So, what complaints are you tired of hearing? Things that other people complain about that don't bother you in the slightest?
For me, it's fonts. I actually like seeing Arial or Helvetica or something other than FHWA or Clearview on a sign. I like seeing something different every now and then.
The grid. I'm completely fine that diagonal interstates and US routes are not in its grid position for a part of its route.
CA 99 and CA 58 not being Interstates.
"Speed kills"
Breezewood. Really some of you need to get over it.
Some on here refuse to patronize the towns gas stations or motels cause of their stopping I-70 and the Turnpike from having a proper connection. Like they all are going to notice or care. To them your refusal is like Chick Fil A and Bergen County, NJ missing revenue on Sunday.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 24, 2022, 12:42:04 AM
So, what complaints are you tired of hearing? Things that other people complain about that don't bother you in the slightest?
For me, it's fonts. I actually like seeing Arial or Helvetica or something other than FHWA or Clearview on a sign. I like seeing something different every now and then.
Blech.
Quote from: 1 on April 24, 2022, 07:14:01 AM
"Speed kills"
Yeah, this one is tiresome given the large amount of research that has been done that has offered more nuance to the issue -- and has done so for decades now.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 24, 2022, 07:20:00 AM
Breezewood. Really some of you need to get over it.
Some on here refuse to patronize the towns gas stations or motels cause of their stopping I-70 and the Turnpike from having a proper connection. Like they all are going to notice or care. To them your refusal is like Chick Fil A and Bergen County, NJ missing revenue on Sunday.
Yeah, no. Breezewood is a bottleneck of national significance.
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2022, 07:27:21 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 24, 2022, 07:20:00 AM
Breezewood. Really some of you need to get over it.
Some on here refuse to patronize the towns gas stations or motels cause of their stopping I-70 and the Turnpike from having a proper connection. Like they all are going to notice or care. To them your refusal is like Chick Fil A and Bergen County, NJ missing revenue on Sunday.
Yeah, no. Breezewood is a bottleneck of national significance.
Yeah but we can’t control it though. You can write your local Congressman who supports Green Energy and won’t get anywhere with it either.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 24, 2022, 07:32:34 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2022, 07:27:21 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 24, 2022, 07:20:00 AM
Breezewood. Really some of you need to get over it.
Some on here refuse to patronize the towns gas stations or motels cause of their stopping I-70 and the Turnpike from having a proper connection. Like they all are going to notice or care. To them your refusal is like Chick Fil A and Bergen County, NJ missing revenue on Sunday.
Yeah, no. Breezewood is a bottleneck of national significance.
Yeah but we can't control it though. You can write your local Congressman who supports Green Energy and won't get anywhere with it either.
Complaining about things we can't control is an inherent American trait, commie.
Finding a barely relevant excuse (i.e. "too slow for trucks) for hating roundabouts because you're averse to any change.
Saying I-39 and/or I-41 shouldn't be an Interstate.
I love it when people complain! Just as long as they have solutions. Complaining without solutions is just useless whining. But complaining and offering solutions leads to constructive action - and it's entertaining! It's like having your very own Oscar the Grouch!
The word 'complain' even sounds like it's complaining: comPLAAAAAIIINNN!!!
How "stroads" are evil and should never be allowed to exist. Or the general argument that all roads must be for access only or travel only. It implies that arterials can't be built with better traffic control in mind through the use of medians and safe sidewalks.
Or generally speaking, the way people complain in general about the U.S. road system, including Interstates. Those that say Europe does everything so much better.
I also hate when people suggest highways should be ripped out because "highways are evil". I've seen comments on YouTube videos about how Lake Shore Dr. in Chicago should be replaced with a road only for buses and bikes.
I-894 existing
I-494/694 not being one number
That MN didn't keep US routes as parallel alternate routes to interstates (note: not keeping parallel route =/= agreement with aggressive decommissioning)
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 24, 2022, 04:13:38 PM
How "stroads" are evil and should never be allowed to exist. Or the general argument that all roads must be for access only or travel only. It implies that arterials can't be built with better traffic control in mind through the use of medians and safe sidewalks.
Uncritical use of the word "stroad" is generally a pretty good marker that someone can't be trusted to have sensible opinions on transportation.
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 24, 2022, 12:43:14 AM
The grid. I'm completely fine that diagonal interstates and US routes are not in its grid position for a part of its route.
Another check. I don't care about the grid as long as some of the route is in the correct position.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 04:25:49 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 24, 2022, 04:13:38 PM
How "stroads" are evil and should never be allowed to exist. Or the general argument that all roads must be for access only or travel only. It implies that arterials can't be built with better traffic control in mind through the use of medians and safe sidewalks.
Uncritical use of the word "stroad" is generally a pretty good marker that someone can't be trusted to have sensible opinions on transportation.
This is the first time I have ever heard the term "stroad."
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2022, 07:24:50 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 24, 2022, 12:49:46 AM
CA 99 and CA 58 not being Interstates.
CA 99 should be.
Yes, the problem I usually have with said complaint is the lack of understanding the reasoning why it hasn't happened and what it would take for it to happen. At least with CA 99 there is sound reasoning, I'm not even sure how the same started with CA 58.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 24, 2022, 04:46:56 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 04:25:49 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 24, 2022, 04:13:38 PM
How "stroads" are evil and should never be allowed to exist. Or the general argument that all roads must be for access only or travel only. It implies that arterials can't be built with better traffic control in mind through the use of medians and safe sidewalks.
