In the vein of Things never said about restaurant websites (http://neversaidaboutrestaurantwebsites.tumblr.com/), here are some things never said by roadgeeks:
- I-53 is the best way to get to Eau Claire.
- Geez, how old is that map? Half of the highways are either dotted lines, or not there at all! It's basically useless; might as well throw it away.
- No, I always take the same way home. It's the destination, not the journey.
- We went to the Hoover Dam only 10 years ago. Trust me, there's nothing there we haven't already seen.
"I'm glad they tore down that old bridge. It was a real eyesore."
I-99 and I-238 are the best interstates ever created. Someone had to go there :nod:
I'm going to take a cross country roadtrip and rely completely on my GPS to get me there- I won't even carry a dag gummed map! Which way is west?
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 17, 2011, 08:34:33 PM
I-99 and I-238 are the best interstates ever created. Someone had to go there :nod:
"the US highway system is obsolete. every route of importance should have an interstate shield."
What's Breezewood?
Those kilometer signs that Obama put up on I-19 are there to help the terrorists not get lost when they come up from Mexico- let's replace those sons of guns with good old US-American mileage signs.
(Remarkably, Ive noticed this is not an uncommon utterance)
- I like that great new font they're using to replace that old patched up sign.
- Those old reflective things on all the letters are ugly
- Let's tear up that old abandoned road for a new shopping mall!!!
BigMatt
How do you go a-round a square?
Quote from: kurumi on January 17, 2011, 08:20:23 PM
- I-53 is the best way to get to Eau Claire.
- Geez, how old is that map? Half of the highways are either dotted lines, or not there at all! It's basically useless; might as well throw it away.
These are so true, honestly why would someone throw away an old map unless you had multiple copies (3 or more). I-53... Eau Claire... lol
Quote from: BigMatt on January 17, 2011, 08:57:18 PM
- I like that great new font they're using to replace that old patched up sign.
I consider my self somewhat of a road geek and think patched BGS's look very rundown. IMHO
Here are mine:
- "Who cares if the DOT put up a state highway shield instead of an USH marker!"
- "Does it matter what name of the road we are on is called?"
- "Why are there so many of those damn new (4-lane) highways."
- "Is the bypass really needed, man its going to cost alot."
and the best for last:
- "We should stop building/ upgrading roads in the country, because public transit is better." :pan:
"It doesn't matter whether I write "State Route 9" or "U.S. Route 9" in the address."
"Dammit, I'm gonna have to call my friend for the directions to his house, my GPS is dead." (after the 5th visit to the said house)
Quote"Why are there so many of those damn new (4-lane) highways."
As a roadgeek, I ask that question all the time. I hate those damn new highways- they take the fun out of travel. I'd suspect destination-oriented non-roadgeeks would be happy to see them and never ask that question
"Hi, viatologists!"
"The exit numbers on this freeway make no freaking sense. So many numbers are skipped for no apparent reason."
"Where is route 66, anyway?"
"Why is that interstate shield green?"
"Hmm... SunPass... oh, it's just like EZPass! I must be able to use my EZPass there!"
"Hey, you know, I noticed something today. I-195 and I-295 both come off of I-95. Do you think that was done on purpose?"
"DDI... you mean Communist East Germany?"
Quote from: Duke87 on January 17, 2011, 10:26:04 PM
"DDI... you mean Communist East Germany?"
what is DDI?
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 17, 2011, 09:39:03 PM
- "Why are there so many of those damn new (4-lane) highways."
- "Is the bypass really needed, man its going to cost alot."
and the best for last:
- "We should stop building/ upgrading roads in the country, because public transit is better." :pan:
Um... I think you're confusing roadgeeks with conservatives.
Only thing I know of that DDI might stand for is Diverging Diamond Interchange.
Quote from: NE2 on January 17, 2011, 10:54:28 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 17, 2011, 09:39:03 PM
- "Why are there so many of those damn new (4-lane) highways."
- "Is the bypass really needed, man its going to cost alot."
and the best for last:
- "We should stop building/ upgrading roads in the country, because public transit is better." :pan:
Um... I think you're confusing roadgeeks with conservatives.
Actually the last quote was taken directly from a
very liberal urbanite I had a conversation with on another site.[/list]
roadgeek:conservative::non-roadgeek:liberal
"Boy, screw the FHWA series stuff. Viva Clearview!"
