Thought we would have had this thread by now, but nothing turned up on the Google search method that kphoger swears by.
Anyways, what are some of your roadgeek hot takes? I'm not necessarily looking for opinions regarding popular fictional highway extensions/ideas (I-45 to Oklahoma, etc.), but instead more stuff that's a bit more niche/controversial.
Here are some of my biggest takes:
- O(k)DOT is a much better DOT than many give it credit for. It's not perfect (definitely still bottom-half of all the states), but I don't think it deserves all the hate that it gets. Projects such as the I-40 relocation in OKC, the I-44 rebuild in Tulsa, and the US 69/75 upgrades in Durant show that Oklahoma can build quality roads without needing tolls. Speaking of tolls, if ODOT was run the same way as OTA is run I think it would be in the top 10 DOTs.
- I-69W in Texas should be completely ditched and replaced with an I-6 running from Laredo to Corpus Christi.
- I don't necessarily think that Memphis needs another Mississippi River bridge. Replacements of the existing bridges, sure, but it is extremely difficult to find a place where another bridge could feasibly work.
- Speaking of Mississippi River bridges, the John James Audubon bridge was colossal waste of money.
- Houston should build another freeway loop around the Grand Parkway.
Chicago wasted a golden opportunity by not building I-494. That would've been very helpful to traffic bypassing downtown to the west.
The WA 167 direct connection to I-5 is long overdue; it should've been built years ago.
As I-710 will not get built in Pasadena, the stub end should be converted into a surface boulevard.
The hobby in general has way too much of an emphasis on numbered highways.
It's 2025; if you're still using puke emojis to describe Clearview, maybe growing up is something you've given up.
Quote from: formulanone on March 28, 2025, 09:09:38 AMIt's 2025; if you're still using puke emojis to describe Clearview, maybe growing up is something you've given up.
Coldest take of all time. Clearview isn't that bad. Then again, I come from a province where the conversion was one-to-one.
Quote from: CoreySamson on March 27, 2025, 11:11:17 PMnothing turned up on the Google search method that kphoger swears by.
Google search = unpopular opinions site:www.aaroads.com (https://www.google.com/search?q=unpopular+opinions+site%3Awww.aaroads.com&sca_esv=7c37842ec84d2773&source=hp&ei=lqrmZ7XDOe3GkPIP6rnEyQs&iflsig=ACkRmUkAAAAAZ-a4ph70DAR7BCU7QsQYCtRbFklcGtXw&ved=0ahUKEwi15vaD96yMAxVtI0QIHeocMbkQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=unpopular+opinions+site%3Awww.aaroads.com&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Iid1bnBvcHVsYXIgb3BpbmlvbnMgc2l0ZTp3d3cuYWFyb2Fkcy5jb21Iyi5QAFi-LXAAeACQAQCYAYYBoAGmE6oBBDM3LjK4AQPIAQD4AQGYAhigAtsOwgIQEAAYgAQYkQIYigUYRhj5AcICCxAuGIAEGJECGIoFwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAggQLhiABBixA8ICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMY0QMYxwHCAgUQABiABMICCxAAGIAEGJECGIoFwgILEC4YgAQY0QMYxwHCAhQQLhiABBixAxjRAxiDARjHARiKBcICDhAAGIAEGJECGLEDGIoFwgINEC4YgAQYsQMYQxiKBcICExAAGIAEGJECGLEDGIoFGEYY-QHCAgUQLhiABMICBhAAGBYYHsICCBAAGBYYChgewgILEAAYgAQYhgMYigXCAgUQABjvBcICCBAAGIAEGKIEwgIIEAAYogQYiQXCAgUQIRifBZgDAJIHBDIyLjKgB-G0AbIHBDIyLjK4B9sO&sclient=gws-wiz)
↓ 6th search result ↓
Thread = Unpopular Anything Road-Related Opinions (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28884.0)
Quote from: formulanone on March 28, 2025, 09:09:38 AMIt's 2025; if you're still using puke emojis to describe Clearview, maybe growing up is something you've given up.
Clearview sucks, no emojis needed. The research data that brought it about was flawed and appears to have been a make work program for a specific typeface designer.
Clearview is fine. It's just as good as the regular typeface, even if it requires larger sign panels to achieve the same legibility.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on March 28, 2025, 09:49:27 AMQuote from: formulanone on March 28, 2025, 09:09:38 AMIt's 2025; if you're still using puke emojis to describe Clearview, maybe growing up is something you've given up.
Coldest take of all time. Clearview isn't that bad. Then again, I come from a province where the conversion was one-to-one.
Québec has one of the better Clearview implementations (it helps that they avoid using it for exit numbers and route shields), but I still prefer the older signs over it.
Quote from: kphoger on March 28, 2025, 11:06:04 AMClearview is fine. It's just as good as the regular typeface, even if it requires larger sign panels to achieve the same legibility.
Honestly, the larger size is one of the things I don't like about it. Then again, you're probably used to Mexico's (IMO very ugly) signs.
Clearview is ugly but is easier to read from a distance (something I notice more every year as I continue to age). Therefore, Clearview serves a useful purpose.
In my view, perhaps the most useful sign assembly for comparing the two is on southbound I-95 between Lorton and Woodbridge, Virginia (https://maps.app.goo.gl/zBriDTkwSNUpM8sy8), because both signs are for the same road and the same city. To be fair, the Gothic sign on the right is older and would not be formatted the same way today, but to me the main aspect for comparison purposes is the word "Woodbridge." I find it far easier to read from a distance in Clearview on the sign over the express lanes.
- Double-reds should be more common for protected left turns (see South Carolina (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6785884,-78.9649839,3a,15y,24.24h,102.48t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4kAJVQ7oYNgGkd7vEONl-Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-12.481557945919903%26panoid%3D4kAJVQ7oYNgGkd7vEONl-Q%26yaw%3D24.236030990464446!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMyNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D), Georgia (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.0042941,-81.1201161,3a,24y,210.16h,97.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUW63CzcM0_HkRuQCJ4Aj9Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-7.438293681589386%26panoid%3DUW63CzcM0_HkRuQCJ4Aj9Q%26yaw%3D210.1617097015198!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMyNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D), Virginia (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6398739,-77.4913574,3a,48.9y,239.36h,94.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snKkXWVx6P-IL4tA6F3EEJg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-4.813206934108905%26panoid%3DnKkXWVx6P-IL4tA6F3EEJg%26yaw%3D239.35862366591326!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMyNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D))
- Incomplete interchanges are fine
- Not everything needs to be an Interstate, some proposed Interstates might be better left as existing state and US routes, 'bringing jobs to (insert place here)' isn't enough to justify an Interstate (ahem... North Carolina)
Quote from: I-35 on March 28, 2025, 10:56:38 AMQuote from: formulanone on March 28, 2025, 09:09:38 AMIt's 2025; if you're still using puke emojis to describe Clearview, maybe growing up is something you've given up.
Clearview sucks, no emojis needed. The research data that brought it about was flawed and appears to have been a make work program for a specific typeface designer.
My hot take on this: You may be surprised to learn that there's a LOT of companies, individuals, or other entities that are sole sources for products used by the government. You (or we) are fortunate that this is simply an optional font, not a mandatory font. The average motorist doesn't notice any huge differences. We have several threads of stuff much worse than Clearview.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 28, 2025, 12:46:58 PMClearview is ugly but is easier to read from a distance (something I notice more every year as I continue to age). Therefore, Clearview serves a useful purpose.
In my view, perhaps the most useful sign assembly for comparing the two is on southbound I-95 between Lorton and Woodbridge, Virginia (https://maps.app.goo.gl/zBriDTkwSNUpM8sy8), because both signs are for the same road and the same city. To be fair, the Gothic sign on the right is older and would not be formatted the same way today, but to me the main aspect for comparison purposes is the word "Woodbridge." I find it far easier to read from a distance in Clearview on the sign over the express lanes.
*takes a look at the next sign down (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6915312,-77.2268749,3a,84y,184.4h,91.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slBGjKG2433hLCtkTu3LFpA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-1.3136273842461321%26panoid%3DlBGjKG2433hLCtkTu3LFpA%26yaw%3D184.39831952358008!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMyNC4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNjQwSAFQAw%3D%3D)*
If this is representative of modern installs, VDOT may be the new gold standard for decent Clearview.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 28, 2025, 12:56:11 PM- Not everything needs to be an Interstate, some proposed Interstates might be better left as existing state and US routes, 'bringing jobs to (insert place here)' isn't enough to justify an Interstate (ahem... North Carolina)
Shouting this out to everyone in the back who cries that I-76 should continue to Atlantic City. And broadcasting it via bullhorn for those that claim it'll increase development and jobs along the Expressway in what's actually a federally protected national reserve where development is unwanted.
Also: Roads can have a speed limit lower than 65 MPH.
Quote from: vdeane on March 28, 2025, 12:39:33 PMThen again, you're probably used to Mexico's (IMO very ugly) signs.
I have to drive through a whole lot of Texas before I get to Mexico. And Texas has been doing an awesome job with Clearview for a long time now.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 28, 2025, 12:46:58 PMClearview is ugly but is easier to read from a distance (something I notice more every year as I continue to age). Therefore, Clearview serves a useful purpose.
In my view, perhaps the most useful sign assembly for comparing the two is on southbound I-95 between Lorton and Woodbridge, Virginia (https://maps.app.goo.gl/zBriDTkwSNUpM8sy8), because both signs are for the same road and the same city. To be fair, the Gothic sign on the right is older and would not be formatted the same way today, but to me the main aspect for comparison purposes is the word "Woodbridge." I find it far easier to read from a distance in Clearview on the sign over the express lanes.
I don't think the font is what makes the left sign easier to read. It's that the font size is a little larger and there's more contrast between the text color and background color.
I don't hate Clearview. I just don't buy the notion that, all else being equal, it's an easier read than Gothic. And I don't like that Michigan spent zillions replacing freeway signs regardless of whether needed, just to get the font out there, while it largely ignores surface road BGSs that truly are in need of replacement.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 28, 2025, 12:56:11 PM- Not everything needs to be an Interstate, some proposed Interstates might be better left as existing state and US routes, 'bringing jobs to (insert place here)' isn't enough to justify an Interstate (ahem... North Carolina)
I used to agree, but I kind of think otherwise now. I think "interstate" should be pretty synonymous with limited-access highway. US routes could be divided highways. State highways being undivided. This is kind of how Puerto Rico does their roads. The same route number might change signage depending in its "quality" where highway 1 could have primary, urban primary, secondary, and tertiary segments of the same highway.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 28, 2025, 02:07:19 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on March 28, 2025, 12:46:58 PMClearview is ugly but is easier to read from a distance (something I notice more every year as I continue to age). Therefore, Clearview serves a useful purpose.
In my view, perhaps the most useful sign assembly for comparing the two is on southbound I-95 between Lorton and Woodbridge, Virginia (https://maps.app.goo.gl/zBriDTkwSNUpM8sy8), because both signs are for the same road and the same city. To be fair, the Gothic sign on the right is older and would not be formatted the same way today, but to me the main aspect for comparison purposes is the word "Woodbridge." I find it far easier to read from a distance in Clearview on the sign over the express lanes.
I don't think the font is what makes the left sign easier to read. It's that the font size is a little larger and there's more contrast between the text color and background color.
....
Fair enough. I drive past that sign often enough to have a firm opinion that I find the typeface easier to read. Northern Virginia is a bit of a mish-mash of Clearview and Gothic signs because there are some newer Gothic signs posted after VDOT had switched to Clearview; that situation resulted from construction contracts that went out during the period when the FHWA revoked authorization for Clearview. So I drive past signs in both typefaces on a regular basis and I am firm in my opinion that my eyes find Clearview easier to read at a distance. Up close it's not as big a deal, of course.
ConnDOT is the absolute cheapest when it comes to signs.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2025, 01:05:44 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 28, 2025, 12:56:11 PM- Not everything needs to be an Interstate, some proposed Interstates might be better left as existing state and US routes, 'bringing jobs to (insert place here)' isn't enough to justify an Interstate (ahem... North Carolina)
Shouting this out to everyone in the back who cries that I-76 should continue to Atlantic City. And broadcasting it via bullhorn for those that claim it'll increase development and jobs along the Expressway in what's actually a federally protected national reserve where development is unwanted.