Uncritical use of the word "stroad" is generally a pretty good marker that someone can't be trusted to have sensible opinions on transportation.
This is the first time I have ever heard the term "stroad."
It's mostly a term of derision used by the "cars are ruining America" crowd to refer to typical suburban arterials, which they feel like are some sort of unhappy medium between "streets" and "roads" (which of course is a dichotomy that didn't exist until they invented it for the purpose of making up the term "stroad").
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 04:57:14 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 24, 2022, 04:46:56 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 04:25:49 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 24, 2022, 04:13:38 PM
How "stroads" are evil and should never be allowed to exist. Or the general argument that all roads must be for access only or travel only. It implies that arterials can't be built with better traffic control in mind through the use of medians and safe sidewalks.
Uncritical use of the word "stroad" is generally a pretty good marker that someone can't be trusted to have sensible opinions on transportation.
This is the first time I have ever heard the term "stroad."
It's mostly a term of derision used by the "cars are ruining America" crowd to refer to typical suburban arterials, which they feel like are some sort of unhappy medium between "streets" and "roads" (which of course is a dichotomy that didn't exist until they invented it for the purpose of making up the term "stroad").
"Stroad" sounds like a type of beer.
- Clearview complaints
- What JoePCool14 and 1 said
- "Road work is annoying, so therefore I'm against this project"... I've seen this attitude on Facebook a bit.
- People (mostly New Urbanists or their supporters) that throw Houston under the bus for not having mass transit and being car-centered without considering why it's that way
What about the I-95 verses NJ Turnpike alignment? Some still complain that I-95 should be the whole NJ Turnpike where Philbos has to step in to defend I-95 in PA.
Oh, and then there is Wilmington now used by NJTA for the SB control city over what some on here want which is to sign Baltimore instead of Delaware's largest city as is been started on new guides in New Jersey.
Plus how many times do people complain on here about MDSHA skipping Philadelphia on I-95 NB for New York or New York City north of Baltimore?
I-70 not being completed in Baltimore.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 07:13:09 PM
I-70 not being completed in Baltimore.
On a related note, the debate over whether I-70 really enters Baltimore or not.
The debate of whether the New Jersey Turnpike Exits 1-6 should be an x95.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on April 24, 2022, 05:00:46 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 04:57:14 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 24, 2022, 04:46:56 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 04:25:49 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 24, 2022, 04:13:38 PM
How "stroads" are evil and should never be allowed to exist. Or the general argument that all roads must be for access only or travel only. It implies that arterials can't be built with better traffic control in mind through the use of medians and safe sidewalks.
Uncritical use of the word "stroad" is generally a pretty good marker that someone can't be trusted to have sensible opinions on transportation.
This is the first time I have ever heard the term "stroad."
It's mostly a term of derision used by the "cars are ruining America" crowd to refer to typical suburban arterials, which they feel like are some sort of unhappy medium between "streets" and "roads" (which of course is a dichotomy that didn't exist until they invented it for the purpose of making up the term "stroad").
"Stroad" sounds like a type of beer.
This is all the term "stroad" makes me think of:
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette2.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fmario%2Fimages%2Fa%2Fae%2FNSMBW_Artwork_Toad.png%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20111115195110%26path-prefix%3Dde&f=1&nofb=1)
As I've been reading through this thread, I keep forgetting that the double-negative means the replies have been things that people don't care about (and therefore, are bothered by others complaining about them).
With that in mind, I would nominate people complaining about I-99 being out of grid. Yes, it's imperfect, but I don't have an issue with it and I've even advocated for it to be extended north to Rochester. And if/when that ever happens, I will pre-emptively nominate "I-99 north has an overlap with I-80 east, then I-86 west!" as another "complaint that bothers me"... because who cares? :sombrero:
Hays and Limon being control cities. (Maybe I just don't like it when people complain about I-70.)
When freeways are given an Interstate designation. We have an entire numbering system that means "this road is a freeway" and people complain when it gets used for that purpose. I don't get it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 09:54:33 PM
Maybe I just don't like it when people complain about I-70.
I noticed that I-70 seemed to be one of the most complained about interstates on this forum
- Baltimore (mostly one person though, but it's significant enough)
- Breezewood
- Some of its control cities, including Hays and Limon that you mentioned
- The occasional "Why doesn't it go to California"
I like Breezewood because it's a place to stop and you can get right back on route. I don't care if you have to exit off I-70 and back on to stay on the route who in the hell cares? A minor stop isn't going to matter too much in the long run.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 24, 2022, 12:49:46 AM
CA 99 and CA 58 not being Interstates.
Similarly, NJ 42 & the AC Expressway needing to be I-76. And any argument that says they should be interstate highways really falls apart when people claim it's needed for economic development, which is what the area *doesn't* want as a good deal of the area is a national reserve. At this point some people still give it a big FU and says build anyway, because they don't really care about the significance of an area and just equate a limited access highway as needing an interstate shield.
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2022, 07:27:21 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 24, 2022, 07:20:00 AM
Breezewood. Really some of you need to get over it.
Some on here refuse to patronize the towns gas stations or motels cause of their stopping I-70 and the Turnpike from having a proper connection. Like they all are going to notice or care. To them your refusal is like Chick Fil A and Bergen County, NJ missing revenue on Sunday.