Quote from: NE2 on January 18, 2011, 01:42:15 AM
roadgeek:conservative::non-roadgeek:liberal
Not true, I'm a liberal roadgeek.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 17, 2011, 10:23:26 PM
"Hi, viatologists!"
AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! O.O!!!!! THUD!! X_x!
Like hell I'm driving all the way to Cleveland just to see a new highway.
Well, maybe I'm a "transportation geek" then, cuz I'm liberal and I like public transport. Personally, I wish we had more railway options available for travelling across the country.
As for a quote:
"Damn it, NO! Don't get off the main road. Those old roads can be dangerous, you dummy!"
Quote from: 6a on January 18, 2011, 11:33:49 AM
Like hell I'm driving all the way to Cleveland just to see a new highway.
Indeed, I would not. I figure in 50 years the road will be old and worth driving.
"There's no part of the Interstate Highway System that I would have numbered differently."
"That 400 series of US Highways was a great idea."
"US Representatives are the best at picking interstate numbers."
"I sure wish Google would stop updating their aerial photography."
Quote from: 6a on January 18, 2011, 11:33:49 AM
Like hell I'm driving all the way to Cleveland just to see a new highway.
Or seeing a freeway go away.
"It makes no sense why they sign every freaking US Highway along the interstate. It's too confusing!"
This 36x24 garage sale sign with 6 lines of text in Impact is quite large enough for all motorists to read. In a 45 mph zone.
Quote from: nyratk1 on January 18, 2011, 06:13:27 AM
Quote from: NE2 on January 18, 2011, 01:42:15 AM
roadgeek:conservative::non-roadgeek:liberal
Not true, I'm a liberal roadgeek.
Same here. I'm pointing out that Mr. Wisconsin got his analogy mixed up.
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 17, 2011, 09:39:03 PMQuote from: NE2 on January 17, 2011, 10:54:28 PM
- "We should stop building/ upgrading roads in the country, because public transit is better." :pan:
Um... I think you're confusing roadgeeks with conservatives.
I doubt that even if you think public transit is better (which I don't BTW) that automatically means that we should stop building highways. Nor, in my conservative idealism, I'd like any mass transit to be privately owned, I'm realistic enough to realize public-funded perform a needed function in certain areas of the country.
I think only the most extreme of anti-government people are against road improvements and mass transit development, and those, perhaps ironically, can come from the extreme ends of both political "sides." (just with different names- extreme liberals call it "anarchy" and extreme conservatives call it "freedom to do anything I want")
From a practical standpoint, roadgeeks and nonroadgeeks both like new roads when they are needed and do not like them when they are not needed. From a sentimental/road enthusiasm standpoint, the roadgeek is more likely to either want more new construction or less- I happen to fall on the latter half. I realize that new roads and progress is often necessary, but I don't have to like it for pete's sake!
But, I don't think this thread was supposed to be serious, so on that note:
"There are actually multiple forums on the internet for people who like roads? Good god, get out of your Mom's basement."
I don't know where I am or how I'll get there. The GPS does, though.
I printed directions off of mapquest, I don't need a map.
Who buys an atlas, anyways?
This road isn't an interstate. We should stick to the interstate, it's faster.
Quote from: mightyace on January 18, 2011, 03:08:21 PM
Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 17, 2011, 09:39:03 PMQuote from: NE2 on January 17, 2011, 10:54:28 PM
- "We should stop building/ upgrading roads in the country, because public transit is better." :pan:
Um... I think you're confusing roadgeeks with conservatives.
I doubt that even if you think public transit is better (which I don't BTW) that automatically means that we should stop building highways.
Well it's certainly an oversimplification (that public transit being better means new roads in the country are bad), but, along with new residential development in the country, they do fit in with the same environmental views.[/list]
I don't see any reason to pay for a map.
All I know is it's route 80, who cares if it's an interstate or not?
Whats a PENNDOT truck doing on US 11? Doesn't US mean the federal government fixes them?
I don't know what the toll is.
Those "slow down" signs at the beginning of construction zones are cute! Comic Sans FTW!
"Who cares whether it's a state, US, or Interstate Highway? They're all the same to me."
Actually, sometimes I think there must be newspaper reporters that say that because they so often use highway designations interchangably.
