. Plus, there is research to indicate that it is no better (sometimes worse) than FHWA fonts used with identical reflectivity, hence why the FHWA is no longer issuing interim approvals and might kill it off.
X-( Never said anything about Clearview. I'm just saying FHWA has been around for so long without any update, perhaps we need to give a new typeface another shot. (Like most things in this thread, there is obviously a financial barrier, but we can gloss over that).
73) CT 9 still has traffic lights on it in Middletown, and not a thing has been done to get rid of them. 65 mph to a dead stop in 1/4 mile!
Quote from: shadyjay on October 04, 2014, 11:12:08 PM
73) CT 9 still has traffic lights on it in Middletown, and not a thing has been done to get rid of them. 65 mph to a dead stop in 1/4 mile!
Sounds like US 64 at Vilonia, AR except the speed limit drops to 60 from 65 about 1/4 mile before
Quote from: shadyjay on October 04, 2014, 11:12:08 PM
73) CT 9 still has traffic lights on it in Middletown, and not a thing has been done to get rid of them. 65 mph to a dead stop in 1/4 mile!
This has been the case so long that to be incredulous about it is more odd than not. What is harder to believe, given how these things work, is that the 65 hasn't been lowered 1/4 mile from a stoplight.
74) There have not been any serious discussions about how to combat the E-W traffic backups through Portland, OR. No new E-W MAX, no suggestions to create limited access corridors, no suggestions to in anyway address the bottleneck that is I-84.
75) We don't yet have High-Speed Rail connecting major US Cities.
76) There are still drawbridge sections of the Interstate Highway System.
Quote from: TEG24601 on October 05, 2014, 03:08:00 PM
....
76) There are still drawbridge sections of the Interstate Highway System.
Since I live about six miles from one of those (the Woodrow Wilson Bridge), it doesn't surprise me at all. A higher-level bridge would have been hugely impractical there because avoiding steep grades would have required starting the bridge too far inland on each side; it also would have been aesthetically unacceptable and might have raised FAA issues due to the airport a short distance north. A tunnel would have been too expensive and, on the Maryland side, would have been difficult due to the topography (notable slope on that side).
This is one of those things that make me say, "There's ALWAYS a reason somewhere for exceptions to general rules."
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 05, 2014, 04:57:01 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on October 05, 2014, 03:08:00 PM
....
76) There are still drawbridge sections of the Interstate Highway System.
Since I live about six miles from one of those (the Woodrow Wilson Bridge), it doesn't surprise me at all. A higher-level bridge would have been hugely impractical there because avoiding steep grades would have required starting the bridge too far inland on each side; it also would have been aesthetically unacceptable and might have raised FAA issues due to the airport a short distance north. A tunnel would have been too expensive and, on the Maryland side, would have been difficult due to the topography (notable slope on that side).
Another option would've been to use a fixed span with the same clearance as the new drawbridge. Corps of Engineers issues with cutting off access by tall ships to the Alexandria and D.C. waterfronts. It also didn't help that such ships hauled newsprint for the Washington Post to a terminal north of the bridge.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 04, 2014, 11:16:59 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 04, 2014, 11:12:08 PM
73) CT 9 still has traffic lights on it in Middletown, and not a thing has been done to get rid of them. 65 mph to a dead stop in 1/4 mile!
This has been the case so long that to be incredulous about it is more odd than not. What is harder to believe, given how these things work, is that the 65 hasn't been lowered 1/4 mile from a stoplight.
NY 531 does the same thing in Spencerport. There's an "expressway ends" sign a mile out and a "be prepared to stop" about 3/8 mile before the light. New York
always drops the limit to 55 about a mile before an at-grade outside of toll plazas, hence why this is quite unusual.
Road also has the sharpest curve with a 65 mph speed limit and no advisory signs that I've ever seen.
Quote from: oscar on October 05, 2014, 05:14:08 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 05, 2014, 04:57:01 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on October 05, 2014, 03:08:00 PM
....
76) There are still drawbridge sections of the Interstate Highway System.
Since I live about six miles from one of those (the Woodrow Wilson Bridge), it doesn't surprise me at all. A higher-level bridge would have been hugely impractical there because avoiding steep grades would have required starting the bridge too far inland on each side; it also would have been aesthetically unacceptable and might have raised FAA issues due to the airport a short distance north. A tunnel would have been too expensive and, on the Maryland side, would have been difficult due to the topography (notable slope on that side).