Yeah, no. Breezewood is a bottleneck of national significance.
Not really. It's a fairly unique condition among Interstate highway expectations, but it's not much of a bottleneck. And like was just posted, some people actually like the gas stations on the route, just like people want service plazas on all highways.
What gets me is those who don't like Wilmington on the NJ Turnpike south of Exit 6. So what? It's not like the road is way out away from it. It connects to I-95 via I-295 near it and it's close enough to be of importance. Yes Baltimore will work, but so will Washington, Richmond, and even Miami as well.
At least New Jersey is getting with the program finally as freeway control cities ( especially on the Turnpike and Parkway) were sparse to none and mostly on freeway to freeway interchanges still. Heck some interstates still sign the Garden State Parkway as " GS Parkway" rather than use proper destination points. So Wilmington is better than before, although I had no problem with Delaware Memorial Bridge previously as the Feds did.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 24, 2022, 10:35:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 24, 2022, 12:49:46 AM
CA 99 and CA 58 not being Interstates.
Similarly, NJ 42 & the AC Expressway needing to be I-76. And any argument that says they should be interstate highways really falls apart when people claim it's needed for economic development, which is what the area *doesn't* want as a good deal of the area is a national reserve. At this point some people still give it a big FU and says build anyway, because they don't really care about the significance of an area and just equate a limited access highway as needing an interstate shield.
There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.
(Post #14666 of mine, appropriately enough.)
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 10:50:55 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 24, 2022, 10:35:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 24, 2022, 12:49:46 AM
CA 99 and CA 58 not being Interstates.
Similarly, NJ 42 & the AC Expressway needing to be I-76. And any argument that says they should be interstate highways really falls apart when people claim it's needed for economic development, which is what the area *doesn't* want as a good deal of the area is a national reserve. At this point some people still give it a big FU and says build anyway, because they don't really care about the significance of an area and just equate a limited access highway as needing an interstate shield.
There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.
(Post #14666 of mine, appropriately enough.)
FHWA funds didn't go into the construction. Certainly was the case with was US 99 on the current CA 99 corridor and modern CA 58 (which was mostly built post US 466). That said, there was certainly Federal Aid projects that went into both.
At minimum that's what a ADOT rep told me once regarding why the Arizona Loop freeways aren't three digit Interstates.
The last time presence or lack of an Interstate shield alone determined funding, I was five years old and Friends was in its second season.
Only NC seems to be on the crusade to sign all freeways as interstates. Every place else is happy using state numbers or preexisting US numbers.
All freeways don't need the shield, although in Florida I think both SR 417 and 429 need to be only to rid the tolls that cost way too much for a typical beltway set up. In fact the ACE reason some state here don't compare to the reason why State Roads 417 and 429 around Orlando need the designation.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 11:04:40 PM
The last time presence or lack of an Interstate shield alone determined funding, I was five years old.
But CA 99 and CA 58 were of the era they could have been picked up as chargeable Interstates. California asked for such a thing for CA 58 east of Bakersfield in 1968 but was denied. The corridor of CA 99 was mostly built up before the Interstate era and was the original planned corridor of I-5. California ultimately opted for Federal Funds to built I-5 on the West Side Freeway corridor.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 11:08:14 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 24, 2022, 11:07:50 PM
All freeways don't need the shield
Why not?
Look at NC. A state that went from five two digits with only three of them long distance, to all the current interstates and miles of unbuilt future interstates on the books which all won't be every completed this century.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 24, 2022, 11:13:53 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 11:08:14 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 24, 2022, 11:07:50 PM
All freeways don't need the shield
Why not?
Look at NC. A state that went from five two digits with only three of them long distance, to all the current interstates and miles of unbuilt future interstates on the books which all won't be every completed this century.
Why should I care? I can drive around NC and know which roads are going to be freeways and which aren't.
Ideally yes, but still NC is overkill with all their interstates over the past twenty years.
The suggestion here on AA Roads for I-76 to be extended is for some history to be witnessed and for merit only us in the road following world will see.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 24, 2022, 11:23:38 PM
Ideally yes, but still NC is overkill with all their interstates over the past twenty years.
If they have, that's for North Carolina voters to decide. If they want to spend the money to build a freeway, it is to my benefit that they put an Interstate shield on it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 24, 2022, 10:35:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2022, 07:27:21 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 24, 2022, 07:20:00 AM
Breezewood. Really some of you need to get over it.
Some on here refuse to patronize the towns gas stations or motels cause of their stopping I-70 and the Turnpike from having a proper connection. Like they all are going to notice or care. To them your refusal is like Chick Fil A and Bergen County, NJ missing revenue on Sunday.
Yeah, no. Breezewood is a bottleneck of national significance.
Not really. It's a fairly unique condition among Interstate highway expectations, but it's not much of a bottleneck. And like was just posted, some people actually like the gas stations on the route, just like people want service plazas on all highways.
Just a simple Google search of "Breezewood bottleneck" indicates otherwise.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 10:50:55 PM
There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.
You actually haven't proven why you need a limited access highway to be signed an interstate. Are you purposely avoiding freeways not signed as interstates and instead taking longer routes or local roads to prove your point? And to whom are you proving that point to?