Quote from: NE2 on January 18, 2011, 06:05:05 PM
Quote from: mightyace on January 18, 2011, 04:51:40 PM
I don't know what the toll is.
I've said this.
'
You'll be summarily executed and have your roadgeek credentials removed first thing tomorrow morning
"I wouldn't notice a new sign was put up even if it bit me in the @$$."
"Interstates are the best roads ever! It's all I'll ever drive."
"Who would ever buy an old road sign?"
"You can read that new clearview font so much better than that old font crap." :-D
"I love having to pay a toll. Nothing like paying for a road twice. No need to find an alternate route around a toll road"
"Why in hell did you go from Illinois to Rhode Island via Maine and come back via Delaware?"
"Put the camera down and drive!"
"I prefer flying over driving."
"Stay away from the big cities - the freeways there are a nightmare!"
"You have an objective at the destination? No? then don't go!"
Clearview RULES!
"I think squares are the greatest thing for route markers,...no more of those crazy sign shapes like states or Captain America shields..."
"Take I-64 to Exit 58, then follow U.S. Federal Route 60 to downtown Frankfort..."
"the state name is excessive verbiage; they should get rid of it and use the resulting available space to increase the size of the numbers"
On that note
This:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2Fid%2F91%2F15idahofallsto15blackfoot%2F13.jpg&hash=b9e32a1d1e4541048955ba01ce2d83db282d00d8)
is better than this
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2Fid%2F91%2F15idahofallsto15blackfoot%2F12.jpg&hash=1e55e8e9495e13717c58459d3efb88e632c103b2)
(alternatively, "I can't tell the difference between (1) and (2)")
I think some roadgeeks prefer the '70 spec from a pure legibility perspective.
but not being able to tell the difference? yeah that marks you as indifferent!
Quote from: ctsignguy on January 18, 2011, 11:03:49 PM
"I think squares are the greatest thing for route markers,...no more of those crazy sign shapes like states or Captain America shields..."
"But circles are even better!"
Quote from: nyratk1 on January 19, 2011, 12:01:10 PM
Quote from: ctsignguy on January 18, 2011, 11:03:49 PM
"I think squares are the greatest thing for route markers,...no more of those crazy sign shapes like states or Captain America shields..."
"But circles are even better!"
"Aw hell, The state route shields should all be circles - matches the maps, but who cares anyway?"
"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads."
"I already have a road atlas. I don't need the newest version"
My Mom and Dad have a 1997 Road Atlas they use for road-trips... How would they know US 113 in Delaware was truncated
Quote from: jwolfer on January 19, 2011, 04:12:27 PM
"I already have a road atlas. I don't need the newest version"
I'd say this.
^^^
Hopefully, you're saying that for different reasons that the average person.
The expanded versions:
Average person:
"I already have a road atlas. The roads don't change these days, do they?"
Roadgeek:
"I already have a road atlas. I can handle and changes that aren't in my copy."
It strikes me that most of these "things never said by roadgeeks" are in fact said at one time or another, and generally for very specific and well-thought-out reasons, by road enthusiasts who march to the beat of a different drummer.
Go out and see demolition of truss bridges? But I just got the new Sports Illustrated and I need to read about the latest Manning rumor.
"Why do you care so much about roads? They just get you where you're going and that's that."
"If it's an old alignment, why do you care? It's not like you can drive on it."
"My GPS is never wrong ever!"
Quote from: mightyace on January 19, 2011, 05:11:24 PM
^^^
Hopefully, you're saying that for different reasons that the average person.
The expanded versions:
Average person:
"I already have a road atlas. The roads don't change these days, do they?"
Roadgeek:
"I already have a road atlas. I can handle and changes that aren't in my copy."
looking forward to new edition of a road atlas to find the mistakes
It's not just GPS that get the routes wrong sometimes. I live in Vicksburg, MS, and until very recently the Google map of this city got the eastern side of town, near the interstate, completely wrong. Wrong in such a way that I have to wonder who exactly is responsible for the Google cartography.
The map showed roads that haven't existed since the interstate was built back in the 60s, decades before Google was even thought of. The interstate itself was labelled correctly, but for some reason there was a non-existent name attached to it - old something highway (in all of Mississippi, there are only about 3 or 4 roads that have the word "highway" in their names, and I-20 is not one of them).