I think that's mostly roadgeeks being frustrated with one freeway having several numbers and trying to find a non-roadgeek reason to justify it.
Quote from: vdeane on March 28, 2025, 09:38:05 PMI think that's mostly roadgeeks being frustrated with one freeway having several numbers and trying to find a non-roadgeek reason to justify it.
Make it NJ 42 all the way from I-71 in Ohio to Baltic Avenue.
I've never cared for beltways. One is kind of fine, but less so when there are more than one ring. I think they should built as grids so the road network can be more logically expanded.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 28, 2025, 12:56:11 PM- Not everything needs to be an Interstate, some proposed Interstates might be better left as existing state and US routes, 'bringing jobs to (insert place here)' isn't enough to justify an Interstate (ahem... North Carolina)
Same here. It has become a pet peeve of mine when some state proposes an interstate number that's just an overlay of an existing, and perfectly serviceable us highway/state route
I like tolls
Quote from: ElishaGOtis on March 29, 2025, 01:41:57 PMI like tolls
Tolls are fine. I don't like bill-by-mail/bill-by-plate.
Quote from: SeriesE on March 29, 2025, 01:24:20 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 28, 2025, 12:56:11 PM- Not everything needs to be an Interstate, some proposed Interstates might be better left as existing state and US routes, 'bringing jobs to (insert place here)' isn't enough to justify an Interstate (ahem... North Carolina)
Same here. It has become a pet peeve of mine when some state proposes an interstate number that's just an overlay of an existing, and perfectly serviceable us highway/state route
Reminds me of the I-685 and 777 proposals in NC. I-685 is possibly less egregious between Greensboro and I-95, but US 421 is adequate as-is. East of I-95, they propose it paralleling I-40 within 10-20 miles to Wilmington?
777 is just a big fat pork project. All the substantial movements are already handled by I-40 and 74.
For all the talk on this forum about whether California's internal exit number tabs are legible or not...I think the bigger thing here is getting people to actually use the exit numbers in regular conversation. Pre-2001 I get the sense most folks here were used to just saying they were going to (exit name) and I don't think that has completely changed a quarter-century later.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 29, 2025, 02:07:31 PMQuote from: ElishaGOtis on March 29, 2025, 01:41:57 PMI like tolls
Tolls are fine. I don't like bill-by-mail/bill-by-plate.
I like AET and toll by plate :pan: :bigass:
Quote from: TheStranger on March 29, 2025, 03:24:34 PMFor all the talk on this forum about whether California's internal exit number tabs are legible or not...I think the bigger thing here is getting people to actually use the exit numbers in regular conversation. Pre-2001 I get the sense most folks here were used to just saying they were going to (exit name) and I don't think that has completely changed a quarter-century later.
Off forum I once considered banning external tab complaints in groups I managed. Of all the things to talk about that are road related in California that is among the more plebeian.
There is nothing at all "confusing" about concurrencies. If two roads have a clearly defined purpose and both of those routes/purposes happen to share the same pavement for a stretch, nobody is losing their minds over two shields on the same assembly.
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 29, 2025, 04:13:38 PMThere is nothing at all "confusing" about concurrencies. If two roads have a clearly defined purpose and both of those routes/purposes happen to share the same pavement for a stretch, nobody is losing their minds over two shields on the same assembly.
Your comment prompts me to think of something. I was reading something about British history that referred to certain monarchs with two ordinal references to reflect the differing number of monarchs with certain names in England and Scotland. For example, King James I (the first of that name in England) was referred to as "James VI and I" because he was also the sixth of that name in Scotland. In a similar vein, when the late Queen took the throne, some Scots brought a lawsuit saying she couldn't be Queen Elizabeth II because there had never been a Queen Elizabeth I in Scotland (they lost both because they didn't have standing and because numbering is part of the royal prerogative).
So anyway, it gave me the somewhat amusing mental image of a concurrency that uses both sets of exit numbers. For example, the exit nearest to where I live is signed Exit 173 using I-95's exit numbers. The road signs also have I-495 shields. So in this scenario, the exit would be signed "Exit 173 and 60." (The potential advantage is that it would be less confusing to someone coming down I-495 because right now Exit 57 is followed three miles later by Exit 173. The potential disadvantages seem to outweigh that, though.)
Quote from: CoreySamson on March 27, 2025, 11:11:17 PMProjects such as the I-40 relocation in OKC, the I-44 rebuild in Tulsa, and the US 69/75 upgrades in Durant show that Oklahoma can build quality roads without needing tolls
Oklahoma can build quality roads without needing tolls, but it needs a decade and change to do so because of the state's slow-drip pay-as-you-go funding mechanisms.
Here's my Clearview hot take—I think the agencies still using it are doing so not because they think it's actually better, but because they want to signal that FHWA can't tell them what to do.
It's either that or they're corrupt.
Quote from: kphoger on March 28, 2025, 11:06:04 AMClearview is fine. It's just as good as the regular typeface, even if it requires larger sign panels to achieve the same legibility.
Larger sign panels = more expensive signs. That's not "just as good", especially if you're a government agency with only so much money you're allowed to spend.
Quote from: Molandfreak on March 29, 2025, 04:13:38 PMThere is nothing at all "confusing" about concurrencies. If two roads have a clearly defined purpose and both of those routes/purposes happen to share the same pavement for a stretch, nobody is losing their minds over two shields on the same assembly.
They make sense in moderation, but there are some states that have them all over the place to connect otherwise unrelated corridors and reduce the number of numbers they use (such as Maine). And then there are the ones that overlay separate state route numbers onto US routes and/or interstates. Sometimes they're hidden, sometimes they're not (such a Georgia).
Quote from: vdeane on March 29, 2025, 09:15:32 PMQuote from: Molandfreak on March 29, 2025, 04:13:38 PMThere is nothing at all "confusing" about concurrencies. If two roads have a clearly defined purpose and both of those routes/purposes happen to share the same pavement for a stretch, nobody is losing their minds over two shields on the same assembly.
They make sense in moderation, but there are some states that have them all over the place to connect otherwise unrelated corridors and reduce the number of numbers they use (such as Maine). And then there are the ones that overlay separate state route numbers onto US routes and/or interstates. Sometimes they're hidden, sometimes they're not (such a Georgia).
Like this?: https://maps.app.goo.gl/rW25ST81rR9ChYBa9
Quote from: TheStranger on March 29, 2025, 03:24:34 PMFor all the talk on this forum about whether California's internal exit number tabs are legible or not...I think the bigger thing here is getting people to actually use the exit numbers in regular conversation. Pre-2001 I get the sense most folks here were used to just saying they were going to (exit name) and I don't think that has completely changed a quarter-century later.
I pretty much never refer to interchanges by their exit numbers. The only thing I use exit numbers for is computing the distance between two interchanges on a long trip, which is why I dislike sequential numbering.
Quote from: pderocco on March 29, 2025, 10:42:40 PMI pretty much never refer to interchanges by their exit numbers. The only thing I use exit numbers for is computing the distance between two interchanges on a long trip, which is why I dislike sequential numbering.
I use the exit number when I give directions, but I also try to mention what the sign says because it gives an extra point of reference.
I'm also used to having to explain the exit number for our neighborhood because, as noted in my other comment further up the thread, depending on which way you're coming from the exit before ours is Exit 57 and then ours is Exit 173 but is only three miles east of Exit 57. Confused the heck out of my brother-in-law when he visited and his wife failed to tell him my explanation prior to his encountering it because when she said "Exit 173" he thought they were about to have another two hours to go.
I-99 is fine
The unusual aspects of I-99 and I-238 are fun, actually.
Some things I agree with the New Urbanists on that aren't necessarily popular here:
-America, and its major cities in particular, spends too much of its transportation funding on roads as opposed to public transit
-Building one more lane (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0dKrUE_O0VE) usually won't fix traffic, even if there are places where it makes sense
-NYC's congestion pricing system is good
Quote from: LilianaUwU on March 30, 2025, 04:55:00 PMThe unusual aspects of I-99 and I-238 are fun, actually.
Exactly!
Another thing: I-99 and I-238 are the Fire Emblem: Three Houses of the roadgeek community. No matter how much time passes, there will always be discourse about I-99 and I-238.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2025, 04:16:50 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on March 30, 2025, 03:42:10 PMI-99 is fine
As is I-238.
Change I-99 into I-79.5 to fit the grid, and turn I-238 into I-1580 since it's a spur off I-580. See if that makes everyone happier.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on March 30, 2025, 04:55:00 PMThe unusual aspects of I-99 and I-238 are fun, actually.
Yup.
I think I-238 should be I-1080. If we can fit I-H201, why not I-1080?
Road histories often focus too much on minute details and don't zoom out to provide context, especially when researching the history of mid-century freeways that displaced lower-class neighborhoods of color.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 30, 2025, 07:35:06 PMI think I-238 should be I-1080. If we can fit I-H201, why not I-1080?
Because I-238 works just as well.
I-30 and I-45 are too short to be considered major interstate highways.
Quote from: CoreySamson on March 27, 2025, 11:11:17 PM- I don't necessarily think that Memphis needs another Mississippi River bridge. Replacements of the existing bridges, sure, but it is extremely difficult to find a place where another bridge could feasibly work.
- Speaking of Mississippi River bridges, the John James Audubon bridge was colossal waste of money.
My hot take is actually kind of the exact opposite of this. Looking at it holistically, there are only 16 bridge crossings of the lower Mississippi between Cairo and the Gulf of Mexico, or roughly 1 every 63 miles. I think it should be a national priority to increase that number to at least 20 as infrastructure funding allows.
For the Memphis area specifically, a finished beltway with two new crossings would be ideal. Though obviously very costly, I still think it should be prioritized. The current bridges and the I-40/I-55 overlap in West Memphis are currently a major constraint to the movement of people and goods: not just in the Memphis area, but also nationwide. Spreading out the load with two new bridges would significantly reduce the burden on the existing bridges and allow for a more favorable and cost-effective replacement schedule. Meanwhile, doing nothing puts us on the dangerous cusp of a repeat May 2021 scenario where one of the bridges has to be closed, thus forcing costly and time-sensitive replacement or repair work in an emergency-type situation while pressure mounts on the remaining bridge.
And there
is a "weight of the world" factor to all of this: if a major collapse happened on I-40 or I-55, we are not escaping that with anything
close to the 6 casualties incurred during the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse last year. I don't know how many trucks are on either bridge at any one time, on average, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's in the dozens. So in my mind, some added redundancy goes beyond just being "good to have" to actually being a necessity, at least from a future planning and risk-management perspective.
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2025, 03:45:57 PMQuote from: CoreySamson on March 27, 2025, 11:11:17 PM- I don't necessarily think that Memphis needs another Mississippi River bridge. Replacements of the existing bridges, sure, but it is extremely difficult to find a place where another bridge could feasibly work.
- Speaking of Mississippi River bridges, the John James Audubon bridge was colossal waste of money.
My hot take is actually kind of the exact opposite of this. Looking at it holistically, there are only 16 bridge crossings of the lower Mississippi between Cairo and the Gulf of Mexico, or roughly 1 every 63 miles. I think it should be a national priority to increase that number to at least 20 as infrastructure funding allows.
For the Memphis area specifically, a finished beltway with two new crossings would be ideal. Though obviously very costly, I still think it should be prioritized. The current bridges and the I-40/I-55 overlap in West Memphis are currently a major constraint to the movement of people and goods: and not just in the Memphis area, but also nationwide. Spreading out the load with two new bridges would significantly reduce the burden on the existing bridges and allow for a more favorable and cost-effective replacement schedule. Meanwhile, doing nothing puts us on the dangerous cusp of a repeat May 2021 scenario where one of the bridges has to be closed, thus forcing costly and time-sensitive replacement or repair work in an emergency-type situation while pressure mounts on the remaining bridge.
And there is a "weight of the world" factor to all of this: if a major collapse happened on I-40 or I-55, we are not escaping that with anything close to the 6 casualties incurred during the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse last year. I don't know how many trucks are on either bridge at any one time, on average, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's in the dozens. So in my mind, some added redundancy goes beyond just being "good to have" to actually being a necessity, at least from a future planning and risk-management perspective.
That addresses a different problem from the fact that the average distance between crossings is 63 miles.
