Hey, as I mentioned in this earlier post (http://"https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2331.0"), I'm an author working on a book chapter about road buffs. Right now, I'm interested in the idea that roadgeeks might actually perform a useful public service by, essentially, being the only nonprofessionals who really know or care about decisions made regarding public roads.
Can anybody suggest any real-world "good deeds" done by knowledgeable roadgeeks? This could be something as small as having a state DoT fix an incorrect road sign, or--who knows?--as big as watchdogging some wrong-headed construction project so that it gets done right.
Any ideas? Thanks in advance.
There was some discussion along these lines at this topic (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=587.0) that may be of interest.
Am I the only one who think Jeff Kitsko and Scott Oglesby deserve good mention here? I mean the Pennsylvania Department of Inept Transportation kind of relies on Jeff for a lot of things on his website.
Danny Castro is single-handedly responsible for a great amount of historic 66 signage in California.
You might want to talk to Richard Ankrom–he's an artist who got frustrated by the lack of I-5 signage on the Pasadena Freeway in California, so he looked up the exact specifications, made the signage, forged a Caltrans uniform, and got up on a gantry and installed the signage himself. His work was so good that Caltrans assumed they installed it until the local media reported otherwise! The signage has since been replaced, with the new signs mirroring the changes that Richard made.
He probably wouldn't admit to "changing the world", but our own J.N. Winkler managed to influence the 2009 MUTCD in a significant way. FHWA wanted to remove the section allowing diagrammatic signs (the large splitting-arrow signs that often precede large interchanges). They felt that the diagrammatics were obsoleted by a new signing method that was introduced in the new manual. Mr. Winkler was able to convince FHWA (through the public comment process) that there was still some situations that the old method could handle that the new couldn't, so the option to use diagrammatic signs was left in the manual.
I know that the Oregon Department of Transportation will use Mike Wiley's defunct website on Oregon's highways as reference.
I have contacted AHTD several times, but usually get BS answers. I've had (slightly) better luck harassing Gridlock Guru.
oh, and Jeff Royston's bringing back state-named interstate shields in Louisiana.
ctsignguy is working on getting a new state highway shields in Connecticut... don't know if he'll be ultimately successful or not, but he's certainly talking to the right people!
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 04, 2010, 10:17:36 PM
He probably wouldn't admit to "changing the world", but our own J.N. Winkler managed to influence the 2009 MUTCD in a significant way. FHWA wanted to remove the section allowing diagrammatic signs (the large splitting-arrow signs that often precede large interchanges). They felt that the diagrammatics were obsoleted by a new signing method that was introduced in the new manual. Mr. Winkler was able to convince FHWA (through the public comment process) that there was still some situations that the old method could handle that the new couldn't, so the option to use diagrammatic signs was left in the manual.
So did I. Just because Mr. Winkler toots his own horn all the time doesn't mean he's the only one contributing. I personally made the comment that saved 8" signals in community settings, for example.
I would also submit Trent Legg, who has volunteered to replace and upgrade county signage in Georgia to meet MUTCD standards. I don't know where he gets the money, but he does get the signs made and installed on new posts.
And I am headed back up in a couple of weeks...so i will be doing some follow-up with ConnDOT...and see if maybe i can meet with some people who can help us (Jeff is still in our corner as far as i know)
I got the language fixed in the MUTCD so someone can't misinterpret it to mean that a green arrow can allow a turn across a crosswalk with a WALK light on. The original language was ambiguous, and our city engineer insisted on misreading it.
Because of me, the highway trust fund is still totally American owned.
While trying not to brag, I was responsible for bringing (and then) clearing up the US-89A/UT-11 issue in Kanab, UT. Hopefully (though not exactly likely), I'll be able to extend US-160 or US-64 to I-15 near Hurricane, UT, or restore US-60 in California.
I cured world hunger and singlehandedly prevented a federal mandate that all snowy roads be plowed with rubber bladed plows
I invented the cutout highway marker. And the lane stripe.