What's more, if you went to Google for driving directions to Vicksburg from anywhere that would bring you into town from the west on I-20, the instructions had you exit the interstate at Delta, La (the last interchange before the MS River), continue eastbound on old Hwy 80 and cross the river on the old bridge, which was closed in 1993.
Quote from: berberry on January 20, 2011, 09:46:31 AMold something highway (in all of Mississippi, there are only about 3 or 4 roads that have the word "highway" in their names, and I-20 is not one of them).
Bankhead? I think the Bankhead Highway was the 1910s auto trail that ran along the 80 corridor.
Quote from: mightyace on January 19, 2011, 05:11:24 PM
^^^
Hopefully, you're saying that for different reasons that the average person.
The expanded versions:
Average person:
"I already have a road atlas. The roads don't change these days, do they?"
Roadgeek:
"I already have a road atlas. I can handle and changes that aren't in my copy."
I agree. It's situational. The roadgeek response you give here would be mine if the suggestion that prompted it was something like "hey look, Wal-Mart's got the new updated atlas in stock. Want one?"
Now, if the prompt had been more like "Next exit is the state Welcome Center; let's stop and get a new highway map" then I couldn't imagine saying something like that.
actually, I've never had much of an interest in stopping at the visitors' center and getting the official state map.
if I ever acquire any surplus maps, I give them to friends who would appreciate them for what they are. All I have are state atlases, a 2010 (2011?) Rand McNally, which I replace every time it gets worn out, and a 1942 Rand McNally for the finding of old alignments.
I have just enough recent atlases for every state I visit regularly (and, in pipe dream fashion, I also have Alaska and Hawaii!) and I figure that they will be, for the most part, accurate enough that I can route around any unexpected changes.
(and I also carry a GPS. apparently roadgeeks are none too fond of them, but they are extremely handy in finding old alignments. For example, mine still labels Hobsonway in Blythe, CA as "state route 60", despite the fact that it has not been US-60 since the 1970s and was never actually signed as CA-60. It also labels the old Alaska Highway in downtown Dawson Creek, BC as ... US-97!!!)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2011, 10:23:47 AM
Quote from: berberry on January 20, 2011, 09:46:31 AMold something highway (in all of Mississippi, there are only about 3 or 4 roads that have the word "highway" in their names, and I-20 is not one of them).
Bankhead? I think the Bankhead Highway was the 1910s auto trail that ran along the 80 corridor.
Yes, that's correct, at least the part about the auto trail. It became US 78 though, not 80. Highway 80 ran along the old Dixie Overland Highway (if I remember correctly).
There are a number of towns along that old 78 route, and some of the segments have Bankhead in their name. However, if any of those towns call the road "Bankhead Highway" I'm not aware of it. The signs I've seen say "Bankhead Road", I think.
The only roads I know of that appear on maps and/or signs as having "highway" in the name are Jackson's King's Highway, Pascagoula's Old Mobile Highway and Southaven's Stateline Highway. There could be more. Here in Vicksburg, I've heard reference to "Eagle Lake Highway" and "Grand Gulf Highway", so I know locals sometimes use the word "highway" as though it were official. But in each of these cases the road in question is signed as a 3-digit state highway. I suspect people have trouble remember those numbers and so they just describe the road, which comes out as "x highway".
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2011, 10:33:13 AM
I have just enough recent atlases for every state I visit regularly (and, in pipe dream fashion, I also have Alaska and Hawaii!) and I figure that they will be, for the most part, accurate enough that I can route around any unexpected changes.
Not the point, though, at least for me. If I already have an older version, then I'm gonna want to see what all has changed statewide, not just in the areas I'm visiting. Why, I dunno, but that's me.
As for the GPS, I borrowed one last year, pretty much as an afterthought, when I drove to Houston TX for an Iron Maiden concert. It was accurate. I'm glad I did it because although I've been to Houston several times, it's been a couple decades since I had been to the area where the concert was held. There were LOTS of new roads that led to interesting places, and I likely would have wasted some time and gas without it.
Quote from: berberry on January 20, 2011, 10:53:23 AMI'm gonna want to see what all has changed statewide, not just in the areas I'm visiting.