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2022, 11:33:30 PM
Just a simple Google search of "Breezewood bottleneck" indicates otherwise.
You may want to actually read the sites listed. By far, most of them say things like "I didn't encounter the traffic jams others have mentioned" - without referencing any jams others have mentioned. The pictures posted aren't showing congestion (unless you point to the pics from last century). Many links are opinion pieces on views similar to yours that the traffic lights don't belong. But bottlenecks? The headlines are mostly clickbait to suck you in to read the article, without actually detailing anything in the way of a bottleneck.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 25, 2022, 12:44:05 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 10:50:55 PM
There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.
You actually haven't proven why you need a limited access highway to be signed an interstate. Are you purposely avoiding freeways not signed as interstates and instead taking longer routes or local roads to prove your point? And to whom are you proving that point to?
If every freeway were signed as an Interstate, you wouldn't need a map to know whether a given road is a freeway or not.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 24, 2022, 11:23:38 PM
Ideally yes, but still NC is overkill with all their interstates over the past twenty years.
That sentence is contradictory. You're saying that in an ideal world, all highways would be marked as Interstates, but North Carolina is building and designating too many. If they want them (or need them), and can build them, then put an Interstate banner on it.
I agree with Scott, when freeways are marked as Interstates, it's crystal clear to out-of-towners that this road is a freeway. I know some people from the Wisconsin thread will disagree...
What about substandard freeways, like MA 2, MA/RI 146 (both have at-grade sections in the middle), and solo MA 128 (short ramps)?
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 10:50:55 PM
There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.
1. To be signed as an Interstate, I think, the freeway in question should connect to the
network of other Interstates. If there is a freeway that is isolated from others–i.e., it doesn't connect to any other freeways–then it should not be signed as an Interstate.
2. To be signed as an Interstate, I think, the freeway in question should be up to certain standards (with some exceptions granted to those grandfathered in). If there is a freeway that falls far short of those standards–e.g. shoulder width or vertical clearances–then it should not be signed as an Interstate.
A complaint that bothers me: anything having to do with route numbers.
I am tired of complaints about complaints.
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2022, 10:58:18 AM
I am tired of complaints about complaints.
That sounds like a complaint.
Quote from: jlam on April 25, 2022, 11:05:38 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2022, 10:58:18 AM
I am tired of complaints about complaints.
That sounds like a complaint.
Are you complaining about my complaint?
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2022, 11:10:44 AM
Quote from: jlam on April 25, 2022, 11:05:38 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2022, 10:58:18 AM
I am tired of complaints about complaints.
That sounds like a complaint.
Are you complaining about my complaint?
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2022, 07:34:30 AM
Complaining about things we can't control is an inherent American trait, commie.
How many sides are on this fence?
It does get tiring when a complaint about {Breezewood, I-99, Clearview, Renumbering, roundabouts, flat Illinois} spills over into every tenth thread, especially when we've heard the same things from the same users, and it's patently off-topic.
Quote from: formulanone on April 25, 2022, 12:08:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2022, 11:10:44 AM
Quote from: jlam on April 25, 2022, 11:05:38 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2022, 10:58:18 AM
I am tired of complaints about complaints.
That sounds like a complaint.
Are you complaining about my complaint?
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2022, 07:34:30 AM
Complaining about things we can't control is an inherent American trait, commie.
How many sides are on this fence?
Being on the fence is un-American.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 25, 2022, 12:11:39 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 25, 2022, 12:08:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2022, 11:10:44 AM
Quote from: jlam on April 25, 2022, 11:05:38 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2022, 10:58:18 AM
I am tired of complaints about complaints.
That sounds like a complaint.
Are you complaining about my complaint?
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2022, 07:34:30 AM
Complaining about things we can't control is an inherent American trait, commie.
How many sides are on this fence?
Being on the fence is un-American.
Plymouth Fence landed on us!
complaints about IDOT
I'm complaining about all these complaints about complaining.
Quote from: formulanone on April 25, 2022, 12:08:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2022, 11:10:44 AM
Quote from: jlam on April 25, 2022, 11:05:38 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2022, 10:58:18 AM
I am tired of complaints about complaints.
That sounds like a complaint.
Are you complaining about my complaint?
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2022, 07:34:30 AM
Complaining about things we can't control is an inherent American trait, commie.
How many sides are on this fence?
It does get tiring when a complaint about {Breezewood, I-99, Clearview, Renumbering, roundabouts, flat Illinois} spills over into every tenth thread, especially when we've heard the same things from the same users, and it's patently off-topic.
That sounds like a complaint.
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2022, 12:24:11 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 25, 2022, 12:08:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2022, 11:10:44 AM
Quote from: jlam on April 25, 2022, 11:05:38 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2022, 10:58:18 AM
I am tired of complaints about complaints.
That sounds like a complaint.
Are you complaining about my complaint?
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2022, 07:34:30 AM
Complaining about things we can't control is an inherent American trait, commie.
How many sides are on this fence?
It does get tiring when a complaint about {Breezewood, I-99, Clearview, Renumbering, roundabouts, flat Illinois} spills over into every tenth thread, especially when we've heard the same things from the same users, and it's patently off-topic.
That sounds like a complaint.
Are you complaining about his complaint?
Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 10:57:06 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 10:50:55 PM
There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.