Quote from: pderocco on March 31, 2025, 04:35:02 PMQuoteMy hot take is actually kind of the exact opposite of this. Looking at it holistically, there are only 16 bridge crossings of the lower Mississippi between Cairo and the Gulf of Mexico, or roughly 1 every 63 miles. I think it should be a national priority to increase that number to at least 20 as infrastructure funding allows.
For the Memphis area specifically, a finished beltway with two new crossings would be ideal. ...
That addresses a different problem from the fact that the average distance between crossings is 63 miles.
Correct in the sense that two additional crossings in the same general area don't help other areas much. But the new crossings do need to be strategically located relative to where the people and goods crossing the river are, and the Memphis area is by far the largest single concentration of people/goods movement north of Baton Rouge.
Of course, any new crossings do also reduce the average distance between crossings, but that's more of a helpful side-effect than their actual purpose.
Pedestrian signals should always be timed, not push-to-activate, as the latter encourages their disregard.
It's disrespectful to speed on parkways because they weren't designed for 70+mph traffic and doing so takes away from their intent and character.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 31, 2025, 06:59:21 PMpush-to-activate encourages their disregard.
You fucking tell me. Here's an example: I'm carrying a bunch of shit from the grocery store (and thus I need the pedestrian-only phase) and I don't wanna wait an entire cycle, but I have to anyways because the person standing there already waiting to cross is a lazy bum who can't be fucking bothered to lift their arm to activate the contactless sensor that is the standard in Québec City and nowhere else.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on March 28, 2025, 12:56:11 PM- Not everything needs to be an Interstate, some proposed Interstates might be better left as existing state and US routes, 'bringing jobs to (insert place here)' isn't enough to justify an Interstate (ahem... North Carolina)
The Pacific Southwest board has a 59-and-counting page thread about the "Interstate 11 alignment, through Vegas and points north". As to "points north", it's 50 comments worth of "this is not necessary, it shouldn't ever happen and it never will happen", and the remaining 57 pages are a bunch of hot air.
For that matter...I happen to be in Texas for a couple PGA Tour events, this past weekend in Houston and starting Thursday in San Antonio. For a beach break in between I'm in the Corpus Christi/Port Aransas area, and today I drove from Houston to Corpus on US 59 and US 77, which have frequent signage designating the "Future I-69 Corridor". Just about all of the existing roadway is four lanes, divided, posted at 75 mph, with basically no significant intersections that aren't grade-separated. Why on earth would Texas spend all the money to upgrade that to Interstate highway? Aside from a couple places that need bypasses, notably Refugio, it seems perfectly fine as is. Maybe a Texas poster can tell me what I'm missing there...but as a Nevada poster I know I'm not missing anything about the silliness of I-11 extending north of Las Vegas.
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2025, 03:45:57 PMQuote from: CoreySamson on March 27, 2025, 11:11:17 PM- I don't necessarily think that Memphis needs another Mississippi River bridge. Replacements of the existing bridges, sure, but it is extremely difficult to find a place where another bridge could feasibly work.
- Speaking of Mississippi River bridges, the John James Audubon bridge was colossal waste of money.
My hot take is actually kind of the exact opposite of this. Looking at it holistically, there are only 16 bridge crossings of the lower Mississippi between Cairo and the Gulf of Mexico, or roughly 1 every 63 miles. I think it should be a national priority to increase that number to at least 20 as infrastructure funding allows.
For the Memphis area specifically, a finished beltway with two new crossings would be ideal. Though obviously very costly, I still think it should be prioritized. The current bridges and the I-40/I-55 overlap in West Memphis are currently a major constraint to the movement of people and goods: not just in the Memphis area, but also nationwide. Spreading out the load with two new bridges would significantly reduce the burden on the existing bridges and allow for a more favorable and cost-effective replacement schedule. Meanwhile, doing nothing puts us on the dangerous cusp of a repeat May 2021 scenario where one of the bridges has to be closed, thus forcing costly and time-sensitive replacement or repair work in an emergency-type situation while pressure mounts on the remaining bridge.
And there is a "weight of the world" factor to all of this: if a major collapse happened on I-40 or I-55, we are not escaping that with anything close to the 6 casualties incurred during the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse last year. I don't know how many trucks are on either bridge at any one time, on average, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's in the dozens. So in my mind, some added redundancy goes beyond just being "good to have" to actually being a necessity, at least from a future planning and risk-management perspective.
Is that really a hot take? Believing Memphis should have another bridge is the opinion of the vast majority of posters here, to the point where conventional wisdom on the forum has been that there
will be a third bridge, even before the study on the matter was even announced (thus, prior to that study, a fictional idea was being presented not only as fact, but as a done deal).
Here's a hot take. Most of the hot takes in this thread aren't hot takes.
Quote from: vdeane on March 31, 2025, 08:35:06 PMQuote from: webny99 on March 31, 2025, 03:45:57 PM...
Looking at it holistically, there are only 16 bridge crossings of the lower Mississippi between Cairo and the Gulf of Mexico, or roughly 1 every 63 miles. I think it should be a national priority to increase that number to at least 20 as infrastructure funding allows.
For the Memphis area specifically, a finished beltway with two new crossings would be ideal. Though obviously very costly, I still think it should be prioritized. ...
Is that really a hot take? Believing Memphis should have another bridge is the opinion of the vast majority of posters here, to the point where conventional wisdom on the forum has been that there will be a third bridge, even before the study on the matter was even announced (thus, prior to that study, a fictional idea was being presented not only as fact, but as a done deal).
"Memphis needs a third crossing" isn't a hot take. But I think "the lower Mississippi needs four more crossings, including two more in the Memphis area" is at least a little hot. Maybe not jalapeno hot, but let's call it like poblano hot.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 31, 2025, 08:36:59 PMHere's a hot take. Most of the hot takes in this thread aren't hot takes.
OK, let's go from poblano to jalapeno. Maybe even serrano, I don't know. You guys judge.
I think some speed limits are so insanely unrealistic that it's actually OK to use your four-way flashers when following someone doing the speed limit, to warn traffic coming up behind you of an obstruction to traffic flow. Not that I take issue with someone driving the speed limit, exactly. But I do think that doing so can actually be obstructive in some cases, and I don't mean just "you're in my way and I want to go faster", but a legitimate detriment to the traffic flow of the entire roadway. And yes, that is almost always a speed limit problem, not a driver problem.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 28, 2025, 02:10:58 PMQuote from: wanderer2575 on March 28, 2025, 02:07:19 PMQuote from: 1995hoo on March 28, 2025, 12:46:58 PMClearview is ugly but is easier to read from a distance (something I notice more every year as I continue to age). Therefore, Clearview serves a useful purpose.
In my view, perhaps the most useful sign assembly for comparing the two is on southbound I-95 between Lorton and Woodbridge, Virginia (https://maps.app.goo.gl/zBriDTkwSNUpM8sy8), because both signs are for the same road and the same city. To be fair, the Gothic sign on the right is older and would not be formatted the same way today, but to me the main aspect for comparison purposes is the word "Woodbridge." I find it far easier to read from a distance in Clearview on the sign over the express lanes.
I don't think the font is what makes the left sign easier to read. It's that the font size is a little larger and there's more contrast between the text color and background color.
....
Fair enough. I drive past that sign often enough to have a firm opinion that I find the typeface easier to read. Northern Virginia is a bit of a mish-mash of Clearview and Gothic signs because there are some newer Gothic signs posted after VDOT had switched to Clearview; that situation resulted from construction contracts that went out during the period when the FHWA revoked authorization for Clearview. So I drive past signs in both typefaces on a regular basis and I am firm in my opinion that my eyes find Clearview easier to read at a distance. Up close it's not as big a deal, of course.
I've grown accustomed to Clearview, and I like how most states mix it in with the FHWA Gothic for the most ideal balance (like the destination legend in the former, and everything else in the latter). The one thing I hate about it is when it's on route shields, like what MI used to do.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on March 31, 2025, 07:14:54 PMQuote from: RobbieL2415 on March 31, 2025, 06:59:21 PMpush-to-activate encourages their disregard.
You fucking tell me. Here's an example: I'm carrying a bunch of shit from the grocery store (and thus I need the pedestrian-only phase) and I don't wanna wait an entire cycle, but I have to anyways because the person standing there already waiting to cross is a lazy bum who can't be fucking bothered to lift their arm to activate the contactless sensor that is the standard in Québec City and nowhere else.
At a lot of signals in the U.S., the push button does very little. Getting more common that it's just to trigger audible warnings, since the walk signals are already timed with the main signals themselves.
I'll also go on with things Québec City tends to do: over here, a ped signal invariably means your crossing is protected. There are no conflicting car movements. This is good, actually, and Montréal should take lessons from us.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on March 31, 2025, 07:14:54 PMYou fucking tell me. Here's an example: I'm carrying a bunch of shit from the grocery store (and thus I need the pedestrian-only phase) and I don't wanna wait an entire cycle, but I have to anyways because the person standing there already waiting to cross is a lazy bum who can't be fucking bothered to lift their arm to activate the contactless sensor that is the standard in Québec City and nowhere else.
And how does that make you feel?
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2025, 09:09:01 PMI think some speed limits are so insanely unrealistic that it's actually OK to use your four-way flashers when following someone doing the speed limit, to warn traffic coming up behind you of an obstruction to traffic flow. Not that I take issue with someone driving the speed limit, exactly. But I do think that doing so can actually be obstructive in some cases, and I don't mean just "you're in my way and I want to go faster", but a legitimate detriment to the traffic flow of the entire roadway. And yes, that is almost always a speed limit problem, not a driver problem.
This depends on the driving culture.
You can go the speed limit of 60 mph on I-494 around the south side of Minneapolis. In the left lane. And nobody will care. They'll all just happily trail you at a safe distance, or go around you on the right, with nary a sideways look. I don't get it, but it's true. On the one hand, it's irritating. But, on the other hand, it's kind of nice.
Meanwhile, when I imagine going the speed limit of 60 mph on I-88 in the west suburbs of Chicago (used to be 55 mph), I can hear my car getting rear-ended just sitting here.
Quote from: kphoger on April 01, 2025, 09:09:27 AMQuoteI think some speed limits are so insanely unrealistic that it's actually OK to use your four-way flashers when following someone doing the speed limit, to warn traffic coming up behind you of an obstruction to traffic flow. Not that I take issue with someone driving the speed limit, exactly. But I do think that doing so can actually be obstructive in some cases, and I don't mean just "you're in my way and I want to go faster", but a legitimate detriment to the traffic flow of the entire roadway. And yes, that is almost always a speed limit problem, not a driver problem.
This depends on the driving culture.
I really think it depends more on the appropriateness of the road's speed limit, but I guess I could agree insofar as that also relates to driving culture.
And I'm not sure if this will change the heat level of my take, but the situation I was picturing was actually a two-lane road posted at 35 mph (one of any number around here that should be 45 or 50 minimum). I don't think I'd bother with four-ways behind a speed-limit driver on a freeway or four-lane arterial, because (A) I could just pass them instead and (B) speed differentials between lanes are not only expected, they're actually a
boon to traffic flow.
Quote from: kphoger on April 01, 2025, 09:09:27 AMYou can go the speed limit of 60 mph on I-494 around the south side of Minneapolis. In the left lane. And nobody will care. They'll all just happily trail you at a safe distance, or go around you on the right, with nary a sideways look. I don't get it, but it's true. On the one hand, it's irritating. But, on the other hand, it's kind of nice.
You'll have to explain that last sentence. Nice for the people doing it, sure. But not nice for anyone else.
I've noticed the same thing in MN, by the way. But it's not even "left-lane camping" like we have here. Because they're not necessarily locked in at the speed limit, and they're generally pretty willing to move if you give them your left blinker or express agitation in any other form. They just genuinely don't even seem to care what lane they use. They're just driving in total zen mode, fully relaxed. And that's much harder to get angry about than the grannies who are doing it intentionally to slow everyone else on the road down to their speed.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on April 01, 2025, 01:08:52 AMI'll also go on with things Québec City tends to do: over here, a ped signal invariably means your crossing is protected. There are no conflicting car movements. This is good, actually, and Montréal should take lessons from us.
It certainly eliminates the safety issue from turning traffic (assuming people obey the selective "no turn on red" restrictions that NY likes to pair them with that are only active during the ped phase; most people ignore them), but can be really annoying as a pedestrian due to needing to wait a whole light cycle to get the walk signal. And if you're crossing diagonally and the jurisdiction doesn't implement the "pedestrian scramble", you're waiting two light cycles - which at many intersections can mean 4-6 minutes of waiting.