I don't. too depressing. too many things getting torn down and replaced with Walmarts and Clearview.
oh, the Bankhead was US-80 out much further west near San Diego. I just looked it up and found out it followed quite the circuitous route from Washington DC to San Diego, at least given the later US route system.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2011, 11:35:05 AM
oh, the Bankhead was US-80 out much further west near San Diego. I just looked it up and found out it followed quite the circuitous route from Washington DC to San Diego, at least given the later US route system.
Okay, I just looked it up, too, and you're right. "Circuitous" is definitely the right word for that old highway.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2011, 11:32:43 AM
...too many things getting torn down and replaced with Walmarts and Clearview.
I concur to a point. Sometimes the Walmart fits right in, like it does here. They didn't tear down anything memorable, and they chose a site near the industrial district very close to the freeway. I was angry with them at one time because they'd left a perfectly good location behind as an abandoned building in order to build their new supercenter, while their old location had anchored one end of a moderately-bustling indoor mall. Luckily the old site didn't sit empty long, but I wonder how often it is that an old Walmart building, with only minor modification, is re-opened as a more upscale department store. I think what happened here is probably an unusual case.
Sometimes I feel that, in terms of development and blight, cities pretty much get what they're willing to put up with. I suppose the big-box stores deserve their share of blame for the crap they leave behind, but they aren't the only guilty parties.
Back on topic folks - or we may be forced to lock.
This one is pretty much Oregon-specific. :sombrero:
"They really out to put the word 'limit' on the speed signs."
-Alex (Tarkus)
Quote from: Tarkus on January 20, 2011, 03:00:04 PM
This one is pretty much Oregon-specific. :sombrero:
"They really out to put the word 'limit' on the speed signs."
-Alex (Tarkus)
It's so true, though. :P
"Just follow the GPS."
"I'm lost!"
"I need to turn the map when I make a turn" (my mom does this)
"I don't know!" (when responding to which way is north/south/east/west) (I pick on one of my friends about this one)
"What's the MUCTD?" (from my friends; I've since educated them on the MUTCD, complete with the proper acronym)
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on January 18, 2011, 06:06:11 PM
"Who cares whether it's a state, US, or Interstate Highway? They're all the same to me."
Actually, sometimes I think there must be newspaper reporters that say that because they so often use highway designations interchangably.
Agreed.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on January 19, 2011, 08:52:04 PM
Go out and see demolition of truss bridges? But I just got the new Sports Illustrated and I need to read about the latest Manning rumor.
I can remember going to construction sites and watching the work with my grandfather when I was younger. As a matter of fact, I watched crews repair a broken water main yesterday evening.
"Large freeway interchanges are an eyesore. Keep it simple with a nice cloverleaf!"
"State named interstate shields (or any state route shield with the state name in it) are so pointless. We already know what state we are in, so why bother?"
" It really scares me to drive on the new flyover"
Who needs a historic truss bridge? These ugly pre-stressed concrete ones will get us there just as easily.
What's the big deal? I don't see any difference between FHWA (Highway Gothic) and Clearview.
I like boring, square, route markers
"Meh. Highway Gothic is an ugly typeface. Clearview is a bit better but still not awesome." (said by a friend)
"Road trip? Why don't we just fly?"
Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on January 21, 2011, 05:20:54 PM
"Meh. Highway Gothic is an ugly typeface. Clearview is a bit better but still not awesome." (said by a friend)
I would say this. Not necessarily that the FHWA Series fonts are ugly, but I do think Clearview is better.
1) Good, those signs they are replacing were old and weathered. Hope they melt them metal signs and turn them into ashtrays.
2) The great route-number swap of Toledo in 1986 was sorely needed.
3) I'm glad that all the Toll Roads finally had to abide by the same freeway sign standards as the regular interstates. Those green Speed Limit signs were ugly.
4) Those newer "plastic" traffic lights with the plastic lenses are so much more beautiful and safer than those clunky old metal ones with glass lenses.
"Dude, I don't know how you know where your going. I would already be lost."
Refering to: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3521.msg78549#msg78549
"So... what? They fixed it, right?" - My dad.
Quote from: thenetwork on January 22, 2011, 03:54:29 PM
1) Good, those signs they are replacing were old and weathered. Hope they melt them metal signs and turn them into ashtrays.