1. To be signed as an Interstate, I think, the freeway in question should connect to the network of other Interstates. If there is a freeway that is isolated from others–i.e., it doesn't connect to any other freeways–then it should not be signed as an Interstate.
2. To be signed as an Interstate, I think, the freeway in question should be up to certain standards (with some exceptions granted to those grandfathered in). If there is a freeway that falls far short of those standards–e.g. shoulder width or vertical clearances–then it should not be signed as an Interstate.
I agree with both of those arguments, unless the section of freeway is planned to be connected to the rest of the network. Or the highway is in Hawaii, Alaska, or Puerto Rico.
Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 12:13:08 PM
complaints about IDOT
I feel personally attacked.
I feel dumber for having briefly read this thread.
Quote from: MikieTimT on April 25, 2022, 12:39:11 PM
I feel dumber for having briefly read this thread.
Sounds like a complaint about the complaining.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 25, 2022, 12:37:36 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 10:57:06 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 10:50:55 PM
There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.
1. To be signed as an Interstate, I think, the freeway in question should connect to the network of other Interstates. If there is a freeway that is isolated from others–i.e., it doesn't connect to any other freeways–then it should not be signed as an Interstate.
2. To be signed as an Interstate, I think, the freeway in question should be up to certain standards (with some exceptions granted to those grandfathered in). If there is a freeway that falls far short of those standards–e.g. shoulder width or vertical clearances–then it should not be signed as an Interstate.
I agree with both of those arguments, unless the section of freeway is planned to be connected to the rest of the network. Or the highway is in Hawaii, Alaska, or Puerto Rico.
Even for Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, though, each one forms its own system. I'm OK with that. If, however, Kuihelani Highway (on Maui) became a freeway, I wouldn't be OK with designating it as an Interstate.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 24, 2022, 04:53:00 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2022, 07:24:50 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 24, 2022, 12:49:46 AM
CA 99 and CA 58 not being Interstates.
CA 99 should be.
Yes, the problem I usually have with said complaint is the lack of understanding the reasoning why it hasn't happened and what it would take for it to happen. At least with CA 99 there is sound reasoning, I'm not even sure how the same started with CA 58.
CASR-99 was *APPROVED* as an interstate route, but upgrading it proved to be too onerous so, as long as "the Fed were paying 90%", I-5 was built along a new alignment. CASR-58 has been upgraded (and is continuing to be) in pieces so that it has started to look like it was meant to be an interstate, but never was, nor was it ever contemplated as such.
Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 12:29:06 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2022, 12:24:11 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 25, 2022, 12:08:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2022, 11:10:44 AM
Quote from: jlam on April 25, 2022, 11:05:38 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2022, 10:58:18 AM
I am tired of complaints about complaints.
That sounds like a complaint.
Are you complaining about my complaint?
Quote from: Rothman on April 24, 2022, 07:34:30 AM
Complaining about things we can't control is an inherent American trait, commie.
How many sides are on this fence?
It does get tiring when a complaint about {Breezewood, I-99, Clearview, Renumbering, roundabouts, flat Illinois} spills over into every tenth thread, especially when we've heard the same things from the same users, and it's patently off-topic.
That sounds like a complaint.
Are you complaining about his complaint?
Yes, and I am complaining to myself about it.
Most complaints that take an all-or-nothing stance bother me.
Example: Complaints that a highway expansion project should be axed, and the funds diverted to improving public transit and cycling infrastructure, often appear to come from a position that any and all improvement to car-based infrastructure should be opposed–and that bothers me. On the flip side, though, complaints about new urbanism, transit advocates, freeway removal, etc, often appear to come from a position that downgrading car-based infrastructure could never, anywhere, possibly be worth any consideration–and that bothers me too. Perhaps instead, and I know I'm probably crazy for thinking it, some projects have more merit than others.
A similar issue seems to persist when it comes to roundabouts. Some people love them and wish every intersection in the world were a roundabout, while others think they should all be bombed into oblivion. Interestingly, that has been one of my biggest takeaways from the 'Crash-prone Modern Roundabouts' thread: that there may actually be specific characteristics and conditions that make some roundabout designs and implementations preferable to others.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 04:57:14 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 24, 2022, 04:46:56 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 04:25:49 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 24, 2022, 04:13:38 PM
How "stroads" are evil and should never be allowed to exist. Or the general argument that all roads must be for access only or travel only. It implies that arterials can't be built with better traffic control in mind through the use of medians and safe sidewalks.
Uncritical use of the word "stroad" is generally a pretty good marker that someone can't be trusted to have sensible opinions on transportation.
This is the first time I have ever heard the term "stroad."
It's mostly a term of derision used by the "cars are ruining America" crowd to refer to typical suburban arterials, which they feel like are some sort of unhappy medium between "streets" and "roads" (which of course is a dichotomy that didn't exist until they invented it for the purpose of making up the term "stroad").
I figured it was some sort of mashup of "street" and "road."
Can we expect PennDOT to sign exits to PA 123 as "Stroad" instead of "Street Road" now? :bigass:
Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 01:55:15 PM
Most complaints that take an all-or-nothing stance bother me.
Besides, it's more fun watching everyone cry that they didn't get 100% of their way.
Quote from: michravera on April 25, 2022, 01:10:57 PM
CASR-58 has been upgraded (and is continuing to be) in pieces so that it has started to look like it was meant to be an interstate, but never was, nor was it ever contemplated as such.