Another option would've been to use a fixed span with the same clearance as the new drawbridge. Corps of Engineers issues with cutting off access by tall ships to the Alexandria and D.C. waterfronts. It also didn't help that such ships hauled newsprint for the Washington Post to a terminal north of the bridge.
Yeah, I didn't mention that because I recall it being rejected almost immediately when it was suggested, certain agitator groups notwithstanding.
77) I-238 still isn't I-480!
Quote from: oscar on October 05, 2014, 05:14:08 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 05, 2014, 04:57:01 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on October 05, 2014, 03:08:00 PM
76) There are still drawbridge sections of the Interstate Highway System.
Since I live about six miles from one of those (the Woodrow Wilson Bridge), it doesn't surprise me at all. A higher-level bridge would have been hugely impractical there because avoiding steep grades would have required starting the bridge too far inland on each side; it also would have been aesthetically unacceptable and might have raised FAA issues due to the airport a short distance north. A tunnel would have been too expensive and, on the Maryland side, would have been difficult due to the topography (notable slope on that side).
Another option would've been to use a fixed span with the same clearance as the new drawbridge. Corps of Engineers issues with cutting off access by tall ships to the Alexandria and D.C. waterfronts. It also didn't help that such ships hauled newsprint for the Washington Post to a terminal north of the bridge.
Another option: two parallel bridges half the width of the current one, normally both in use but with ramps that allow all traffic to be sent to one or the other. Ships wait between the bridges for the other one to clear. This would be similar to the portion of the Victoria Bridge over the canal in Montreal (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=45.495052,-73.519285&spn=0.010815,0.024784&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=45.495104,-73.519141&panoid=0oUZThwnyr7qi1e4KSQQTg&cbp=12,89.25,,0,4.18), but there only one roadway/railway is in use at a time.
Quote from: jake on October 02, 2014, 01:45:35 AM
70)...we still use the FHWA typeface (---cowers in corner---).
70a)...we still use Series E Modified even after the phase-out of button copy.
HERESY!!!!!! *buries jake under a flood of FWHA A and B fonts!*. :bigass:
Quote from: NE2 on October 06, 2014, 02:36:40 AM
Quote from: oscar on October 05, 2014, 05:14:08 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 05, 2014, 04:57:01 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on October 05, 2014, 03:08:00 PM
76) There are still drawbridge sections of the Interstate Highway System.
Since I live about six miles from one of those (the Woodrow Wilson Bridge), it doesn't surprise me at all. A higher-level bridge would have been hugely impractical there because avoiding steep grades would have required starting the bridge too far inland on each side; it also would have been aesthetically unacceptable and might have raised FAA issues due to the airport a short distance north. A tunnel would have been too expensive and, on the Maryland side, would have been difficult due to the topography (notable slope on that side).
Another option would've been to use a fixed span with the same clearance as the new drawbridge. Corps of Engineers issues with cutting off access by tall ships to the Alexandria and D.C. waterfronts. It also didn't help that such ships hauled newsprint for the Washington Post to a terminal north of the bridge.
Another option: two parallel bridges half the width of the current one, normally both in use but with ramps that allow all traffic to be sent to one or the other. Ships wait between the bridges for the other one to clear. This would be similar to the portion of the Victoria Bridge over the canal in Montreal (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=45.495052,-73.519285&spn=0.010815,0.024784&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=45.495104,-73.519141&panoid=0oUZThwnyr7qi1e4KSQQTg&cbp=12,89.25,,0,4.18), but there only one roadway/railway is in use at a time.
So
that's why it has that odd split. Always wondered why it had two sets of ramps on the eastern approach.
Quote from: NE2 on October 06, 2014, 02:36:40 AM
Quote from: oscar on October 05, 2014, 05:14:08 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 05, 2014, 04:57:01 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on October 05, 2014, 03:08:00 PM
76) There are still drawbridge sections of the Interstate Highway System.
Since I live about six miles from one of those (the Woodrow Wilson Bridge), it doesn't surprise me at all. A higher-level bridge would have been hugely impractical there because avoiding steep grades would have required starting the bridge too far inland on each side; it also would have been aesthetically unacceptable and might have raised FAA issues due to the airport a short distance north. A tunnel would have been too expensive and, on the Maryland side, would have been difficult due to the topography (notable slope on that side).