3) I'm glad that all the Toll Roads finally had to abide by the same freeway sign standards as the regular interstates. Those green Speed Limit signs were ugly.
4) Those newer "plastic" traffic lights with the plastic lenses are so much more beautiful and safer than those clunky old metal ones with glass lenses.
Actually, I would say/ have said all these things and agree with them! Although, I really like almost all modern (90's -now) road features better then old (before 1990ish) devices/ signs. (sorry Jake)
I don't care which way we go, let's just get there.
Quote from: Jim on January 22, 2011, 10:35:06 PM
I don't care which way we go, let's just get there.
Actually, a roadgeek WOULD say that! And use that as a fine excuse to take a different road or path less beaten to try to seek out old signs and other cool sights!
Quote from: ctsignguy on January 23, 2011, 08:12:16 AM
Quote from: Jim on January 22, 2011, 10:35:06 PM
I don't care which way we go, let's just get there.
Actually, a roadgeek WOULD say that! And use that as a fine excuse to take a different road or path less beaten to try to seek out old signs and other cool sights!
A good point - let's change it to "I don't care which way we go, as long as we get there as quickly as possible."
How do you know where you're going? You've never been here before!
From someone who's lived at both ends of the Mother Road:
"Hey, this new Interstate is way, way better than Route 66!"
I like those circle route signs.
I'd rather fly there than drive.
P.S. Someone's probably already said this now that I think about it, so here's a localized version of something never said by roadgeeks - "I'm glad they built the freeway with two lanes in each direction to protect the bird refuge" (aka Legacy Parkway).
I'd probably say something like that.
"Are we there yet?"
Quote from: NE2 on January 26, 2011, 06:31:02 AM
I'd probably say something like that.
so would I. I've driven I-5 and US-99 so many times between San Diego and Sacramento that next time I am seriously considering flying.
« What is an old bridge? »
It's a bridge that's older than... that was built before... oh hell, what is an old bridge?
(laughs)
EDIT: I have a better idea: What's an highway?!
"What is a byway?"
"What is a parkway?"
What in the hell is a trafficway?
Quote from: njroadhorse on January 28, 2011, 04:31:49 PM
What in the hell is a trafficway?
I've asked that, wondering why they would name something after such an unappealing feature. It's almost as bad as a road a potholeway.
Let's just make the topic what it really is - things never said by me. I'll start the new liberated topic: "pooing is cool"
Oh, well if that's what the thread's about, how about "'Multiplex' and 'decommission' are perfectly valid words that can be used in Wikipedia articles with no problems at all" :P
"I am glad that US 66 was decommissioned....why would ANYONE writes songs or produce a TV show based upon such a thing?
Quotehow about "'Multiplex' and 'decommission' are perfectly valid words that can be used in Wikipedia articles with no problems at all"
Wait...I understand why "multiplex" is weird, but what's wrong with decommission?
Trust me, we don't want to go down that road. :ded:
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 28, 2011, 10:08:48 PM
Trust me, we don't want to go down that road. :ded:
Pun intended?
(referring to mile-based exit numbers) "These exit numbers make no sense! Why is 106 the next exit after 98? Doesn't 99 come next?"
^^^ Non-roadgeeks I've talked to understand mile-based exits, even though we have sequential-based exits here in NY.
I meant "things never said by the person making this post", because that's really what half the posts in this thread are.
(By the way, decommission is ambiguous - if you say that Route 73 was decommissioned through Podunk, that could mean that the town now maintains it but signs are still up, that signs were removed but it's still state-maintained, that it was renumbered, that the road was physically destroyed, or any combination of the above.)
Quote from: NE2 on January 29, 2011, 02:06:56 AM
I meant "things never said by the person making this post", because that's really what half the posts in this thread are.
Well, if
that's what we're doing, then everyone in this thread is a liar, because by mentioning something you've never said, you have just said it, and therefore you have not never said it.
Actually, that applies to everything in this thread! Roadgeeks are the ones posting here! The entire thread is a sham!
I didn't know my question was so popular. (What's an highway)
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 29, 2011, 09:29:55 AM
Roadgeeks are the ones posting here! The entire thread is a sham!
* sobs *
Quote from: NE2 on January 29, 2011, 02:06:56 AMBy the way, decommission is ambiguous - if you say that Route 73 was decommissioned through Podunk, that could mean that the town now maintains it but signs are still up, that signs were removed but it's still state-maintained, that it was renumbered, that the road was physically destroyed, or any combination of the above.