Quote from: webny99 on April 01, 2025, 11:36:24 AMspeed differentials between lanes are not only expected, they're actually a boon to traffic flow
They also make it harder to move over to pass, because you're either waiting for a large gap or force someone to slow down while you accelerate. It's one reason I'm so annoyed with people who try to merge onto freeways at 40 - because then, if I'm on the freeway, I have to slow down to let people in (either them or the people moving over to let them in), or if I'm behind them, then I become one of "those people" slowing down everyone else.
Quote from: webny99 on April 01, 2025, 11:36:24 AMQuote from: kphoger on April 01, 2025, 09:09:27 AMYou can go the speed limit of 60 mph on I-494 around the south side of Minneapolis. In the left lane. And nobody will care. They'll all just happily trail you at a safe distance, or go around you on the right, with nary a sideways look. I don't get it, but it's true. On the one hand, it's irritating. But, on the other hand, it's kind of nice.
You'll have to explain that last sentence. Nice for the people doing it, sure. But not nice for anyone else.
I've noticed the same thing in MN, by the way. But it's not even "left-lane camping" like we have here. Because they're not necessarily locked in at the speed limit, and they're generally pretty willing to move if you give them your left blinker or express agitation in any other form. They just genuinely don't even seem to care what lane they use. They're just driving in total zen mode, fully relaxed. And that's much harder to get angry about than the grannies who are doing it intentionally to slow everyone else on the road down to their speed.
Nice for me too. I mean, not nice in that I'm still 90% of the way through a 700-mile drive and just want to Get There Already! But nice in that it doesn't feel like every driver on the road is doing battle with everyone else. It's just harder to get angry, when zero other drivers around you have any problem with anything anybody is doing.
Quote from: vdeane on April 01, 2025, 12:43:58 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on April 01, 2025, 01:08:52 AMI'll also go on with things Québec City tends to do: over here, a ped signal invariably means your crossing is protected. There are no conflicting car movements. This is good, actually, and Montréal should take lessons from us.
It certainly eliminates the safety issue from turning traffic (assuming people obey the selective "no turn on red" restrictions that NY likes to pair them with that are only active during the ped phase; most people ignore them), but can be really annoying as a pedestrian due to needing to wait a whole light cycle to get the walk signal. And if you're crossing diagonally and the jurisdiction doesn't implement the "pedestrian scramble", you're waiting two light cycles - which at many intersections can mean 4-6 minutes of waiting.
I certainly won't wait two cycles. Most intersections here do have a pedestrian scramble, though, so it doesn't matter unless I'm on the main roads.
Quote from: kphoger on April 01, 2025, 09:09:27 AMYou can go the speed limit of 60 mph on I-494 around the south side of Minneapolis. In the left lane. And nobody will care. They'll all just happily trail you at a safe distance, or go around you on the right, with nary a sideways look. I don't get it, but it's true. On the one hand, it's irritating. But, on the other hand, it's kind of nice.
So that's what they call Minnesota Nice.
Quote from: Rothman on April 01, 2025, 01:02:37 AMAt a lot of signals in the U.S., the push button does very little. Getting more common that it's just to trigger audible warnings, since the walk signals are already timed with the main signals themselves.
Sort of like the >< button on most elevators.
Quote from: CoreySamson on March 27, 2025, 11:11:17 PMHere are some of my biggest takes:
- I-69W in Texas should be completely ditched and replaced with an I-6 running from Laredo to Corpus Christi.
- I don't necessarily think that Memphis needs another Mississippi River bridge. Replacements of the existing bridges, sure, but it is extremely difficult to find a place where another bridge could feasibly work.
I-69W as I-6 I can agree with. Makes sense. I just don't know how much traffic would be west of Alice. But in the overall picture, I can get behind that.
As for Memphis Bridges, if I-269 was extended west, north of Tunica to cross the Mississippi at Horseshoe Lake, AR then turn straight north to I-40 west of I-55 near the weigh stations at MM 274, that would be a useful bypass of the current situation in Memphis.
North of Memphis would be more difficult with Meeman-Shelby Forest St Park and Wapanocca NWR in the way.
Quote from: Henry on March 27, 2025, 11:21:31 PMChicago wasted a golden opportunity by not building I-494. That would've been very helpful to traffic bypassing downtown to the west.
Absolutely agree with I-494 Crosstown Expy. Would be really useful now with the current Kennedy construction going on.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2025, 01:05:44 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 28, 2025, 12:56:11 PM- Not everything needs to be an Interstate, some proposed Interstates might be better left as existing state and US routes, 'bringing jobs to (insert place here)' isn't enough to justify an Interstate (ahem... North Carolina)
Shouting this out to everyone in the back who cries that I-76 should continue to Atlantic City. And broadcasting it via bullhorn for those that claim it'll increase development and jobs along the Expressway in what's actually a federally protected national reserve where development is unwanted.
I would just have the ACE become part of I-76 because it goes to a popular destination in Atlantic City for streamlining purposes. Not because I think it would spur business growth.
Quote from: kphoger on April 01, 2025, 09:09:27 AMThis depends on the driving culture.
How about a driving culture hot take?
New York driving culture = assume everyone is smart and get angry when they're not.
Minnesota driving culture = assume everyone is dumb and be impressed when they're not.
Texas driving culture = assume everyone is armed and act accordingly.
And maybe a few more. But I think most states can probably fit into one of those three, if only roughly.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on March 28, 2025, 02:07:54 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on March 28, 2025, 12:56:11 PM- Not everything needs to be an Interstate, some proposed Interstates might be better left as existing state and US routes, 'bringing jobs to (insert place here)' isn't enough to justify an Interstate (ahem... North Carolina)
I used to agree, but I kind of think otherwise now. I think "interstate" should be pretty synonymous with limited-access highway. US routes could be divided highways. State highways being undivided. This is kind of how Puerto Rico does their roads. The same route number might change signage depending in its "quality" where highway 1 could have primary, urban primary, secondary, and tertiary segments of the same highway.
Agreed. If it is a quality expressway/freeway with limited access over a long distance, I got no problem with it being labeled an interstate. But I also think that not every freeway needs to be an interstate. I-865, I-375 FL, I-175 FL are all glorified exit ramps.
Quote from: TheStranger on March 29, 2025, 03:24:34 PMFor all the talk on this forum about whether California's internal exit number tabs are legible or not...I think the bigger thing here is getting people to actually use the exit numbers in regular conversation. Pre-2001 I get the sense most folks here were used to just saying they were going to (exit name) and I don't think that has completely changed a quarter-century later.
In all my driving days and giving people directions, exit numbers are not at all what I tell them. Highway numbers, road names or fill in the blank town exit, yes. But I have never told someone to get off at Exit 267 to get to my town even though I know the number. Most people don't know exit numbers because its at a single point. People know names and highway numbers.
Quote from: webny99 on April 01, 2025, 03:38:06 PMTexas driving culture
Hot take:
I like driving in Texas. Texas driving is my kind of driving. More people should drive like how they do in Texas.
(But not Dallas.)
Quote from: LilianaUwU on April 01, 2025, 01:08:52 AMI'll also go on with things Québec City tends to do: over here, a ped signal invariably means your crossing is protected. There are no conflicting car movements. This is good, actually, and Montréal should take lessons from us.
Do I detect a bit of animosity from Quebec City towards Montreal? Is it like having the Nordiques back fighting the Canadiens? :bigass:
Quote from: webny99 on April 01, 2025, 03:38:06 PMQuote from: kphoger on April 01, 2025, 09:09:27 AMThis depends on the driving culture.
How about a driving culture hot take?
New York driving culture = assume everyone is smart and get angry when they're not.
Minnesota driving culture = assume everyone is dumb and be impressed when they're not.
Texas driving culture = assume everyone is armed and act accordingly.
And maybe a few more. But I think most states can probably fit into one of those three, if only roughly.
I just think the driving culture you are brought up with has a lot more to do with how one views driving culture in other places. For example, it still baffles me that in Boston driving on the right should is perfectly fine at least in my experience.
Quote from: kphoger on April 01, 2025, 03:46:48 PMQuote from: webny99 on April 01, 2025, 03:38:06 PMTexas driving culture
Hot take:
I like driving in Texas. Texas driving is my kind of driving. More people should drive like how they do in Texas.
(But not Dallas.)
I'm more of a fan of Dallas driving than Houston driving. They're fucking nuts in Houston. Oh and don't get me started on the crotch rocket organ donors.
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 01, 2025, 03:59:46 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on April 01, 2025, 01:08:52 AMI'll also go on with things Québec City tends to do: over here, a ped signal invariably means your crossing is protected. There are no conflicting car movements. This is good, actually, and Montréal should take lessons from us.
Do I detect a bit of animosity from Quebec City towards Montreal? Is it like having the Nordiques back fighting the Canadiens? :bigass:
Despite all of this, I've been a Canadiens fan since birth. My animosity comes from Montréal getting the NYC treatment of everything centering around them while the rest of the province, including the eponymous capital city, gets left behind.
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 01, 2025, 04:08:04 PMI'm more of a fan of Dallas driving than Houston driving. They're fucking nuts in Houston.
I've only driven through Houston on one trip, and I'm sure I didn't get an accurate snapshot of their driving. The way south, for example, it was Friday afternoon rush hour at a steady 0.004 mph.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on April 01, 2025, 04:12:07 PMQuote from: hobsini2 on April 01, 2025, 03:59:46 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on April 01, 2025, 01:08:52 AMI'll also go on with things Québec City tends to do: over here, a ped signal invariably means your crossing is protected. There are no conflicting car movements. This is good, actually, and Montréal should take lessons from us.
Do I detect a bit of animosity from Quebec City towards Montreal? Is it like having the Nordiques back fighting the Canadiens? :bigass:
Despite all of this, I've been a Canadiens fan since birth. My animosity comes from Montréal getting the NYC treatment of everything centering around them while the rest of the province, including the eponymous capital city, gets left behind.
I'm not going to ask your age but were the Nordiques in Quebec still when you became a Canadiens fan?
As for your feelings on Montreal getting the NYC treatment, I can absolutely understand that feeling. Here in Illinois, a lot of downstaters hate anything north of I-80 and east of the Fox River because most of the state's money goes to the Chicago area. Of course, 3/4's of the state's population lives in an area about 1/8th of the state's area.
Quote from: kphoger on April 01, 2025, 03:46:48 PMQuote from: webny99 on April 01, 2025, 03:38:06 PMTexas driving culture
Hot take:
I like driving in Texas. Texas driving is my kind of driving. More people should drive like how they do in Texas.
(But not Dallas.)
The problem with driving in Texas is that it takes a very long time to get out of Texas.
Quote from: pderocco on April 01, 2025, 04:32:01 PMQuote from: kphoger on April 01, 2025, 03:46:48 PMQuote from: webny99 on April 01, 2025, 03:38:06 PMTexas driving culture
Hot take:
I like driving in Texas. Texas driving is my kind of driving. More people should drive like how they do in Texas.
(But not Dallas.)
The problem with driving in Texas is that it takes a very long time to get out of Texas.
Texas - So hot that people ask if the shit liquified yet?
Sorry Corey.
Quote from: pderocco on April 01, 2025, 04:32:01 PMThe problem with driving in Texas is that it takes a very long time to get out of Texas.
That's a feature, not a bug.
orNot with the high speed limits, it doesn't.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on March 28, 2025, 09:48:14 PMQuote from: vdeane on March 28, 2025, 09:38:05 PMI think that's mostly roadgeeks being frustrated with one freeway having several numbers and trying to find a non-roadgeek reason to justify it.
Make it I-42 all the way from I-71 in Ohio to Baltic Avenue.
FIFY (two different roads with that number isn't enough! It's the answer!)
Actually, to give a hot take of my own, it's really really common in British roadgeekery to say the M6 should take over the A14 and M11 as that's the mainline route (no TOTSOs) and ends up in London, rather than just end at the M1. My take is that it would be far better to, should one extend it to London, extend the 14 number to Birmingham and route the M6 to London via the M40 rather than a long way around.
TOTSOs are fine. Though stuff like IL/MO110 or E roads are quite useful to give one number between cities (either if that route TOTSOs, or if the one route changes numbers to fit a grid or whatever)
Quote from: kphoger on April 01, 2025, 04:16:23 PMa steady 0.004 mph.