Another option would've been to use a fixed span with the same clearance as the new drawbridge. Corps of Engineers issues with cutting off access by tall ships to the Alexandria and D.C. waterfronts. It also didn't help that such ships hauled newsprint for the Washington Post to a terminal north of the bridge.
Another option: two parallel bridges half the width of the current one, normally both in use but with ramps that allow all traffic to be sent to one or the other. Ships wait between the bridges for the other one to clear. This would be similar to the portion of the Victoria Bridge over the canal in Montreal (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=45.495052,-73.519285&spn=0.010815,0.024784&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=45.495104,-73.519141&panoid=0oUZThwnyr7qi1e4KSQQTg&cbp=12,89.25,,0,4.18), but there only one roadway/railway is in use at a time.
Yeah, I've been over the Pont Victoria a few times. I doubt that idea would have succeeded with the Wilson Bridge, had it been proposed at all, for a couple of practical reasons–they had to demolish one apartment building as it was, there's parkland on the Virginia shore with an historic site (the Jones Point Lighthouse), and there were endangered species issues on the Maryland side due to a bald eagle habitat. The Pont Victoria system is a good one for that particular location, though. The ramps would surely need a very different configuration on an Interstate.
77) You have to aggressively haggle when buying a new car, unless you really want to get shafted on the price by a paltry, say, $5-$10k. I'd heard that women and minorities tend to get stuck paying the highest prices. In a society demanding equal treatment for everyone, that's just not right.
78. We still don't know where the western end of I-22 will be (MS or TN?)
79. The I-35 splits in MN and TX still haven't been eliminated, like all others have (mainly because the metropolitan areas want equal share of them)
80. I-83 and I-97 are not one continuous route (aeeing that one comes from the north of Baltimore, and the other one from the south)
81. That there are still some of Alabama's old stop signs still standing.
82) I-75 is not undergoing any resurfacing in north Ga (it needs a resurfacing BAD). According to Google Earth's awesome & convenient old satellite, the last time I-75 was resurfaced in north GA (at least in most parts) was in the late 90s and early 2000s. There's a section of I-75 Northbound in Ringgold where the asphalt is just plain decayed..
83) nobody's found a photo of a New England route shield. (This (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=207.msg2002529#msg2002529) is cool but not a shield.)
Quote from: lepidopteran on October 07, 2014, 12:30:26 PM
77) You have to aggressively haggle when buying a new car, unless you really want to get shafted on the price by a paltry, say, $5-$10k. I'd heard that women and minorities tend to get stuck paying the highest prices. In a society demanding equal treatment for everyone, that's just not right.
One of the many reasons why buying a new car does not appeal to me at all. I hate haggling. I'll do it for small items, like something at a yard sale, because that usually works in my favor, but even then, I'm not that aggressive about it. If the price is fair I'd rather just pay it.
But new cars when there are thousands of dollars at stake? Oh he'll no.
iPhone
Quote from: Laura on October 09, 2014, 07:51:59 AM
Quote from: lepidopteran on October 07, 2014, 12:30:26 PM
77) You have to aggressively haggle when buying a new car, unless you really want to get shafted on the price by a paltry, say, $5-$10k. I'd heard that women and minorities tend to get stuck paying the highest prices. In a society demanding equal treatment for everyone, that's just not right.
One of the many reasons why buying a new car does not appeal to me at all. I hate haggling. I'll do it for small items, like something at a yard sale, because that usually works in my favor, but even then, I'm not that aggressive about it. If the price is fair I'd rather just pay it.
But new cars when there are thousands of dollars at stake? Oh he'll no.
Top tip for up-and-coming hagglers: you don't have to haggle a lot, just haggle a little bit at first, then take the offer to another dealer, show them the offer, ask them if they can beat if. If they can, take that deal back to the first dealer (or optionally, another dealer altogether), and see if they can beat the new offer. If they can, take the new-new deal back to second dealer, and see if they can beat
that offer....honestly, this process can go on for days. Eventually, you'll get a pretty good deal. For my family, that process always works.
I don't know why it's become traditional to negotiate prices on cars. You wouldn't do it for a pound of hamburger, or even a new computer or a wide-screen TV or other big-ticket item. Why do it for cars?
That was one of the thing I liked about Saturn. The price was the price, and it was reasonable.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 09, 2014, 06:44:06 PM
I don't know why it's become traditional to negotiate prices on cars. You wouldn't do it for a pound of hamburger, or even a new computer or a wide-screen TV or other big-ticket item. Why do it for cars?