This is actually one reason I find roadgeek websites hard to deal with--various claims are made and anchored to dates, but the primary source evidence is never cited, so it is hard to pin down
what exactly is being claimed. A statement about alignments means something when single-sheet state highway maps are used as the primary source and something very different altogether when it is based on the actual construction plans.
I haven't tried to maintain a website with route log and I have done very little editing of Wikipedia articles related to highways. However, I did do at least one paragraph on the I-19 metric signs and everything I said was related directly to the original construction plans.
QuoteThis is actually one reason I find roadgeek websites hard to deal with--various claims are made and anchored to dates, but the primary source evidence is never cited, so it is hard to pin down what exactly is being claimed. A statement about alignments means something when single-sheet state highway maps are used as the primary source and something very different altogether when it is based on the actual construction plans.
That's sometimes hard to do because the information is oftentimes poorly documented itself and one's definition of a route's course is sort of an aggregate of lots of different things (official route logs, maps, actual road signage)- especially when you get into the area of concurrencies. On my site, I say what I think is right and try to back that claim up with whatever necessary (99% of the time that's photographs) but try to acknowledge various other hypotheses about routing whenever possible. A case in point would be the mythical Wyoming 255 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Highway_255), for which I have found no evidence towards its existence. Every piece of field signing and other marking would suggest that "255" is simply the internal number for 25 Business for a couple blocks. In Wyoming, internal control numbers are very often different from the highway number, but for some reason it was decided that in the case of 255 and 344, those were actually separate state highways that actually run concurrent with another route for their entire existence.
Quote from: corco on January 29, 2011, 06:27:10 PMA case in point would be the mythical Wyoming 255 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Highway_255), for which I have found no evidence towards its existence.
ftp://wydot-ftp.dot.state.wy.us/2009%20Maintenance%20Section%20Ref.%20Book/2009%20Maintenance%20Section%20Reference%20Book.pdf (http://ftp://wydot-ftp.dot.state.wy.us/2009%20Maintenance%20Section%20Ref.%20Book/2009%20Maintenance%20Section%20Reference%20Book.pdf) (forum breaks the link; remove the initial http) lists it on page 121. Typical crappy quantity-over-quality article though.
Quoteftp://wydot-ftp.dot.state.wy.us/2009%20Maintenance%20Section%20Ref.%20Book/2009%20Maintenance%20Section%20Reference%20Book.pdf (forum breaks the link; remove the initial http) lists it on page 121. Typical crappy quantity-over-quality article though.
And that is officially the only document wherein I have ever seen it mentioned as a real state highway and not just a section control number (including the detailed Casper area maps and other documents I had access to while doing contract work for WYDOT last year- wherein I actually compiled a lot of the data that it looks like this book is based off of) that was somehow morphed into a state highway
I never said it was signed, just that WYDOT recognizes it as a route.
QuoteI never said it was signed, just that WYDOT recognizes it as a route.
My thought is that given the body of documentation WYDOT has published/otherwise available (and I'm fairly certain I've seen a lot more than most), that is the only time I've actually seen it recognized as a route.
Another example I would point to is Wyoming 344, which is "roadgeek recognized," but not mentioned anywhere, not even in this book
Back to the subject:
What's a sign bridge?
Upon seeing a sign that violates MUTCD standards:
"That's not MUTCD compliant."
(I'd be surprised if a non-roadgeek even knew that a sign wasn't compliant)
"Why did Florida have colored route numbers?"
(note the lack of the word "shields")
"What's a MUTCD?"
"There are federal standards? don't states have rights to do what they please?"
Quote from: Master son on February 01, 2011, 01:46:15 PM"There are federal standards? don't states have rights to do what they please?"
This one is even said by some roadgeeks in Canada.
Quote from: Master son on February 01, 2011, 01:46:15 PM
"There are federal standards? don't states have rights to do what they please?"
Actually, I'm as road-geeky as they come, and I am constantly questioning the depth and breadth of federal standards.
Somewhere back in 1973:
That nationwide 55 mph speed limit was one of the best ideas they came up with. It's better for gas economy anyway.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 29, 2011, 09:29:55 AM
Well, if that's what we're doing, then everyone in this thread is a liar, because by mentioning something you've never said, you have just said it, and therefore you have not never said it.