I would have said 'get out and walk it's 500 times faster' but we're talking Houston. You'd both faint from the heat/humidity and also wear about a pair of shoes before you left the sprawl.
Quote from: english si on April 01, 2025, 04:43:30 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on March 28, 2025, 09:48:14 PMQuote from: vdeane on March 28, 2025, 09:38:05 PMI think that's mostly roadgeeks being frustrated with one freeway having several numbers and trying to find a non-roadgeek reason to justify it.
Make it I-42 all the way from I-71 in Ohio to Baltic Avenue.
FIFY (two different roads with that number isn't enough! It's the answer!)
Actually, to give a hot take of my own, it's really really common in British roadgeekery to say the M6 should take over the A14 and M11 as that's the mainline route (no TOTSOs) and ends up in London, rather than just end at the M1. My take is that it would be far better to, should one extend it to London, extend the 14 number to Birmingham and route the M6 to London via the M40 rather than a long way around.
TOTSOs are fine. Though stuff like IL/MO110 or E roads are quite useful to give one number between cities (either if that route TOTSOs, or if the one route changes numbers to fit a grid or whatever)Quote from: kphoger on April 01, 2025, 04:16:23 PMa steady 0.004 mph.
I would have said 'get out and walk it's 500 times faster' but we're talking Houston. You'd both faint from the heat/humidity and also wear about a pair of shoes before you left the sprawl.
TOTSO? Please define.
Quote from: webny99 on April 01, 2025, 03:38:06 PMQuote from: kphoger on April 01, 2025, 09:09:27 AMThis depends on the driving culture.
How about a driving culture hot take?
New York driving culture = assume everyone is smart and get angry when they're not.
Minnesota driving culture = assume everyone is dumb and be impressed when they're not.
Texas driving culture = assume everyone is armed and act accordingly.
And maybe a few more. But I think most states can probably fit into one of those three, if only roughly.
Chicago driving culture: assume everyone is a jackass, honk at them when they inevitably prove you right.
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 01, 2025, 05:04:41 PMQuote from: english si on April 01, 2025, 04:43:30 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on March 28, 2025, 09:48:14 PMQuote from: vdeane on March 28, 2025, 09:38:05 PMI think that's mostly roadgeeks being frustrated with one freeway having several numbers and trying to find a non-roadgeek reason to justify it.
Make it I-42 all the way from I-71 in Ohio to Baltic Avenue.
FIFY (two different roads with that number isn't enough! It's the answer!)
Actually, to give a hot take of my own, it's really really common in British roadgeekery to say the M6 should take over the A14 and M11 as that's the mainline route (no TOTSOs) and ends up in London, rather than just end at the M1. My take is that it would be far better to, should one extend it to London, extend the 14 number to Birmingham and route the M6 to London via the M40 rather than a long way around.
TOTSOs are fine. Though stuff like IL/MO110 or E roads are quite useful to give one number between cities (either if that route TOTSOs, or if the one route changes numbers to fit a grid or whatever)
Quote from: kphoger on April 01, 2025, 04:16:23 PMa steady 0.004 mph.
I would have said 'get out and walk it's 500 times faster' but we're talking Houston. You'd both faint from the heat/humidity and also wear about a pair of shoes before you left the sprawl.
TOTSO? Please define.
Turn Off To Stay On. Usually needing to take an exit to remain on the same route number.
Quote from: TheCatalyst31 on April 01, 2025, 05:15:58 PMQuote from: webny99 on April 01, 2025, 03:38:06 PMQuote from: kphoger on April 01, 2025, 09:09:27 AMThis depends on the driving culture.
How about a driving culture hot take?
New York driving culture = assume everyone is smart and get angry when they're not.
Minnesota driving culture = assume everyone is dumb and be impressed when they're not.
Texas driving culture = assume everyone is armed and act accordingly.
And maybe a few more. But I think most states can probably fit into one of those three, if only roughly.
Chicago driving culture: assume everyone is a jackass, honk at them when they inevitably prove you right.
Lord Carhorn.
I-97 is fine as it is. Most people don't care about the significance of a highway number, just if it will help them get where they need to go.
8" signals (including 12-8-8 variants) should still be more widely accepted. Case in point, Charleston, SC switched a couple of their intersections from 12-8-8s to all 12" heads. The new mast arms don't really fit in with the historic streets. King & Queen St Before (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7779694,-79.9329339,3a,23.3y,169.79h,90.07t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sfetJ9TZSjDq8jIfT-70-kQ!2e0!5s20160101T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-0.0694856658036258%26panoid%3DfetJ9TZSjDq8jIfT-70-kQ%26yaw%3D169.78559084991275!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMzMC4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D) & After (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7779551,-79.9329289,3a,48.9y,172.08h,86.35t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sPelyqtdQwYzaK6KJf9Tz4A!2e0!5s20241001T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D3.6527516144652594%26panoid%3DPelyqtdQwYzaK6KJf9Tz4A%26yaw%3D172.07891239699785!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMzMC4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D) . A separate issue being the mast arms they are using take up A LOT of sidewalk space in a heavily pedestrian area.
Bike signals would be better if they used a pedestrian signal housing because the Bike stencil would fit better using the rectangular pedestrian housing.
U-turn signals are mostly unnecessary and their stencils are hard to fit in the typical signal housing.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2025, 04:16:50 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on March 30, 2025, 03:42:10 PMI-99 is fine
As is I-238.
Same. No problem with "I-238" but I'm more annoyed (very mildly of course :colorful: ) at I-580 being used for what's really four separate freeways. (Yes I know the history of the route as I-5W/US-50)
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 01, 2025, 05:04:41 PMTOTSO? Please define.
Turn Off (the mainline) To Stay On (the numbered route.
Quote from: english si on April 02, 2025, 05:07:13 AMQuote from: hobsini2 on April 01, 2025, 05:04:41 PMTOTSO? Please define.
Turn Off (the mainline) To Stay On (the numbered route.
A post 12 hours after someone explained it above. Brings old Internet Explorer memes to mind. ;D
Quote from: kphoger on April 01, 2025, 03:46:48 PMQuote from: webny99 on April 01, 2025, 03:38:06 PMTexas driving culture
Hot take:
I like driving in Texas. Texas driving is my kind of driving. More people should drive like how they do in Texas.
(But not Dallas.)
For the most part, driving in Texas doesn't seem as arrogant except for the left/express lanes of large-city freeways. And then, really no worse than any other big city, trending on the friendlier side when things get backed up.
Although my major annoyance is how fast many folks drive on the frontage roads in Texas cities, especially in the right lane. Sucks trying to get out of a parking lot during some hours because everyone else is doing 50-60 (which isn't a hot take, but I feel I'm the first to complain about it).
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 01, 2025, 04:06:04 PMI just think the driving culture you are brought up with has a lot more to do with how one views driving culture in other places. For example, it still baffles me that in Boston driving on the right should is perfectly fine at least in my experience.
I'm not trying to pick on you, but I think you made a typo (maybe a missing word or two? Or maybe "should" was meant to be "shoulder"?) somewhere in the boldfaced and the result of it is that I'm not really sure what you're trying to say there.
If it means "shoulder", it makes perfect sense. Certain roads allow driving on the shoulder weekdays 6-10 AM toward Boston and 3-7 PM away from Boston.
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 01, 2025, 03:29:43 PMQuote from: Henry on March 27, 2025, 11:21:31 PMChicago wasted a golden opportunity by not building I-494. That would've been very helpful to traffic bypassing downtown to the west.
Absolutely agree with I-494 Crosstown Expy. Would be really useful now with the current Kennedy construction going on.
It may have been better for traffic, but I don't understand how tearing up another neighborhood would have been good for the City of Chicago.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on April 02, 2025, 09:44:23 AMQuote from: hobsini2 on April 01, 2025, 03:29:43 PMQuote from: Henry on March 27, 2025, 11:21:31 PMChicago wasted a golden opportunity by not building I-494. That would've been very helpful to traffic bypassing downtown to the west.
Absolutely agree with I-494 Crosstown Expy. Would be really useful now with the current Kennedy construction going on.
It may have been better for traffic, but I don't understand how tearing up another neighborhood would have been good for the City of Chicago.
Actually the plan was to run along the existing rail line from the Edens Jct to I-55. Getting over to the Ryan would have been more difficult.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 02, 2025, 08:13:56 AMQuote from: hobsini2 on April 01, 2025, 04:06:04 PMI just think the driving culture you are brought up with has a lot more to do with how one views driving culture in other places. For example, it still baffles me that in Boston driving on the right should is perfectly fine at least in my experience.
I'm not trying to pick on you, but I think you made a typo (maybe a missing word or two? Or maybe "should" was meant to be "shoulder"?) somewhere in the boldfaced and the result of it is that I'm not really sure what you're trying to say there.
Yes it was shoulder. I don't know why it auto corrected it.
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 02, 2025, 10:36:23 AMActually the plan was to run along the existing rail line from the Edens Jct to I-55. Getting over to the Ryan would have been more difficult.
The south part made some sense, NO way the north. Ideally, US 12 & 20 should have taken a diagonal through town instead of the long, present-day EW-NS path.
From the Strangler, follow CN rail SE to Berwyn, over Cicero Av. crossing the SanShip Canal, I-55, and Pulaski, along BNSFs Corwith railyard, then east along 49th. Over Western, turning south along CSXs railyard. Then a turn east at the ROW north of 59th. Follow from Damen to Halsted, then turn SE follow till ya cross the Ryan, adjacent to the NS tracks and merge into the Skyway. Thats it!
Connecting ramps:
At Strangler: WB to 290 (or the "new" I-90), N294, 88. Really liking the flyover I-294 idea, that would include a ramp from E88 & N294 and get rid of the slow oval ramp. EB from 290 & 88 (294 already merged).
Mannheim: WB exit, EB enter.
Harlem: WB exit, EB enter
Cicero: WB enter & exit EB exit.
I-55: from N55 to EB, from S55 to WB maybe.
Archer, Western & 49th: Probably WB exit to Archer, EB enter. Maybe a free frontage to/from Western with WB enter, EB exit.
59th & Western: WB exit, EB enter.
At Ryan: WB enter from State St. EB exit at Yale cross 63rd to SB Ryan.
Cross Ryan, merge with Skyway.
Sixteen miles, MINIMAL neighborhood disruption. Only two areas that have any residential.
New grade-separations along CN rails in this area would include Riverside Dr., Harlem (IL43), 26th St., Veterans Dr., Hainesworth , DesPlaines Av, Cermak, First Av.(IL171), 17th Av., Oak Ridge Av., Harrison St., and Wolf Rd.
LINK HERE (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19947.msg2215775#msg2215775)
This highway would be some twenty to SIXTY feet in the air and there are very few (50? 60?) residences affected. I know it sounds amazing, but its true.
Grade-separated rail lines could be added along the same corridor, getting trains through town in hours instead of a day+.
If theres a better solution to Chicagos road and rail problems, bring it. Im all eyes.
LINK HERE (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16790.0)
Quote from: kphoger on April 02, 2025, 11:56:34 AMQuote from: hobsini2 on April 02, 2025, 10:36:23 AMActually the plan was to run along the existing rail line from the Edens Jct to I-55. Getting over to the Ryan would have been more difficult.
The south part made some sense, NO way the north. Ideally, US 12 & 20 should have taken a diagonal through town instead of the long, present-day EW-NS path.
From the Strangler, follow CN rail SE to Berwyn, over Cicero Av. crossing the SanShip Canal, I-55, and Pulaski, along BNSFs Corwith railyard, then east along 49th. Over Western, turning south along CSXs railyard. Then a turn east at the ROW north of 59th. Follow from Damen to Halsted, then turn SE follow till ya cross the Ryan, adjacent to the NS tracks and merge into the Skyway. Thats it!
Connecting ramps:
At Strangler: WB to 290 (or the "new" I-90), N294, 88. Really liking the flyover I-294 idea, that would include a ramp from E88 & N294 and get rid of the slow oval ramp. EB from 290 & 88 (294 already merged).
Mannheim: WB exit, EB enter.
Harlem: WB exit, EB enter
Cicero: WB enter & exit EB exit.
I-55: from N55 to EB, from S55 to WB maybe.
Archer, Western & 49th: Probably WB exit to Archer, EB enter. Maybe a free frontage to/from Western with WB enter, EB exit.