That was one of the thing I liked about Saturn. The price was the price, and it was reasonable.
Because most people are aware that car prices are priced well over what they are actually worth. It doesn't take a genius to know that a dealer wants to make money, but unlike the difference in the price of a hamburger (amount paid versus actual worth), the difference between the amount paid and the actual worth of a car could be thousands of dollars.
I see many local dealers advertising their haggle-free experience ("our lowest prices are marked on every car"), but I just see that as a scam for them to knowingly charge customers more because the customers believe they are in fact getting the lowest price.
For what it's worth, I have haggled for computers and TVs before (Costco is a great place to haggle). It's also "cultural" in other countries to haggle the shit out of everything (India, for example, is well known for their haggling).
Quote from: NE2 on October 08, 2014, 04:11:38 AM
83) nobody's found a photo of a New England route shield. (This (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=207.msg2002529#msg2002529) is cool but not a shield.)
does it count if it's painted on a pole? or does it have to be a free-standing element? I've got a photo of what I believe is an NE 8 painted on a pole in Vermont.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/misc/VT%20NE8%20$_0057.JPG)
Quote from: jake on October 09, 2014, 04:34:47 PM
Quote from: Laura on October 09, 2014, 07:51:59 AM
Quote from: lepidopteran on October 07, 2014, 12:30:26 PM
77) You have to aggressively haggle when buying a new car, unless you really want to get shafted on the price by a paltry, say, $5-$10k. I'd heard that women and minorities tend to get stuck paying the highest prices. In a society demanding equal treatment for everyone, that's just not right.
One of the many reasons why buying a new car does not appeal to me at all. I hate haggling. I'll do it for small items, like something at a yard sale, because that usually works in my favor, but even then, I'm not that aggressive about it. If the price is fair I'd rather just pay it.
But new cars when there are thousands of dollars at stake? Oh he'll no.
Top tip for up-and-coming hagglers: you don't have to haggle a lot, just haggle a little bit at first, then take the offer to another dealer, show them the offer, ask them if they can beat if. If they can, take that deal back to the first dealer (or optionally, another dealer altogether), and see if they can beat the new offer. If they can, take the new-new deal back to second dealer, and see if they can beat that offer....honestly, this process can go on for days. Eventually, you'll get a pretty good deal. For my family, that process always works.
I guess they really rely on those sales, but in any business I've been in I'd tell someone who tried this to hit the road. It sounds like a lot of jerking the salespeople around (though I do understand there's plenty of that to go around from salespeople as well).
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 09, 2014, 07:56:02 PM
does it count if it's painted on a pole? or does it have to be a free-standing element? I've got a photo of what I believe is an NE 8 painted on a pole in Vermont.
Cool photo, and certainly possible, but it could also be post-1926 VT 8 (Vermont dropped the state name by 1930 (http://www.rare-maps.com/details.cfm?type=maps&rid=1554770)). Got a date for the photo?
Quote from: jake on October 09, 2014, 04:34:47 PM
Top tip for up-and-coming hagglers: you don't have to haggle a lot, just haggle a little bit at first, then take the offer to another dealer, show them the offer, ask them if they can beat if. If they can, take that deal back to the first dealer (or optionally, another dealer altogether), and see if they can beat the new offer. If they can, take the new-new deal back to second dealer, and see if they can beat that offer....honestly, this process can go on for days. Eventually, you'll get a pretty good deal. For my family, that process always works.
I did something similar to this when I bought my new car. The only difference was that dealers didn't know they were in competition with each other. The dealer that I ended up buying from gave me the lowest price by far right off the bat. (They were several thousand less than the next lowest offer initially.) I also had the added luxury of not needing a new car right away. Many buyers aren't in that boat and go to a dealer because they need a car ASAP. My older car was just getting up in mileage, but still ran perfectly well and I merely wanted a new car. The dealer that I bought from didn't even have what I wanted in stock and had to do some searching among other dealer's inventories in order to find what I wanted. They eventually found what I wanted some 80 miles away in Doylestown, PA and drove down there with their trader and drove my car back to northern NJ for me. Patience is definitely key when new car shopping for the lowest price, but as I noted, many new car buyers don't have that luxury. Dealers are also well aware of this, and are prepared with a whole bag full of bullshit and sales pitches.
Quote from: NE2 on September 29, 2014, 08:01:15 PM
In before we don't have flying cars.