And I singlehandedly invented Kansas. :rolleyes:
I fashioned the entire interstate highway system out of two thumbtacks and a roll of electrical tape.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 05, 2010, 12:41:04 AM
I fashioned the entire interstate highway system out of two thumbtacks and a roll of electrical tape.
I invented US 71 with a kettle and some string :-D
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 05, 2010, 12:37:10 AM
And I singlehandedly invented Kansas. :rolleyes:
I thought Richie did that? :biggrin:
I advocate equal overhead sign heights and sizes. :D
Quote from: ctsignguy on August 04, 2010, 11:15:57 PM
And I am headed back up in a couple of weeks...so i will be doing some follow-up with ConnDOT...and see if maybe i can meet with some people who can help us (Jeff is still in our corner as far as i know)
Snag a few extra signs while you're there! :sombrero:
I didn't intend to, but I got an error OK 82 cleaver removed from US 59.
From this thread, you can probably honestly say that Roadgeeks are one of the most self-engrossed egotistical pricks on the web. :sombrero:
I'm not sure of anyone who made a true difference off-hand. I believe there's a US-99 restoration project in the PacNW, but I don't know who's heading that program.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 05, 2010, 12:55:36 AM
From this thread, you can probably honestly say that Roadgeeks are one of the most self-engrossed egotistical pricks on the web. :sombrero:
Harry Potter shippers have us beat by a long shot.
QuoteFrom this thread, you can probably honestly say that Roadgeeks are one of the most self-engrossed egotistical pricks on the web.
I actually invented the human ego
I invented the internet. Oh, wait.
I invented invention. So there.
I invented Robert Moses ;)
Did anybody forget Alex and those who created/work on this site?
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 05, 2010, 11:32:23 AM
Did anybody forget Alex and those who created/work on this site?
Alex? who the fuck is Alex?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 05, 2010, 11:36:42 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 05, 2010, 11:32:23 AM
Did anybody forget Alex and those who created/work on this site?
Alex? who the fuck is Alex?
Alex Trebek, maybe? :-P
all this time I've been living next door to Alex.
Quote from: US71 on August 05, 2010, 11:45:03 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 05, 2010, 11:36:42 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 05, 2010, 11:32:23 AM
Did anybody forget Alex and those who created/work on this site?
Alex? who the fuck is Alex?
Alex Trebek, maybe? :-P
I wonder if when you wrote this, you remembered that this thread was started by
Ken Jennings. :P
Thanks for the signage suggestions. I was planning on using the Ankrom story anyway...hilarious.
As for those of you claiming to have invented highways out of chewing gum and bailing wire: nope, sorry. I have it on good authority that the entire interstate system was jury-rigged together by President Eisenhower and MacGyver during a long, drunken weekend at Camp David in 1956.
Quote from: Ken Jennings on August 05, 2010, 02:47:18 PM
As for those of you claiming to have invented highways out of chewing gum and bailing wire: nope, sorry.
well, first I had to build the Eisenhower-bot as a prototype...
Quote from: Ken Jennings on August 05, 2010, 02:47:18 PM
As for those of you claiming to have invented highways out of chewing gum and bailing wire: nope, sorry. I have it on good authority that the entire interstate system was jury-rigged together by President Eisenhower and MacGyver during a long, drunken weekend at Camp David in 1956.
They were just using sarcasm if you didn't figure it out. ;)
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on August 05, 2010, 04:59:31 PM
Quote from: Ken Jennings on August 05, 2010, 02:47:18 PM
As for those of you claiming to have invented highways out of chewing gum and bailing wire: nope, sorry. I have it on good authority that the entire interstate system was jury-rigged together by President Eisenhower and MacGyver during a long, drunken weekend at Camp David in 1956.