59th & Western: WB exit, EB enter.
At Ryan: WB enter from State St. EB exit at Yale cross 63rd to SB Ryan.
Cross Ryan, merge with Skyway.
Sixteen miles, MINIMAL neighborhood disruption. Only two areas that have any residential.
New grade-separations along CN rails in this area would include Riverside Dr., Harlem (IL43), 26th St., Veterans Dr., Hainesworth , DesPlaines Av, Cermak, First Av.(IL171), 17th Av., Oak Ridge Av., Harrison St., and Wolf Rd.
LINK HERE (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19947.msg2215775#msg2215775)
This highway would be some twenty to SIXTY feet in the air and there are very few (50? 60?) residences affected. I know it sounds amazing, but its true.
Grade-separated rail lines could be added along the same corridor, getting trains through town in hours instead of a day+.
If theres a better solution to Chicagos road and rail problems, bring it. Im all eyes.
LINK HERE (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16790.0)
:popcorn: I see what you did.
Quote from: kphoger on April 02, 2025, 11:56:34 AMThe south part made some sense, NO way the north. Ideally, US 12 & 20 should have taken a diagonal through town instead of the long, present-day EW-NS path
You mean like a....hypotenuse?
Quote from: kphoger on April 01, 2025, 03:46:48 PMQuote from: webny99 on April 01, 2025, 03:38:06 PMTexas driving culture
Hot take:
I like driving in Texas. Texas driving is my kind of driving. More people should drive like how they do in Texas.
(But not Dallas.)
I don't think that's a hot take, because I agree for the most part. The overall vibe perhaps a little standoffish, but I see that as a good thing for the most part too.
I actually got honked at twice while driving in Texas last spring. Both times for passing on the right and then cutting back into the left lane in front of the person I'd just passed. I didn't think it was dangerous, either time, but I must have either cut in a little closer than I'd intended or the move just came across as aggressive in general. I get the sense that passing on the right is not the norm in Texas. Nor is left lane camping. Both of which are very good things. But this New Yorker found the "Don't mess with Texas" standard to be even higher than expected. 'Twas a learning experience, to be sure.
I have over 3,000 miles of TX roads in Travel Mapping (and have driven many routes more than once/in both directions/etc.), and I don't remember a single thing unique to Texas drivers in Texas. I will say that if someone is driving like an idiot here in Denver, there's probably a 50/50 shot that it has a TX license plate. Maybe it's just Texas expats.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on April 02, 2025, 02:53:03 PMI have over 3,000 miles of TX roads in Travel Mapping (and have driven many routes more than once/in both directions/etc.), and I don't remember a single thing unique to Texas drivers in Texas.
Isn't that a good thing? In the sense that if there was something unique or noteworthy, it probably wouldn't be a good thing.
Quote from: webny99 on April 02, 2025, 03:50:32 PMQuote from: JayhawkCO on April 02, 2025, 02:53:03 PMI have over 3,000 miles of TX roads in Travel Mapping (and have driven many routes more than once/in both directions/etc.), and I don't remember a single thing unique to Texas drivers in Texas.
Isn't that a good thing? In the sense that if there was something unique or noteworthy, it probably wouldn't be a good thing.
Yeah. I was just saying I don't know what the big hubbub is about driving in Texas. Seems just like any other place to me. The only places in the country where I can really tell a difference are Chicago (honking) and Connecticut (left lane hogging). I think the amount of movement around the country has diluted any regional differences pretty well.
My hot take is that it's a hot take to take on what others do or don't consider to be a hot take.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on April 02, 2025, 03:58:20 PMMy hot take is that it's a hot take to take on what others do or don't consider to be a hot take.
that's not really a hot take
Quote from: kphoger on April 02, 2025, 04:00:41 PMQuote from: paulthemapguy on April 02, 2025, 03:58:20 PMMy hot take is that it's a hot take to take on what others do or don't consider to be a hot take.
that's not really a hot take
https://youtu.be/JuhTQwzizDI?si=mzqPmiX7IPUoSL0d
- Clearview is fine. It was fine in 2004, it's fine in 2025. It's not an issue and I doubt the vast majority of people even looking at BGS would recognize the font is different. I've said before that I think most of the hostility is simple nostalgia, i.e. "I saw a different font growing up, it's what I'm used to seeing," so of course Clearview is immediately seen as a negative. I feel had things been reversed, Clearview came out in the 40s and "Highway Gothic" was introduced in 2004, there would be equal dislike for it.
When I make my own shields and signs for personal projects, I use Clearview. And I think it looks just fine. One thing I've noted is the official fonts (which I bought years ago) have both the "B" and "W" variant, the latter being slightly thinner. This is to account for the slight optical illusion you see where white legend looks wider than it really is. I suspect what happens is a lot of the BGS designs are just using the generic "B," so coloring it white makes it look even wider. But the other issue is Clearview has more spacing. This means using it on standard dimensions (say, 24" by 24") can make the legend look weird: either too wide between the numerals, or it's pressed right up against the edges. I think if you alter the dimensions slightly, either go with 25" wide or use 11" height (instead of 12"), things look a lot better. (You can also reduce the spacing between legend, but that's not really a good idea).
I've found some of my oldest posts from 2010 where I said I didn't like Clearview very much. But I'm not like that anymore. I'm fine with it, and complaining about it, while fair, is a waste of time. It's going to be used, at some point you just have to accept it.
- Concurrencies are perfectly fine, but I've also come around to not using them excessively. I used to not like how California handled concurrencies, but having driven in some other states, I think how they do it is a good balance.
I was in Arizona not too long ago, and I recall US-180 being concurrent with I-40 for a long time. Or states like Colorado where US-85 (87?) is concurrent with I-25 through the entire state. To me, this becomes an instance of having discontiguous segments works better. Because practically speaking, you can't be on those routes without also being on the interstate.
California does this fairly well with CA-1. If you for whatever reason want to clinch all of CA-1, you will be on US-101 at times. There is no way around it. CA-1 also has several loops that naturally start and end at US-101. Las Cruces to Pismo Beach, for example. San Luis Obispo to San Francisco. They are distinct sections, but always return to US-101, and you have to be on that route to get to each segment. So rather than sign them concurrently, simply signing "US-101" works out perfectly fine. It makes a lot of sense practically. On the other hand, not signing concurrencies can be an issue. Something like CA-168 and US-395 used to not be signed for a while, although recently I've noticed signage. This is a case where yes, the former exists in unconnected segments, but they both go to different places than US-395 and you won't be using it as any kind of parallel. So a concurrency here should be signed, especially as it's not too long. The main thing for me has always been consistency: sign everything, or sign nothing. Or, as I explained earlier, sign concurrencies that make practical sense, but don't sign the ones that only really exist because they're piggybacking off a longer, more well-known route.
- Route numbers are for navigation, first and foremost. I don't care if it's state maintained or not. I don't care if it's relinquished or not. And I don't think the typical motorist does, either.
Again, another stupid California quirk. I don't care if Santa Monica maintains CA-2 or not, not signing it just because it's not "technically" a state route is stupid. In theory, relinquishment is supposed to be invisible to the motorist, as there is supposed to be signage, but this seems to never happen. The odd thing is I think relinquishment is actually a great idea for the most part: let the local jurisdictions handle the road, because they can usually get to any changes or improvements more quickly. But sign the damn route! Nothing to me is more frustrating than me being on a route, it suddenly seems to disappear, only to reappear later. Because of something arbitrary like a city limit. And this happens even in the modern CarPlay/GPS era.
If you have to split the difference, offer shields in either a different shape, different color scheme, or both. So basically county routes. The idea I had was to put all non-state maintained routes (both relinquished and county routes) on the same miner's spade, but a different color scheme (I like black-on-yellow, like what is used in Wyoming). It's especially bad through the Sierra, where non of the county routes are signed. Good luck trying to navigate Sherman Pass if you don't know where to make the turns. If all the roads in the area had a single consistent "190" shield, it would tell the motorist that it's a natural continuation of CA-190, but it's not actually state maintained. It would promote navigation as the most important thing, because again, I need to find Sherman Pass. I don't care if the Forest Service maintains the road, or if Inyo County does. Especially when it's 1 AM and you're almost out of gas and can't afford any wrong turns.
- Any significant road that crosses a state border should be assigned a number.
- The US route system should be overhauled to have truly minimum design standards. In a perfect world, the interstates would be like the autobahns: strict design standards with no speed limits, and US routes would be minimum freeways but with slightly lower standards. (Or at the very least, perhaps expressways).
Again, citing California, since it's what I'm used to, it does seem that the US routes here have found a nice middle ground. There is a clear quality difference with US-97 and US-395 compared to, say, CA-36 or CA-89. The former are much wider, have clear medians, and are at least expressways. But they still have at-grade junctions, they have lower speed limits. To me, this is a good middle ground. It gives the US routes a proper niche that has been missing since, well, always, since there was never really any minimum standards to begin with (perhaps beyond being paved).
I think I've posted most of these before. And yes, a lot of them are just my stupid pet peeves about stuff.
US 52 should end at I-94 in St. Paul. The segment in North Dakota should be a state highway or US x8x.
Quote from: kphoger on April 01, 2025, 03:46:48 PMQuote from: webny99 on April 01, 2025, 03:38:06 PMTexas driving culture
Hot take:
I like driving in Texas. Texas driving is my kind of driving. More people should drive like how they do in Texas.
(But not Dallas.)
Agreed that Texas drivers in Texas are pretty friendly...
EXCEPT in my general experience, once Texas drivers LEAVE their state, they also leave their Texas driving courtesies back at the state line.
Quote from: Quillz on May 04, 2025, 08:22:16 PMI was in Arizona not too long ago, and I recall US-180 being concurrent with I-40 for a long time. Or states like Colorado where US-85 (87?) is concurrent with I-25 through the entire state. To me, this becomes an instance of having discontiguous segments works better. Because practically speaking, you can't be on those routes without also being on the interstate.
Technically, US87 didn't stay on I-25 for the entirety of its time in Colorado. On the short Fountain->Colorado Springs section of US85, US87 multiplexed with the US Route instead of the interstate. Now that CODOT has renamed that stub CO85, it appears that US87 is back on I-25 for the entire length.
Quote from: Mav94 on May 05, 2025, 08:36:17 AMUS 52 should end at I-94 in St. Paul. The segment in North Dakota should be a state highway or US x8x.
A different idea would be to have US 52 replace US 10 from MSP to West Fargo.
Quote from: Mav94 on May 05, 2025, 08:36:17 AMUS 52 should end at I-94 in St. Paul. The segment in North Dakota should be a state highway or US x8x.
US-52 should end when it crosses the Mississippi and US-67 should replace it up to I-94 in St. Paul.
Distance signs and interchange sequence signs should be flipped. Longer distances should be at the top.
Currently, it's inconsistent. See the rightmost sign panel below. Obviously, the frontage road comes first, then the I-10 on-ramp comes after that. Closer one is on the bottom, farther one is on the top.
(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig2d_16.gif)
And yet, that's the opposite of how interchange sequence signs are laid out. Same thing for any other sort of distance sign. On the sign below, it's the farther one that's on the bottom, closer one on top.
(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig2e_31.gif)
Make it consistent.
I disagree. For distance signs, we'd naturally rank distances from nearest at top to farthest at bottom. The I-10 / Frontage Road sign is a diagrammic sign, if we flipped the I-10 / Frontage Road orientation on the sign, it would imply that as we are traveling that the intersection with I-10 would come before the Frontage Road.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 24, 2025, 04:14:07 PMFor distance signs, we'd naturally rank distances from nearest at top to farthest at bottom.
What I'm saying is that that's less 'natural' than the other way. Upward-pointing arrows mean 'ahead', so farther up more naturally means farther ahead. Diagrammatic signs show farther destinations farther at the top, so farther up more naturally means farther ahead.
I imagine quickly getting accustomed to
something like this (https://maps.app.goo.gl/qsusEavie71vnWYq7).
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, at first I read it as if the diagrammic should be flipped.
For distance signs, it might be a matter of how we naturally order things and how we expect a list to be ordered when we're scanning it for information.
Quote from: kphoger on June 24, 2025, 02:40:40 PMDistance signs and interchange sequence signs should be flipped.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on June 24, 2025, 05:16:03 PMMaybe I'm misinterpreting, at first I read it as if the diagrammic should be flipped.
Indeed.