I want my flying car now... :banghead: :bigass:
Quote from: jake on October 09, 2014, 07:52:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 09, 2014, 06:44:06 PM
I don't know why it's become traditional to negotiate prices on cars. You wouldn't do it for a pound of hamburger, or even a new computer or a wide-screen TV or other big-ticket item. Why do it for cars?
That was one of the thing I liked about Saturn. The price was the price, and it was reasonable.
Because most people are aware that car prices are priced well over what they are actually worth. It doesn't take a genius to know that a dealer wants to make money, but unlike the difference in the price of a hamburger (amount paid versus actual worth), the difference between the amount paid and the actual worth of a car could be thousands of dollars.
I see many local dealers advertising their haggle-free experience ("our lowest prices are marked on every car"), but I just see that as a scam for them to knowingly charge customers more because the customers believe they are in fact getting the lowest price.
For what it's worth, I have haggled for computers and TVs before (Costco is a great place to haggle). It's also "cultural" in other countries to haggle the shit out of everything (India, for example, is well known for their haggling).
Right. Haggling is the norm in some countries, like Turkey. It used to be the norm here, too.
I don't know when it changed nationwide, but at least in Baltimore, set prices came about with the rise of department stores. Hutzler's advertised set prices and return policies (if you were white) from at least the 1860's on. Other Baltimore department stores eventually followed suit.
iPhone
Over the past decade or so, anytime I've wanted a new car I just use the Internet quote option that most dealership websites have. It appears they know you have already used Edmunds.com and other car websites, and know what the best price is going to be. Usually, the quotes I receive back are right in the area of the True Market Value that Edmunds provides. Depending on the car, it's usually pretty close to invoice price. I've bought Hondas exclusively since about 2003: First, I was leasing several of them, and now I own my current cars. Every time, I've used the internet price quote option, and I tell them the exact car I want from their online inventory. And since Honda doesn't throw too many options on vehicles, I can usually get good apples:apples comparisons...and the quotes I receive back are usually within a few bucks of each other.
There's one Honda in Hamilton NJ that advertises free oil changes for life of the vehicle...and a free car wash after each service. But when I get price quotes for new vehicles there, they tend to be much higher than average. Of course, they have to pay for those free oil changes and car washes somehow!
When you're in the dealership, even with the price quote, they'll still try to screw you around...giving the 'range' of payments per month (say, between $370 & $380). I know how to compute the costs of loans. I add everything in there, from any extras, down to NJ's 'tire tax'. If I know the monthly payment is supposed to be $370.67 a month...don't try saying it'll be almost $380.
Once I had gone to the dealership without my price quote in hand...and couldn't remember the exact amount off hand. They "found" my quote...which I realized later was about $1,000 higher than the actual quote. I didn't buy that day because I though the amount was suspicious...and actually didn't purchase that vehicle from that particular dealership at all. (My next car I did buy from them, because they did have the lowest price quote...and I still use their service center).
Another thing I found: There's stories on the web such as "15 ways to save at car buying", etc. While the savings hints are true, my findings are any one dealership will give you some of those points...but you're not going to use all 15 against the dealership. They get to the point where the profit for the vehicle is so low (or not at all), they'll rather walk you out the door and wait for the next person.
84) There is still a gap between I-196 and US 31 in Benton Harbor, MI
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 06, 2014, 05:13:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 06, 2014, 02:36:40 AM
Quote from: oscar on October 05, 2014, 05:14:08 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 05, 2014, 04:57:01 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on October 05, 2014, 03:08:00 PM
76) There are still drawbridge sections of the Interstate Highway System.
Since I live about six miles from one of those (the Woodrow Wilson Bridge), it doesn't surprise me at all. A higher-level bridge would have been hugely impractical there because avoiding steep grades would have required starting the bridge too far inland on each side; it also would have been aesthetically unacceptable and might have raised FAA issues due to the airport a short distance north. A tunnel would have been too expensive and, on the Maryland side, would have been difficult due to the topography (notable slope on that side).
Another option would've been to use a fixed span with the same clearance as the new drawbridge. Corps of Engineers issues with cutting off access by tall ships to the Alexandria and D.C. waterfronts. It also didn't help that such ships hauled newsprint for the Washington Post to a terminal north of the bridge.
Another option: two parallel bridges half the width of the current one, normally both in use but with ramps that allow all traffic to be sent to one or the other. Ships wait between the bridges for the other one to clear. This would be similar to the portion of the Victoria Bridge over the canal in Montreal (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=45.495052,-73.519285&spn=0.010815,0.024784&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=45.495104,-73.519141&panoid=0oUZThwnyr7qi1e4KSQQTg&cbp=12,89.25,,0,4.18), but there only one roadway/railway is in use at a time.