They were just using sarcasm if you didn't figure it out. ;)
But I invented sarcasm. Can't you tell? :rolleyes:
Quote from: kj3400 on August 05, 2010, 05:46:03 PM
But I invented sarcasm. Can't you tell? :rolleyes:
I invented both being able to tell, and not being able to tell. Each time you are either able to tell, or unable to tell, you will have to pay me royalties.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 05, 2010, 05:51:09 PM
Quote from: kj3400 on August 05, 2010, 05:46:03 PM
But I invented sarcasm. Can't you tell? :rolleyes:
I invented both being able to tell, and not being able to tell. Each time you are either able to tell, or unable to tell, you will have to pay me royalties.
Of course I get paid twice what he gets if it is. :sombrero:
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 05, 2010, 05:51:09 PM
I invented both being able to tell, and not being able to tell. Each time you are either able to tell, or unable to tell, you will have to pay me royalties.
OK, Jake... don't start the mindf*ck or I'll call Harry Mudd on you :-P
Quote from: US71 on August 05, 2010, 06:21:14 PM
OK, Jake... don't start the mindf*ck or I'll call Harry Mudd on you :-P
if you are, simultaneously, both able to tell and unable to tell, while at the same time, neither able to tell nor unable to tell, that's triple damages per federal anti-trust law.
Kirk: Everything Harry says is a lie, Norman, remember that.
Harcourt Fenton Mudd: Now listen to me carefully, Norman. I am lying.
Norman: You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because you always lie... illogical! Illogical! :biggrin:
I killed an unliked man with this finger. *holds finger up* I think that changed some of the world. Heh heh. :fight:
BigMatt
Quote from: Bickendan on August 05, 2010, 01:24:57 AM
I invented the internet. Oh, wait.
No, I invented the internet.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 05, 2010, 12:41:04 AM
I fashioned the entire interstate highway system out of two thumbtacks and a roll of electrical tape.
I thought that was Al Gore (Sr) ? ;)
Alright, I think this has gotten far too off topic now. lol. So, let's try to get back on topic. Thanks. :)
While I cannot say I have changed the world, I believe I have been a major contributor to the hobby. I have "discovered" numerous old bridges in addition to random sign errors and other roadside oddities. :nod:
Years ago, when I was working for my hometown newspaper, I photographed a sign pointing to Natural Bridge State Resort Park in Kentucky, only the first word was spelled "Natuarl." I captioned the photo "Un-'Natuarl' Spelling" and we published it in the paper. Wasn't too long before the sign was fixed. ;-) I just wish I could find that photo or the negative now, 25 or so years later.
And I have noticed that some of the goofs I have photographed and posted in the past have gotten fixed shortly thereafter, such as the sign pointing travelers to "Paintsvillle" on KY 114 in Magoffin County.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on August 04, 2010, 11:13:23 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on August 04, 2010, 10:17:36 PMHe probably wouldn't admit to "changing the world", but our own J.N. Winkler managed to influence the 2009 MUTCD in a significant way. FHWA wanted to remove the section allowing diagrammatic signs (the large splitting-arrow signs that often precede large interchanges). They felt that the diagrammatics were obsoleted by a new signing method that was introduced in the new manual. Mr. Winkler was able to convince FHWA (through the public comment process) that there was still some situations that the old method could handle that the new couldn't, so the option to use diagrammatic signs was left in the manual.
So did I. Just because Mr. Winkler toots his own horn all the time doesn't mean he's the only one contributing. I personally made the comment that saved 8" signals in community settings, for example.
In fairness, and with thanks to Scott for putting my name forward, I don't think I can claim sole responsibility for saving the stippled-arrow diagrammatic. My recollection is that there were a number of other commenters, including several from state DOTs, who were opposed to its removal. FHWA simply chose to synthesize its response to the comments (which also related to the arrow-per-lane diagrammatics) along lines similar to those I had suggested; it is quite possible (indeed probable) FHWA arrived at that outcome independently of my comments.