I prefer the furthest city as lowest on the list.
If you know Big Far City is 50 miles away, you don't have to keep parsing that information first repeatedly every few miles. You're probably looking for the Smaller Near Town (which may not appear again on the next sign) since it is usually the distance to the next exit or intersection.
At the next mileage sign, knowing that Big Far City is now 42 miles away is incrementally more trivial.
I don't care all that much as long as there's consistency.
Here's one where Caltrans District 4 can't even figure out how to be consistent on the same gantry. :banghead:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/8RNW7c7fBfWyewxc7 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/8RNW7c7fBfWyewxc7)
Quote from: formulanone on June 24, 2025, 06:56:56 PMI prefer the furthest city as lowest on the list.
If you know Big Far City is 50 miles away, you don't have to keep parsing that information first repeatedly every few miles. You're probably looking for the Smaller Near Town (which may not appear again on the next sign) since it is usually the distance to the next exit or intersection.
At the next mileage sign, knowing that Big Far City is now 42 miles away is incrementally more trivial.
When you see a mileage sign, do you not process all the destinations listed anyway?
Do you not process "Greenville, 40 miles" and "Saint Louis, 125 miles" when you look at this sign—even if you're really only looking for the US-38 exit? Maybe I'm the only one who does.
(https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig2e_29.gif)
But anyway, I still think one would quickly get used to scanning the signs from the bottom up if that were the case, just as we already process overhead diagrammatic signs.
This reminds me of a Reddit thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/mkhkxo/road_distances_order_in_europe/) from a few years back. One comment states that the Dutch studied the matter and found that it is beneficial to drivers that the elements closest to the top of the sign correspond to those furthest ahead. A consequence of this is that, on overhead signs, up-arrows are preferred to down-arrows. Here is a web site (https://www.wegenwiki.nl/Nieuwe_Bewegwijzering_Autosnelwegen) summarizing the findings. In any case, this is a change I could get behind.
I don't think they're inconsistent at all, or at least not in a way that matters.
A mileage sign is listed the way that it is because the way English is written, you start at the top and read down.
US 38 in 5 miles. Then Greenville in 40 miles. Then St Louis in 125 miles. You read them in the order that you will encounter them.
On the diagrammatic sign shown on the previous page, there is an arrow showing the path a vehicle will take. It starts at the bottom and goes to the top. You probably won't read the sign top to bottom, you follow the path of the arrow from bottom to top. Again, you read them in the order you will encounter them.
Quote from: Quillz on May 04, 2025, 08:22:16 PMClearview is fine. It was fine in 2004, it's fine in 2025. It's not an issue and I doubt the vast majority of people even looking at BGS would recognize the font is different. I've said before that I think most of the hostility is simple nostalgia, i.e. "I saw a different font growing up, it's what I'm used to seeing," so of course Clearview is immediately seen as a negative.
My hostility toward Clearview at this point has nothing to do with nostalgia or the font's appearance. My problem with it is that it was sold to the American people as being a legibility upgrade, but that the studies used to support that were rigged heavily in Clearview's favor. And then when more recent studies revealed it was equal to or worse than FHWA Series (and that you could avoid most of the problems of E(M) by using E glyphs with E(M) spacing), we got asshole Congressmen trying to override FHWA so their buddies at Meeker and Associates could keep the grift up.
Nothing about that should be something we "just have to accept".
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 24, 2025, 08:32:58 PMQuote from: Quillz on May 04, 2025, 08:22:16 PMClearview is fine. It was fine in 2004, it's fine in 2025. It's not an issue and I doubt the vast majority of people even looking at BGS would recognize the font is different. I've said before that I think most of the hostility is simple nostalgia, i.e. "I saw a different font growing up, it's what I'm used to seeing," so of course Clearview is immediately seen as a negative.
My hostility toward Clearview at this point has nothing to do with nostalgia or the font's appearance. My problem with it is that it was sold to the American people as being a legibility upgrade, but that the studies used to support that were rigged heavily in Clearview's favor. And then when more recent studies revealed it was equal to or worse than FHWA Series (and that you could avoid most of the problems of E(M) by using E glyphs with E(M) spacing), we got asshole Congressmen trying to override FHWA so their buddies at Meeker and Associates could keep the grift up.
Nothing about that should be something we "just have to accept".
Agreed, some of the disdain is the principle of the matter.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 24, 2025, 08:29:33 PMyou start at the top and read down.
you follow the path of the arrow from bottom to top.
I think that's only commonsense to you because it's what you're used to.
I have a Mexican road atlas that has a number of pages of "highway routes", which are line diagrams of city-to-city-driving routes with junctions and services marked along the way. A (blurry) picture is shown below:
(https://i.imgur.com/bNgACeT.jpeg)
This is the last sixth or so of the suggested route from Mexico City to Tijuana. Note that Tijuana is not only the northernmost point of the trip, but it's also the last point to be reached—yet it's at the bottom of the arrow. On all of these line diagrams, the starting point and shaft of the arrow is at the top, and the end point and arrowhead is at the bottom. 'Up' does not mean 'ahead'. 'Down' does.
And this is how I've been planning out all my driving directions for road trips for years now. Starting point at the top, ending point at the bottom. The arrow points downward. 'Down' means 'ahead'.
This would actually make my road trip plan sheet consistent with distance signs: nearest at the top, farthest at the bottom.
But I've started trying it the other way around more recently. Once or twice now, I've plotted my arrow starting at the bottom of the 8½x11 sheet instead. I'm not sure which I like better.
My point is that 'farthest ahead is at the top' when it comes to arrows isn't inherently more natural, but rather something we've just gotten used to by seeing upward-pointing arrows that mean 'ahead' out there on the road. But, because we have gotten used to 'up' meaning 'ahead' on signage, then I think distance signs should follow that convention too. That is to say, you should be able to move the mileage sign overhead, stick a mini multi-headed diagrammatic arrow on the side, and the sign should otherwise still make sense.
Quote from: kphoger on June 24, 2025, 04:28:02 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on June 24, 2025, 04:14:07 PMFor distance signs, we'd naturally rank distances from nearest at top to farthest at bottom.
What I'm saying is that that's less 'natural' than the other way. Upward-pointing arrows mean 'ahead', so farther up more naturally means farther ahead. Diagrammatic signs show farther destinations farther at the top, so farther up more naturally means farther ahead.
I imagine quickly getting accustomed to something like this (https://maps.app.goo.gl/qsusEavie71vnWYq7).
I guess that's why they paint things like
AHEAD
SIGN
STOP
on streets.
Quote from: kphoger on June 24, 2025, 09:36:10 PM'farthest ahead is at the top' when it comes to arrows isn't inherently more natural, but rather something we've just gotten used to by seeing upward-pointing arrows that mean 'ahead' out there on the road
Maybe that's not entirely true, after all. If you laid an arrow on the ground and looked at it, then the 'top' of it would be farthest away from you.
Nothing against Glenwood Canyon because it's a beautiful area, but its status as a roadgeek pilgrimage site is overblown.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan3561 on June 25, 2025, 11:07:27 AMNothing against Glenwood Canyon because irs a beautiful area, but its status as a roadgeek pilgrimage site is overblown.
Uff. That take is so hot, it's melting my monitor.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan3561 on June 25, 2025, 11:07:27 AMNothing against Glenwood Canyon because irs a beautiful area, but its status as a roadgeek pilgrimage site is overblown.
Maybe if you literally mean just Glenwood Springs to Dotsero, but I-70 through the Rockies is the most beautiful extended stretch of Interstate in the country, and you could add the rest through Utah to that as well. If anyone asked me the best route between the two coasts, I'd simply say, go any way you want, as long as it includes I-70 through Utah and the Rockies.
While I do think some other stretches of highway deserve a lot more shout-out than they ever get—especially De Beque Canyon—that doesn't diminish my opinion that Glenwood Canyon is properly rated as highly as it is. No four-lane highway I've driven compares to Glenwood.
Quote from: pderocco on June 24, 2025, 11:25:02 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 24, 2025, 04:28:02 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on June 24, 2025, 04:14:07 PMFor distance signs, we'd naturally rank distances from nearest at top to farthest at bottom.
What I'm saying is that that's less 'natural' than the other way. Upward-pointing arrows mean 'ahead', so farther up more naturally means farther ahead. Diagrammatic signs show farther destinations farther at the top, so farther up more naturally means farther ahead.
I imagine quickly getting accustomed to something like this (https://maps.app.goo.gl/qsusEavie71vnWYq7).
I guess that's why they paint things like
AHEAD
SIGN
STOP
on streets.
From high above the road, it makes no sense, but it's obviously done to convey the same message to the driver in pretty much the same way as it would on a sign, albeit in upwards order.
I'm starting to come to the conclusion that induced demand, as New Urbanists describe it even, is, in fact, quite real. My commute home on the Northway has been getting worse and worse every year, to the point where it's worse than it was pre-pandemic at this point. The exit 4 project was done at the end of 2019, adding an auxiliary lane here (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7312912,-73.7899143,3a,75.3y,50.63h,89.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_PwBNFis4uq8PbFxbv5wEQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D0.05901318246993981%26panoid%3D_PwBNFis4uq8PbFxbv5wEQ%26yaw%3D50.628609191122585!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYyMy4yIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) where previously there was a nasty merge (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7312946,-73.7899609,3a,65.3y,49.97h,83.91t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1spcWeP2xVZY4NqGTX4uCvJg!2e0!5s20180901T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D6.085408571919473%26panoid%3DpcWeP2xVZY4NqGTX4uCvJg%26yaw%3D49.967566040749176!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYyMy4yIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) (and if you don't believe me, just spin the camera around). The thing is, after a few years where things were better (which I attribute more to pandemic-era telecommuting more than the new lane), they've been getting worse, and all the new lane seems to have done is get people to merge at the end of the ramp rather than over the painted gore area (even when it's congested, I don't see people taking the lane to exit 5 and trying to merge there, or merging where a natural gap in traffic forms; they always try to merge right at the end of the ramp, regardless of the impacts on traffic, which is sadly still an improvement over the way things used to be with them merging over the painted gore). I never used to have to divert off the Northway often - even if there was an incident, it used to move, and still be better than taking local roads. Not any more. If there's so much as a fender bender way off on the shoulder, it now becomes a parking lot. Used to be serious incidents would make things bad enough to divert. Now it's all of them. And there's an incident practically every week.
I've never understood why, because surely, the people who were avoiding the road before the exit 4 project and telecommuting uncorked everything south of Latham would avoid the road after it became congested again, right? It would make sense if it was caused by new development in Saratoga County, but it isn't, at least not completely, because the area around exit 6 also gets a lot more congested than it used to (there never used to be backups to go grocery shopping, but now there are). But then I figured it out: freeways are like crack cocaine - once you get used to them, it's very hard to kick the habit, so even if conditions worsen to what they were before or even more congested, the people who started using the road due to less traffic don't shift back to whatever they were doing before. They just keep using the road, despite the traffic now being what they previously would have considered intolerable.
Quote from: pderocco on June 24, 2025, 11:25:02 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 24, 2025, 04:28:02 PMQuote from: PColumbus73 on June 24, 2025, 04:14:07 PMFor distance signs, we'd naturally rank distances from nearest at top to farthest at bottom.
What I'm saying is that that's less 'natural' than the other way. Upward-pointing arrows mean 'ahead', so farther up more naturally means farther ahead. Diagrammatic signs show farther destinations farther at the top, so farther up more naturally means farther ahead.
I imagine quickly getting accustomed to something like this (https://maps.app.goo.gl/qsusEavie71vnWYq7).
I guess that's why they paint things like
AHEAD
SIGN
STOP
on streets.
Honestly, I don't like those pavement markings. I know we're supposed to read them first to last, but my brain still insists on reading them top to bottom, so instead of "stop sign ahead" my brain will instead read "ahead sign stop". Likewise, having destination signs with the furthest on top would be odd for me (and I don't encounter the diagrammatic ones often, but on the rare one I do, the arrows are probably the one thing that can override my brain on this).