Yeah, I've been over the Pont Victoria a few times. I doubt that idea would have succeeded with the Wilson Bridge, had it been proposed at all, for a couple of practical reasons–they had to demolish one apartment building as it was, there's parkland on the Virginia shore with an historic site (the Jones Point Lighthouse), and there were endangered species issues on the Maryland side due to a bald eagle habitat. The Pont Victoria system is a good one for that particular location, though. The ramps would surely need a very different configuration on an Interstate.
I was actually thinking a Tunnel would be a better option given the uses of the river there. Although I was really making reference to the Interstate Bridge(s) between Vancouver, WA and Portland, OR.
It's 2014 and drivers still ram into each other like pin balls when it gets foggy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzdatOgJkIg
Quote from: tradephoric on November 20, 2014, 01:09:20 AM
It's 2014 and drivers still ram into each other like pin balls when it gets foggy.
Holy shit...150 cars? Good lord.
We had something similar last year on a bridge - 150 cars (though some of them were merely stuck between crashes), no fatalities, but 8 serious injuries. IIRC, two vehicles collided, and spun so you couldn't see the lights, and then more cars hit them. Cars then avoided hitting the pile up, but as visibility was low, there were some more minor prangs as drivers didn't notice until too late that the car in front was breaking. There was another bigger collision nearer the back, meaning many cars were stuck. Thankfully a lorry passing on the other carriageway had seen it and then blocked the roadway to stop more cars joining in on the other side.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/05/car-pileup-sheppey-bridge-kent (I know the article says 120, but later ones say 150).
About 30 drivers had enough evidence for prosecution (mostly for fairly minor charges like "driving without due care and attention"), but the main culprit was ruled to be the very thick fog.
And to think, this is roughly where the 'new London megahub airport' campaigners want the airport (though there's also the additional problem of birds at that site). OK, the bridge has additional issues with fog as its tall enough for shipping to pass under, but...
The valleys inland in California get those huge pileups in the fog too. Some people slow down, others continue at the speed limit and assume everyone else will too.
Quote from: kkt on November 20, 2014, 10:38:43 AM
The valleys inland in California get those huge pileups in the fog too. Some people slow down, others continue at the speed limit and assume everyone else will too.
That tule fog in the Sacramento/San Joaquin valley can be a real bitch to drive through. I've done it once and I hope I will never have to do it again. It was pretty much a white-knuckle drive from Los Banos to Bakersfield.
Here's a list of the larger tule fog related pileups in California...
* 1997, I-5 @ Elk Grove - 25 cars & 12 big rigs
* 2002, CA-99 near Kingsburg - 80+ cars & big rigs
* 2007, CA-99 near Fresno - 108 cars & 18 big rigs
We also have a dust problem in that region too. In 1991, a huge dust storm caused a 93 car, 11 big rig pileup on I-5 near Coalinga that killed 14 people and injured 114 others.
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 20, 2014, 01:16:49 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 20, 2014, 10:38:43 AM
The valleys inland in California get those huge pileups in the fog too. Some people slow down, others continue at the speed limit and assume everyone else will too.
That tule fog in the Sacramento/San Joaquin valley can be a real bitch to drive through. I've done it once and I hope I will never have to do it again. It was pretty much a white-knuckle drive from Los Banos to Bakersfield.
Here's a list of the larger tule fog related pileups in California...
* 1997, I-5 @ Elk Grove - 25 cars & 12 big rigs
* 2002, CA-99 near Kingsburg - 80+ cars & big rigs
* 2007, CA-99 near Fresno - 108 cars & 18 big rigs
We also have a dust problem in that region too. In 1991, a huge dust storm caused a 93 car, 11 big rig pileup on I-5 near Coalinga that killed 14 people and injured 114 others.
Doesn't the CHP use their cruisers as 'pace cars' when the fog is in there?
Mike
I-710 Never Connected to I-210. in Pasadena.
Quote from: mgk920 on November 25, 2014, 09:36:56 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 20, 2014, 01:16:49 PM
That tule fog in the Sacramento/San Joaquin valley can be a real bitch to drive through. I've done it once and I hope I will never have to do it again. It was pretty much a white-knuckle drive from Los Banos to Bakersfield.