Except, as mentioned upthread, that the Barstow to Bakersfield section
was submitted as a potential Interstate twice - in 1956 and 1968.
Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 10:57:06 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 10:50:55 PM
There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.
1. To be signed as an Interstate, I think, the freeway in question should connect to the network of other Interstates. If there is a freeway that is isolated from others–i.e., it doesn't connect to any other freeways–then it should not be signed as an Interstate.
So I assume this means you don't agree with I-2/I-69C/I-69E? Should South Texas have I-T2/I-T69C/I-T69E until such point as they're connected to the main network?
I'm not so sure that network connectivity is something that registers in the minds of anyone not on this forum. Hell, I've heard people in Ada, Oklahoma refer to the local freeway as "the Interstate", despite the fact that it's a state highway and it doesn't connect to any other freeways, let alone Interstates.
Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 10:57:06 AM
2. To be signed as an Interstate, I think, the freeway in question should be up to certain standards (with some exceptions granted to those grandfathered in). If there is a freeway that falls far short of those standards–e.g. shoulder width or vertical clearances–then it should not be signed as an Interstate.
Yes, I would say interstate standards still need to be enforced. It's important to have a defined standard for what a freeway is.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 10:50:55 PMThere is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.
There are good reasons why not to give freeways interstate shields, kphoger gave two, 'too short' is another. Tolls, possibly?
But yes, the onus should be more on the "not everything needs to be an interstate" crowd to explain why a freeway shouldn't be one than the "bring out the blue and red shields" to try and justify interstate status for a freeway that meets the basic criteria of being up to standards and forming a coherent addition to the network.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 25, 2022, 04:58:26 PM
So I assume this means you don't agree with I-2/I-69C/I-69E? Should South Texas have I-T2/I-T69C/I-T69E until such point as they're connected to the main network?
Correct. I don't think they should be signed as Interstates until they're connected to the network. It drives me nuts when Interstates are signed in pieces. (And yes, I realize that's the way it's always been done, such as I-40 as it replaced US-66.) As it is with I-2 and I-69C/E/W/X/Y/Z, there's little difference from what they were before the red and blue signs went up: they still just lead you to non-freeway routes.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 25, 2022, 04:58:26 PM
I would say interstate standards still need to be enforced. It's important to have a defined standard for what a freeway is.
Our point is that there are freeways that aren't up to Interstate standards. They're still freeways, though.
Quote from: english si on April 25, 2022, 05:00:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 10:50:55 PMThere is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.
There are good reasons why not to give freeways interstate shields, kphoger gave two, 'too short' is another. Tolls, possibly?
There are plenty of tolled interstates already. There's one in my state (I-44, which has three separate tolled segments) and soon to be another (I-240) and there's four in the state just north of me (portions of I-35, I-335, I-470, I-70). The newer MUTCDs have a yellow "TOLL" cartouche that should be used to indicate the toll status of a road, whether or not it is an interstate.
As for length, even if something is a short connector between two other interstates, like I-238, I have no problem with it being an Interstate. I would rather be able to infer freeway-ness from the route shield than length. Which is already impossible to determine from a route shield anyway, since we didn't assign the Interstate numbers in order of length.
Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 05:08:37 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 25, 2022, 04:58:26 PM
I would say interstate standards still need to be enforced. It's important to have a defined standard for what a freeway is.
Our point is that there are freeways that aren't up to Interstate standards. They're still freeways, though.
I'm fine with substandard freeways not getting the shield.
Quote from: english si on April 25, 2022, 05:00:04 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 10:50:55 PMThere is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.
There are good reasons why not to give freeways interstate shields, kphoger gave two, 'too short' is another. Tolls, possibly?
But yes, the onus should be more on the "not everything needs to be an interstate" crowd to explain why a freeway shouldn't be one than the "bring out the blue and red shields" to try and justify interstate status for a freeway that meets the basic criteria of being up to standards and forming a coherent addition to the network.
So we need to somehow prove something that has existed and worked, for over 60 years in some cases, exists and works?
Plenty of examples of that. The NJ Turnpike for starters. Even adding the Interstate shield to Interchange 6 and the PA Tpk Extension hasn't caused most travelers to suddenly abandon the Turnpike.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 10:50:55 PM
There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 25, 2022, 05:19:24 PM
I'm fine with substandard freeways not getting the shield.
What's my prize?
Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 07:03:50 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 10:50:55 PM
There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 25, 2022, 05:19:24 PM
I'm fine with substandard freeways not getting the shield.
What's my prize?
D&D is cancelled this week, so I'll award you...hm...
challenge rating of 6...monster count multiplier...carry the two... 900 XP.
I'll also throw in a free copy of Linux.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 25, 2022, 08:31:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 07:03:50 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 10:50:55 PM
There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 25, 2022, 05:19:24 PM
I'm fine with substandard freeways not getting the shield.
What's my prize?
D&D is cancelled this week, so I'll award you...hm...challenge rating of 6...monster count multiplier...carry the two... 900 XP.
I'll also throw in a free copy of Linux.
And here I thought you were going to offer a signed plaque that said "Substandard freeways are not freeways". :-P
Quote from: DTComposer on April 25, 2022, 04:17:45 PM
Quote from: michravera on April 25, 2022, 01:10:57 PM
CASR-58 has been upgraded (and is continuing to be) in pieces so that it has started to look like it was meant to be an interstate, but never was, nor was it ever contemplated as such.