Quote from: vdeane on June 27, 2025, 12:46:13 PMI'm starting to come to the conclusion that induced demand, as New Urbanists describe it even, is, in fact, quite real. My commute home on the Northway has been getting worse and worse every year, to the point where it's worse than it was pre-pandemic at this point. The exit 4 project was done at the end of 2019, adding an auxiliary lane here (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7312912,-73.7899143,3a,75.3y,50.63h,89.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_PwBNFis4uq8PbFxbv5wEQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D0.05901318246993981%26panoid%3D_PwBNFis4uq8PbFxbv5wEQ%26yaw%3D50.628609191122585!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYyMy4yIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) where previously there was a nasty merge (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7312946,-73.7899609,3a,65.3y,49.97h,83.91t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1spcWeP2xVZY4NqGTX4uCvJg!2e0!5s20180901T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D6.085408571919473%26panoid%3DpcWeP2xVZY4NqGTX4uCvJg%26yaw%3D49.967566040749176!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYyMy4yIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) (and if you don't believe me, just spin the camera around). The thing is, after a few years where things were better (which I attribute more to pandemic-era telecommuting more than the new lane), they've been getting worse, and all the new lane seems to have done is get people to merge at the end of the ramp rather than over the painted gore area (even when it's congested, I don't see people taking the lane to exit 5 and trying to merge there, or merging where a natural gap in traffic forms; they always try to merge right at the end of the ramp, regardless of the impacts on traffic, which is sadly still an improvement over the way things used to be with them merging over the painted gore). I never used to have to divert off the Northway often - even if there was an incident, it used to move, and still be better than taking local roads. Not any more. If there's so much as a fender bender way off on the shoulder, it now becomes a parking lot. Used to be serious incidents would make things bad enough to divert. Now it's all of them. And there's an incident practically every week.
I've never understood why, because surely, the people who were avoiding the road before the exit 4 project and telecommuting uncorked everything south of Latham would avoid the road after it became congested again, right? It would make sense if it was caused by new development in Saratoga County, but it isn't, at least not completely, because the area around exit 6 also gets a lot more congested than it used to (there never used to be backups to go grocery shopping, but now there are). But then I figured it out: freeways are like crack cocaine - once you get used to them, it's very hard to kick the habit, so even if conditions worsen to what they were before or even more congested, the people who started using the road due to less traffic don't shift back to whatever they were doing before. They just keep using the road, despite the traffic now being what they previously would have considered intolerable.
The basic fact is that you can't take advantage of emptier roads without making them less empty, and that's true of anything else that can get crowded. But no one says that we shouldn't enlarge a crowded airport or park because it will just fill up again with more people. The second fact, with respect to roads, is that people may want them to be emptier, but they also want a wider range of choices of where to live and work, which means that an empty road will cause some people to choose to move to a better house further from work, or take a better job further from home. I would call that a good thing on balance.
Quote from: pderocco on June 27, 2025, 05:39:00 PMQuote from: vdeane on June 27, 2025, 12:46:13 PMI'm starting to come to the conclusion that induced demand, as New Urbanists describe it even, is, in fact, quite real. My commute home on the Northway has been getting worse and worse every year, to the point where it's worse than it was pre-pandemic at this point. The exit 4 project was done at the end of 2019, adding an auxiliary lane here (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7312912,-73.7899143,3a,75.3y,50.63h,89.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_PwBNFis4uq8PbFxbv5wEQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D0.05901318246993981%26panoid%3D_PwBNFis4uq8PbFxbv5wEQ%26yaw%3D50.628609191122585!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYyMy4yIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) where previously there was a nasty merge (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7312946,-73.7899609,3a,65.3y,49.97h,83.91t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1spcWeP2xVZY4NqGTX4uCvJg!2e0!5s20180901T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D6.085408571919473%26panoid%3DpcWeP2xVZY4NqGTX4uCvJg%26yaw%3D49.967566040749176!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYyMy4yIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) (and if you don't believe me, just spin the camera around). The thing is, after a few years where things were better (which I attribute more to pandemic-era telecommuting more than the new lane), they've been getting worse, and all the new lane seems to have done is get people to merge at the end of the ramp rather than over the painted gore area (even when it's congested, I don't see people taking the lane to exit 5 and trying to merge there, or merging where a natural gap in traffic forms; they always try to merge right at the end of the ramp, regardless of the impacts on traffic, which is sadly still an improvement over the way things used to be with them merging over the painted gore). I never used to have to divert off the Northway often - even if there was an incident, it used to move, and still be better than taking local roads. Not any more. If there's so much as a fender bender way off on the shoulder, it now becomes a parking lot. Used to be serious incidents would make things bad enough to divert. Now it's all of them. And there's an incident practically every week.
I've never understood why, because surely, the people who were avoiding the road before the exit 4 project and telecommuting uncorked everything south of Latham would avoid the road after it became congested again, right? It would make sense if it was caused by new development in Saratoga County, but it isn't, at least not completely, because the area around exit 6 also gets a lot more congested than it used to (there never used to be backups to go grocery shopping, but now there are). But then I figured it out: freeways are like crack cocaine - once you get used to them, it's very hard to kick the habit, so even if conditions worsen to what they were before or even more congested, the people who started using the road due to less traffic don't shift back to whatever they were doing before. They just keep using the road, despite the traffic now being what they previously would have considered intolerable.
The basic fact is that you can't take advantage of emptier roads without making them less empty, and that's true of anything else that can get crowded. But no one says that we shouldn't enlarge a crowded airport or park because it will just fill up again with more people. The second fact, with respect to roads, is that people may want them to be emptier, but they also want a wider range of choices of where to live and work, which means that an empty road will cause some people to choose to move to a better house further from work, or take a better job further from home. I would call that a good thing on balance.
I hate to add fuel to the fire, but lots of people don't want airport expansion (usually those closest to the airport or resent a great increase in tourism).
I know, don't live by the big noisy thing. But there's also the areas 3-5 miles out from the runways which also deal with an increase in traffic; though it's a much more incremental increase since aircraft movements rarely increase by larger percentages in short periods of time, unless it was already a small airport.
Quote from: formulanone on June 27, 2025, 05:47:50 PMQuote from: pderocco on June 27, 2025, 05:39:00 PMQuote from: vdeane on June 27, 2025, 12:46:13 PMI'm starting to come to the conclusion that induced demand, as New Urbanists describe it even, is, in fact, quite real. My commute home on the Northway has been getting worse and worse every year, to the point where it's worse than it was pre-pandemic at this point. The exit 4 project was done at the end of 2019, adding an auxiliary lane here (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7312912,-73.7899143,3a,75.3y,50.63h,89.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_PwBNFis4uq8PbFxbv5wEQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D0.05901318246993981%26panoid%3D_PwBNFis4uq8PbFxbv5wEQ%26yaw%3D50.628609191122585!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYyMy4yIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) where previously there was a nasty merge (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7312946,-73.7899609,3a,65.3y,49.97h,83.91t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1spcWeP2xVZY4NqGTX4uCvJg!2e0!5s20180901T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D6.085408571919473%26panoid%3DpcWeP2xVZY4NqGTX4uCvJg%26yaw%3D49.967566040749176!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYyMy4yIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) (and if you don't believe me, just spin the camera around). The thing is, after a few years where things were better (which I attribute more to pandemic-era telecommuting more than the new lane), they've been getting worse, and all the new lane seems to have done is get people to merge at the end of the ramp rather than over the painted gore area (even when it's congested, I don't see people taking the lane to exit 5 and trying to merge there, or merging where a natural gap in traffic forms; they always try to merge right at the end of the ramp, regardless of the impacts on traffic, which is sadly still an improvement over the way things used to be with them merging over the painted gore). I never used to have to divert off the Northway often - even if there was an incident, it used to move, and still be better than taking local roads. Not any more. If there's so much as a fender bender way off on the shoulder, it now becomes a parking lot. Used to be serious incidents would make things bad enough to divert. Now it's all of them. And there's an incident practically every week.
I've never understood why, because surely, the people who were avoiding the road before the exit 4 project and telecommuting uncorked everything south of Latham would avoid the road after it became congested again, right? It would make sense if it was caused by new development in Saratoga County, but it isn't, at least not completely, because the area around exit 6 also gets a lot more congested than it used to (there never used to be backups to go grocery shopping, but now there are). But then I figured it out: freeways are like crack cocaine - once you get used to them, it's very hard to kick the habit, so even if conditions worsen to what they were before or even more congested, the people who started using the road due to less traffic don't shift back to whatever they were doing before. They just keep using the road, despite the traffic now being what they previously would have considered intolerable.
The basic fact is that you can't take advantage of emptier roads without making them less empty, and that's true of anything else that can get crowded. But no one says that we shouldn't enlarge a crowded airport or park because it will just fill up again with more people. The second fact, with respect to roads, is that people may want them to be emptier, but they also want a wider range of choices of where to live and work, which means that an empty road will cause some people to choose to move to a better house further from work, or take a better job further from home. I would call that a good thing on balance.
I hate to add fuel to the fire, but lots of people don't want airport expansion (usually those closest to the airport or resent a great increase in tourism).
I know, don't live by the big noisy thing. But there's also the areas 3-5 miles out from the runways which also deal with an increase in traffic; though it's a much more incremental increase since aircraft movements rarely increase by larger percentages in short periods of time, unless it was already a small airport.
Point well taken. But I think there's a difference in the current arguments about freeways, because much of the opposition seems to be about trying to limit the total amount of traveling people do. VMT and all that. There's always been some opposition to making anything bigger due to negative impacts on the immediate neighborhood.
Quote from: kphoger on June 25, 2025, 07:52:57 PMWhile I do think some other stretches of highway deserve a lot more shout-out than they ever get—especially De Beque Canyon—that doesn't diminish my opinion that Glenwood Canyon is properly rated as highly as it is. No four-lane highway I've driven compares to Glenwood.
I would probably give the Virgin River gorge on I-15 in Arizona the top spot, but both De Beque and Glenwood are definitely high on the list.
Waterman Canyon along CA 18 (four lanes to Crestline) is a masterpiece. I never hear anyone outside of Southern California ever talk about the Rim of the World Highway. It is signed as a freeway although I'd hesitate to call it one myself given it has shoulder viewpoints.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on June 28, 2025, 12:31:01 AMQuote from: kphoger on June 25, 2025, 07:52:57 PMWhile I do think some other stretches of highway deserve a lot more shout-out than they ever get—especially De Beque Canyon—that doesn't diminish my opinion that Glenwood Canyon is properly rated as highly as it is. No four-lane highway I've driven compares to Glenwood.
I would probably give the Virgin River gorge on I-15 in Arizona the top spot, but both De Beque and Glenwood are definitely high on the list.
Surprised thet DeBeque Canyon is on the same list as Virgin River and Glenwood Canyon, but as a "local" of Western Colorado who travels through DeBeque at least 1-2 times a week, I guess you look at it more as a "commuter road" and not a "Scenic Highway".
The narrow, winding sections along the route from Denver to Vegas (I-70/I-15) for me ranks like this (with one additional section):
1) Glenwood Canyon
2) Virgin River Gorge
3) San Rafael Swell
4) Debeque Canyon
Quote from: thenetwork on June 28, 2025, 09:59:51 AMThe narrow, winding sections along the route from Denver to Vegas (I-70/I-15) for me ranks like this (with one additional section):
1) Glenwood Canyon
2) Virgin River Gorge
3) San Rafael Swell
4) Debeque Canyon
... as seen on the AARoads home page.
A little further down the list, I-80 just east of Salt Lake City, and I-40 crossing between TN and NC.
Quote from: pderocco on June 28, 2025, 02:53:42 PMQuote from: thenetwork on June 28, 2025, 09:59:51 AMThe narrow, winding sections along the route from Denver to Vegas (I-70/I-15) for me ranks like this (with one additional section):
1) Glenwood Canyon
2) Virgin River Gorge
3) San Rafael Swell
4) Debeque Canyon
... as seen on the AARoads home page.
A little further down the list, I-80 just east of Salt Lake City, and I-40 crossing between TN and NC.
I thought the Pigeon River Gorge was now the ultimately punching bag in the mainstream road world? Or am I just super imposing Beltway's opinion into something more grandiose?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 05, 2025, 11:59:35 AMQuote from: Mav94 on May 05, 2025, 08:36:17 AMUS 52 should end at I-94 in St. Paul. The segment in North Dakota should be a state highway or US x8x.
US-52 should end when it crosses the Mississippi and US-67 should replace it up to I-94 in St. Paul.
US 52 should end at US 41 south of Kentland, Indiana. The sections in Illinois could be broken up into a number of state routes as the route across Illinois does not connect anything that needs to be connected.