Here's a list of the larger tule fog related pileups in California...
* 1997, I-5 @ Elk Grove - 25 cars & 12 big rigs
* 2002, CA-99 near Kingsburg - 80+ cars & big rigs
* 2007, CA-99 near Fresno - 108 cars & 18 big rigs
We also have a dust problem in that region too. In 1991, a huge dust storm caused a 93 car, 11 big rig pileup on I-5 near Coalinga that killed 14 people and injured 114 others.
Doesn't the CHP use their cruisers as 'pace cars' when the fog is in there?
Mike
Not that I know of.
During the winter months, dense fog can hang around for a considerable distance (10+ miles). It doesn't make sense for the CHP to escort traffic for that long a distance.
The Pan American Highway at the Darien Gap is still not completed.
Quote from: apjung on December 16, 2014, 03:48:22 PM
The Pan American Highway at the Darien Gap is still not completed.
If only they could get that through traffic off the local streets... :spin:
85. Street name signs that are all caps with 2 inch high letters are still being installed, even though sections 2D.05 and 2D.06 require that all new street name sign installments to have a combination of six inch initial uppercase AND 4.5 inch lowercase lettering.
86. There is still no highway that connects Barnwell County, S.C. and Burke County, Ga.
87. Railroad crossing signals without either a STOP/YIELD sign or a crossing gate continue to be installed.
88. WILLISTON RD (US Route 278) from New Ellenton to Beech Island, S.C. is still two lanes.
89. ATOMIC RD (S.C. Route 125) from Jackson to the JEFFERSON DAVIS HY interchange in Belvedere still has a speed limit of 55 mph.
90. LED signs have not been secure from hackers with criminal intent.
91. The Fall Line Freeway from Wrens to Sandersville, Ga. still have stoplights along the highway.
Quote from: mjb2002 on December 20, 2014, 01:38:34 PM
87. Railroad crossing signals without either a STOP/YIELD sign or a crossing gate continue to be installed.
Interesting. I didn't think new rail crossings were allowed to be installed without crossing gates.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 20, 2014, 02:58:19 PM
Quote from: mjb2002 on December 20, 2014, 01:38:34 PM
87. Railroad crossing signals without either a STOP/YIELD sign or a crossing gate continue to be installed.
Interesting. I didn't think new rail crossings were allowed to be installed without crossing gates.
That is to be determined by state DOTs based on traffic counts, etc. After all, no one is going all out on new private crossing installs.
Also, the MUTCD requires that YIELD signs be installed under the crossbucks of passive crossings. Look at section 8B.04, paragraphs 5 & 6 explains why.
Quote from: cjk374 on December 20, 2014, 05:35:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 20, 2014, 02:58:19 PM
Quote from: mjb2002 on December 20, 2014, 01:38:34 PM
87. Railroad crossing signals without either a STOP/YIELD sign or a crossing gate continue to be installed.
Interesting. I didn't think new rail crossings were allowed to be installed without crossing gates.
That is to be determined by state DOTs based on traffic counts, etc. After all, no one is going all out on new private crossing installs.
Also, the MUTCD requires that YIELD signs be installed under the crossbucks of passive crossings. Look at section 8B.04, paragraphs 5 & 6 explains why.
Older installations might not have been retrofitted, but every sign replacement/new passive crossing I've seen out here has a yield sign
Quote from: cl94 on December 20, 2014, 06:36:30 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on December 20, 2014, 05:35:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 20, 2014, 02:58:19 PM
Quote from: mjb2002 on December 20, 2014, 01:38:34 PM
87. Railroad crossing signals without either a STOP/YIELD sign or a crossing gate continue to be installed.
Interesting. I didn't think new rail crossings were allowed to be installed without crossing gates.
That is to be determined by state DOTs based on traffic counts, etc. After all, no one is going all out on new private crossing installs.
Also, the MUTCD requires that YIELD signs be installed under the crossbucks of passive crossings. Look at section 8B.04, paragraphs 5 & 6 explains why.
Older installations might not have been retrofitted, but every sign replacement/new passive crossing I've seen out here has a yield sign
Louisiana gave out grant $$ so the railroads would upgrade all signage at passive grade crossings. The upgrades include new crossbucks, yield/stop signs (where appropriate) & new DOT crossing info signs all mounted on metal break-away poles.