Except, as mentioned upthread, that the Barstow to Bakersfield section was submitted as a potential Interstate twice - in 1956 and 1968.
LOTS of segments were SUBMITTED, including US-50 from Sacramento to Carson City (also twice). The difference is that CASR-99 was APPROVED, but switched.
Toll roads.
Look at all the bridges that are structurally deficient or maybe on the verge of collapsing, and then come whine to me about having to pay a direct fee for something you use.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 25, 2022, 08:31:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 07:03:50 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 10:50:55 PM
There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 25, 2022, 05:19:24 PM
I'm fine with substandard freeways not getting the shield.
What's my prize?
D&D is cancelled this week, so I'll award you...hm...challenge rating of 6...monster count multiplier...carry the two... 900 XP.
I'll also throw in a free copy of Linux.
I look forward to it. When's the Oklahoma meet?
Quote from: michravera on April 25, 2022, 10:11:02 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on April 25, 2022, 04:17:45 PM
Quote from: michravera on April 25, 2022, 01:10:57 PM
CASR-58 has been upgraded (and is continuing to be) in pieces so that it has started to look like it was meant to be an interstate, but never was, nor was it ever contemplated as such.
Except, as mentioned upthread, that the Barstow to Bakersfield section was submitted as a potential Interstate twice - in 1956 and 1968.
LOTS of segments were SUBMITTED, including US-50 from Sacramento to Carson City (also twice). The difference is that CASR-99 was APPROVED, but switched.
Sure - it was your use of "contemplated as such" that made me respond that way. The fact that it was submitted meant it was at least contemplated.
Meanwhile: I think most drivers don't know or care how shield types relate to funding, state-wide or nation-wide networks, or numbering grids and systems. They'd rather want to know that a certain route type meets a certain standard.
I would be OK with a system such as:
- Interstate-standard freeways get the Interstate shield;
- Sub-standard freeways, expressways, multi-lane divided highways, and two-lane rural routes where the speed limit is within 10mph of the state maximum (and have no higher-standard alternative) get the U.S shield;
- Other two-lane rural highways and urban street routes get the state shields.
Any blue or white state shields must change color to minimize confusion with Interstate or U.S. shields.
[/spitballing]
Problem, there is a shit ton of freeways in California that are Interstate standard which don't even connect to another freeway much less an Interstate or US Route.
Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 10:35:49 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 25, 2022, 08:31:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 07:03:50 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 24, 2022, 10:50:55 PM
There is precisely zero reason a freeway should not always have an Interstate shield. Change my mind.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 25, 2022, 05:19:24 PM
I'm fine with substandard freeways not getting the shield.
What's my prize?
D&D is cancelled this week, so I'll award you...hm...challenge rating of 6...monster count multiplier...carry the two... 900 XP.
I'll also throw in a free copy of Linux.
I look forward to it. When's the Oklahoma meet?
October 22. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=31143.0) ;)
Quote from: kphoger on April 25, 2022, 05:08:37 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 25, 2022, 04:58:26 PM
So I assume this means you don't agree with I-2/I-69C/I-69E? Should South Texas have I-T2/I-T69C/I-T69E until such point as they're connected to the main network?
Correct. I don't think they should be signed as Interstates until they're connected to the network. It drives me nuts when Interstates are signed in pieces. (And yes, I realize that's the way it's always been done, such as I-40 as it replaced US-66.) As it is with I-2 and I-69C/E/W/X/Y/Z, there's little difference from what they were before the red and blue signs went up: they still just lead you to non-freeway routes.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 25, 2022, 04:58:26 PM
I would say interstate standards still need to be enforced. It's important to have a defined standard for what a freeway is.
Our point is that there are freeways that aren't up to Interstate standards. They're still freeways, though.
1. I'm old enough to remember when at least two segments of I-64 were not complete in Kentucky (between Lexington and Frankfort, and between Grayson and US 60 near the Boyd/Carter line west of Ashland). Should the rest of the route from Missouri to Virginia not have been signed until the whole thing was done?
2. The average person doesn't think about "interstate standards." The average person sees a full freeway with interchanges instead of at-grade intersections and doesn't care about things like shoulders, median width, etc. The layman doesn't see why one freeway can be an interstate and another cannot be.
Before the widening of I-65 in Kentucky was completed, I used to say that a passenger in a traveling vehicle could take a nap starting about Sonora or Glendale on I-65, then wake up somewhere between Elizabethtown and Bardstown on the Bluegrass Parkway. If they had never been on the route before and didn't see any signs designating the route, they'd have no clue they left an interstate for a non-interstate freeway.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 26, 2022, 11:25:56 AM
2. The average person doesn't think about "interstate standards." The average person sees a full freeway with interchanges instead of at-grade intersections and doesn't care about things like shoulders, median width, etc. The layman doesn't see why one freeway can be an interstate and another cannot be.
What about roads that are mostly grade-separated but have one or two at-grades? Thinking of MA 2 in/near Leominster and MA/RI 146 (one instance on each side of the state line) in particular.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 26, 2022, 11:25:56 AM
1. I'm old enough to remember when at least two segments of I-64 were not complete in Kentucky (between Lexington and Frankfort, and between Grayson and US 60 near the Boyd/Carter line west of Ashland). Should the rest of the route from Missouri to Virginia not have been signed until the whole thing was done?