There is one example of a
MUTCD rulemaking outcome where (toot, toot) I
can claim sole responsibility, but that relates to the 2002
MUTCD. I suggested that blue be retained as a background color option for enhanced location reference signs associated with motorist assistance services. My reasoning was: blue was already being used in several metropolitan areas (e.g. ARTIMIS in Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky); the main motivation for enhanced location reference signing is to facilitate motorist assistance; motorist assistance is a type of service; why should agencies have to change existing signs? FHWA accepted this reasoning, quoting it almost verbatim in the final rule notice, and so green was accepted as the usual background color with blue as an option.
In retrospect, did this comment do any good? I am not sure. None of the existing signface designs for motorist assistance markers conformed to the designs FHWA released for enhanced location reference signs with
SHS in 2004. Without this conformity, there would still have been at minimum a requirement for agencies to come into compliance (as regards signface design if not background color) as the sheeting on existing signs became life-expired. If agencies were going to have to move toward conformity in signface design anyway, it seems a bit mischievous to have a blue color option which inhibits full nationwide uniformity.
The lesson here is that being the lone commenter on a particular aspect of the
MUTCD and getting FHWA to agree with you does not necessarily translate to a public policy success. Indeed, on the changes I am surer of (such as making sure "km" rather than "KM" got into the 2002
MUTCD), I was joined by detail people in various state DOTs. The jury is still out on 8" signal heads in community settings, so we will have to see.
BTW, neither Steve Alpert nor I are the only road enthusiasts to have commented in various
MUTCD rulemaking processes. I can think of several others who have commented over the years (not all of whom are involved with roads in a professional capacity).
Quote from: hbelkins on August 08, 2010, 03:44:16 AM
Years ago, when I was working for my hometown newspaper, I photographed a sign pointing to Natural Bridge State Resort Park in Kentucky, only the first word was spelled "Natuarl." I captioned the photo "Un-'Natuarl' Spelling" and we published it in the paper. Wasn't too long before the sign was fixed. ;-) I just wish I could find that photo or the negative now, 25 or so years later.
And I have noticed that some of the goofs I have photographed and posted in the past have gotten fixed shortly thereafter, such as the sign pointing travelers to "Paintsvillle" on KY 114 in Magoffin County.
I don't have a problem with getting goofs fixed if they are serious - misspellings, wrong info, etc. but I don't see the point in contacting the DOT if it's a state route marker in place of a US route marker or vice versa. That sort of sign goof is interesting and as long as the number is right, doesn't cause any problems.
Unless the sign goof is in front of "Headquarters." (ODOT..... :pan:)
Quote from: bugo on August 08, 2010, 02:45:38 PM
I don't have a problem with getting goofs fixed if they are serious - misspellings, wrong info, etc. but I don't see the point in contacting the DOT if it's a state route marker in place of a US route marker or vice versa. That sort of sign goof is interesting and as long as the number is right, doesn't cause any problems.
What if it's on OK 270 though?
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 08, 2010, 11:22:19 PM
Quote from: bugo on August 08, 2010, 02:45:38 PM
I don't have a problem with getting goofs fixed if they are serious - misspellings, wrong info, etc. but I don't see the point in contacting the DOT if it's a state route marker in place of a US route marker or vice versa. That sort of sign goof is interesting and as long as the number is right, doesn't cause any problems.
What if it's on OK 270 though?
There used to be OK 270 markers on US 270 in LeFlore County but they've been replaced.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 05, 2010, 12:41:04 AM
I fashioned the entire interstate highway system out of two thumbtacks and a roll of electrical tape.
Sounds like something Red Green would've done, except he would've used duct tape.
Quote from: hm insulators on August 11, 2010, 04:14:19 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 05, 2010, 12:41:04 AM
I fashioned the entire interstate highway system out of two thumbtacks and a roll of electrical tape.
Sounds like something Red Green would've done, except he would've used duct tape.
But he's Canadian. Then again, maybe he did fashion the Canadian highway system together. :P