Quote from: cjk374 on December 20, 2014, 05:35:14 PM
Also, the MUTCD requires that YIELD signs be installed under the crossbucks of passive crossings. Look at section 8B.04, paragraphs 5 & 6 explains why.
Isn't that redundant? Only a suicidal driver would not yield to a train.
QuoteAlso, the MUTCD requires that YIELD signs be installed under the crossbucks of passive crossings.
This is because the crossbuck only tells drivers that there is a crossing. it does not tell them what they need to do. Yes, of course they should know what to do, but they often don't.
Keep in mind that a lot of drivers aren't as sharp as most of us on this board probably are.
Considering how often accidents occur at unsignalized crossings, the stop and yield signs are a relatively cheap safety measure.
92. I-69 has yet to be constructed north of Memphis to the KY line or south past Shreveport to the TX line
93. I-269 will be completed before I-69 ever will
94. I-2 now exists
95. The three I-69 splits in TX now exist
96. It's going to be 2015 in 9 days... :)
Quote from: cjk374 on December 20, 2014, 05:35:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 20, 2014, 02:58:19 PM
Quote from: mjb2002 on December 20, 2014, 01:38:34 PM
87. Railroad crossing signals without either a STOP/YIELD sign or a crossing gate continue to be installed.
Interesting. I didn't think new rail crossings were allowed to be installed without crossing gates.
That is to be determined by state DOTs based on traffic counts, etc. After all, no one is going all out on new private crossing installs.
Also, the MUTCD requires that YIELD signs be installed under the crossbucks of passive crossings. Look at section 8B.04, paragraphs 5 & 6 explains why.
YIELDs are only the default TCD for passive grade crossings. STOP signs can also be used at passive grade crossings. Passive grade crossings are those that lack crossing gates and lights, plain and simple.
There's new installations of a crossing behind AGY in Aiken, S.C. (on CHARLESTON HY) that has no crossing gate, no YIELD sign or no STOP sign. This was installed in March.
97. I-676 East still runs on a block of 6th St in Philly
98. The Blue Route portion of I-476 isn't 6 lanes from head to toe
99. The DRPA still hasn't been dissolved
100. I-76 still doesn't start in Atlantic City
101. The Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway hasn't been built yet.
102. This thread will be dead in a few days.
103. Someone will start an "It's 2015 and I still can't believe that..." thread.
104. It's 2014 and I still can't believe that it's 2014 and I still can't believe that it's 2014 and I still can't believe that it's 2014 and I ...
Quote from: Alps on December 23, 2014, 09:02:33 PM
104. It's 2014 and I still can't believe that it's 2014 and I still can't believe that it's 2014 and I still can't believe that it's 2014 and I ...
^ C
105. In the era of tight budgets and spending cuts, state legislatures still insist on spending money on signs naming overpasses and intersections, especially those that are "in honor of" local school districts. (Yeah, we'll give you this pretty little sign, but we'll still cut your overall funding!)
IIRC, California law requires that all such signs be paid for via private funds. Usually there is some sort of donation drive organized by the local VA, police/fire union, or victim charity, depending on who it's being named for.
106. That this thread and the year will end in 59 hours and 47 minutes for me (2014 flew by :-o )
107. That every year seems to go by faster than previous ones.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 29, 2014, 06:08:26 PM
107. That every year seems to go by faster than previous ones.
It's called getting older. :bigass:
Quote from: ET21 on December 29, 2014, 12:33:39 PM
106. That this thread and the year will end in 59 hours and 47 minutes for me (2014 flew by :-o )
Not fast enough. Good riddance to 2014.
Quote from: Takumi on December 29, 2014, 10:39:26 PM
Good riddance to 2014.
If you want salt in the wound (with apologies to Don McLean (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih7N9_VUU4U)):
Quote
A long, long time ago ...
I can't remember if I cried
When I read about the mods' broadside
But something touched me deep inside
The year TheAlan died.
So bye-bye Mr. Grand Unified
Drove my goat to the moat, but the moat was dry ...
OK. Back on track
108. There is STILL no direct freeway from Hartford to Providence
109. There is still no fixed Long Island Sound crossing.
110. I-84 in Waterbury is still only 2 lanes in most parts.
111. CT 11 is still not finished
112. 2015 is now less than two days away!
113. It's 2015 now. Where's my flying car?
Quote from: apjung on January 02, 2015, 05:24:19 AM
113. It's 2015 now. Where's my flying car?
Don't get too far ahead. Just start wearing your clothes inside out. The flying cars will show up eventually.