If I had my way, no, it shouldn't have been signed until the gaps were eliminated. I'm probably in the minority on this.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 26, 2022, 11:25:56 AM
2. The average person doesn't think about "interstate standards." The average person sees a full freeway with interchanges instead of at-grade intersections and doesn't care about things like shoulders, median width, etc. The layman doesn't see why one freeway can be an interstate and another cannot be.
a. The average person might not think about Interstate standards–until they're towing a camper, and suddenly things like hill grades and vertical clearances and shoulder width matter a lot more.
b. There are more than just average people using the highway. There's the truck driver who wonders if a given route is equivalent to the Interstate when he hears over the CB that there's a wreck ahead and he's on the hunt for an alternate route. There's the farmer who bought an implement 500 miles away, borrowed his brother's flatbed trailer, is towing it back himself, and worries about shoulder width on bridges due to the overhang.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 26, 2022, 11:25:56 AM
2. The average person doesn't think about "interstate standards." The average person sees a full freeway with interchanges instead of at-grade intersections and doesn't care about things like shoulders, median width, etc. The layman doesn't see why one freeway can be an interstate and another cannot be.
I also know some professionals don't understand this (yes, they are from NCDOT but they don't represent the state's point of view, either).
I do understand why the FHWA can't authorize the use of Federal funds to construct/reconstruct a freeway to substandard specifications for use in the Interstate system. But it seems entirely wrong to reject perfectly good freeways posted at 70 MPH and above. Worse, many DOTs simply postpone upgrading an existing Interstate [forever] because of the impossible cost of bringing the old route up to the new standards. There are plenty of sections of sub-55 MPH freeways that ought to be removed from the Interstate system.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 25, 2022, 11:39:45 PM
Problem, there is a shit ton of freeways in California that are Interstate standard which don't even connect to another freeway much less an Interstate or US Route.
Yeah, several different freeway sections of CASR-1 and US-101 come immediately to mind.
Quote from: kphoger on April 26, 2022, 11:47:05 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 26, 2022, 11:25:56 AM
1. I'm old enough to remember when at least two segments of I-64 were not complete in Kentucky (between Lexington and Frankfort, and between Grayson and US 60 near the Boyd/Carter line west of Ashland). Should the rest of the route from Missouri to Virginia not have been signed until the whole thing was done?
If I had my way, no, it shouldn't have been signed until the gaps were eliminated. I'm probably in the minority on this.
I would sign all routes like that as a future Interstate. Not like how we do them now, where the road really carries some other number but there's future Interstate signs tacked on. It would really carry the designation Future Interstate X, and be prominently signed as such at all junctions and assurance points, without any other number save for whatever routes would normally be concurrent.
For the shield, you could use one of these.
(https://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY20032901i1.jpg)
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2022, 05:07:12 PM
I would sign all routes like that as a future Interstate. Not like how we do them now, where the road really carries some other number but there's future Interstate signs tacked on. It would really carry the designation Future Interstate X, and be prominently signed as such at all junctions and assurance points, without any other number save for whatever routes would normally be concurrent.
And, see, I've never liked the 'Future' banner either.
First, depending on how far along in the process that corridor is, there might be a chance it doesn't actually end up becoming an Interstate-grade freeway in its entirety. For example, I think it's dumb to sign I-69 around Memphis–as 'Future' or otherwise–until such time as SIU 6b and SIU 8 have had r/o/w secured and construction funded. This also means I think I-69 shouldn't be signed in Texas at all yet, considering it is nowhere near connecting to the rest of I-69.
Second, calling it a 'Future' Interstate could lead one to believe the corridor is already actually a freeway in its entirety, just awaiting official designation or minor upgrades–when that is not the case.
Quote from: kphoger on April 27, 2022, 09:14:08 AM
Second, calling it a 'Future' Interstate could lead one to believe the corridor is already actually a freeway in its entirety, just awaiting official designation or minor upgrades–when that is not the case.
One thing Kentucky did was sign routes "Future Interstate XX Corridor."
Quote from: kphoger on April 27, 2022, 09:14:08 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2022, 05:07:12 PM
I would sign all routes like that as a future Interstate. Not like how we do them now, where the road really carries some other number but there's future Interstate signs tacked on. It would really carry the designation Future Interstate X, and be prominently signed as such at all junctions and assurance points, without any other number save for whatever routes would normally be concurrent.
And, see, I've never liked the 'Future' banner either.
First, depending on how far along in the process that corridor is, there might be a chance it doesn't actually end up becoming an Interstate-grade freeway in its entirety. For example, I think it's dumb to sign I-69 around Memphis–as 'Future' or otherwise–until such time as SIU 6b and SIU 8 have had r/o/w secured and construction funded. This also means I think I-69 shouldn't be signed in Texas at all yet, considering it is nowhere near connecting to the rest of I-69.
Second, calling it a 'Future' Interstate could lead one to believe the corridor is already actually a freeway in its entirety, just awaiting official designation or minor upgrades–when that is not the case.
This sign in Arkansas means that it's inevitable, so consider the gap in the process of being filled. :poke:
https://goo.gl/maps/igo1iJed6Vvjc71u5 (https://goo.gl/maps/igo1iJed6Vvjc71u5)