Actually, that applies to everything in this thread! Roadgeeks are the ones posting here! The entire thread is a sham!
Illogical! Norman, HELP!
'What is this "Hump" sign mean?'
'Can we stop yet Uncle Dan? We want to sleep' (my nieces said this to me coming home from Orlando when we got near Nashville).
'I prefer to have the TSA agent do a random check on me than drive the 15 hours to New York. I also like to spend more money then need be.'
'You will have no delays flying in a snowstorm.'
Quote from: hobsini2 on February 17, 2011, 12:55:20 PM
'I prefer to have the TSA agent do a random check on me than drive the 15 hours to New York. I also like to spend more money then need be.'
in all honesty, I've driven I-5 between San Diego and Sacramento so many times that if I don't need to transport a lot of signs, I will fly. 49 bucks each way compares favorably with the gas price.
Related:
"I'd rather have the TSA inspect me than the CBP"
Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on February 17, 2011, 03:07:20 PM
Related:
"I'd rather have the TSA inspect me than the CBP"
I probably would. on grounds of legality, the TSA scares me but not nearly as badly as the internal checkpoints set up by the Border Patrol.
Well, that was a really poorly worded statement from me. Let me rephrase that is something that _I_ would say.
"I'd rather be inspected by the CBP only than BOTH the TSA and CBP". ...I'm Canadian.
Why are there two different speed limits on the same sign? (e.g. "SPEED LIMIT 55" and "MINIMUM 40")
"I absolutely HATE to drive!"
Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on February 17, 2011, 04:01:39 PM
Well, that was a really poorly worded statement from me. Let me rephrase that is something that _I_ would say.
You've successfully found the real topic of this thread.
"The word 'limit' isn't on the sign. 35 means the minimum speed, right?"
Quote from: Bickendan on February 18, 2011, 05:39:02 AM
"The word 'limit' isn't on the sign. 35 means the minimum speed, right?"
That sounds more like someone trying to get out of a ticket than someone who doesn't actually understand the sign.
"I am not a roadgeek"
Actually said by a coworker of mine today:
"What is it that you call that kind of intersection? Clover-something?"
And yes, he said "intersection", not "interchange". :pan:
Haha, this has got to be one of the funniest threads on here. :sombrero:
"Your lock screen is a highway? That's stupid." (Someone actually said that to me at school)
"I'll sit at the back of the bus. Who would possibly want to sit at the front and look at the road."
"Higher-numbered north-south interstates are in the eastern US right? I-99 is in Pennsylvania! That's the eastern US stupid so I don't get what the big deal is!"
"That road doesn't need to be widened. Who cares if there's traffic backed up for 10 miles every day. I'll just Snapchat my friends."
"Ick. I'd never waste my money on some atlas."
(by people along the US 74/I-74 multiplex and I've heard non-road people say this)
"They upgraded Highway 74 to Interstate 74"
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 05, 2015, 06:12:00 AM
(by people along the US 74/I-74 multiplex and I've heard non-road people say this)
"They upgraded Highway 74 to Interstate 74"
By that same logic, up in WI...
"They upgraded Highway 41 to Interstate 41" :)
Did adventure number 1 just break the record for biggest necropost?
Quote from: Henry on January 05, 2015, 11:18:39 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 05, 2015, 06:12:00 AM
(by people along the US 74/I-74 multiplex and I've heard non-road people say this)
"They upgraded Highway 74 to Interstate 74"
By that same logic, up in WI...
"They upgraded Highway 41 to Interstate 41" :)
Considering how Cheeseheads say things...
"They upgraded Highway 41 to Highway 41!"
Quote from: vtk on January 05, 2015, 12:21:29 PM
Did adventure number 1 just break the record for biggest necropost?
Not even close. There were a few last-post-in-2009 threads that were dug up last year.
Quote from: Takumi on January 05, 2015, 01:37:08 PM
Quote from: vtk on January 05, 2015, 12:21:29 PM
Did adventure number 1 just break the record for biggest necropost?
Not even close. There were a few last-post-in-2009 threads that were dug up last year.
And I resurrected some of those 2009 threads last year. Maybe I did break the record at some point.. :rofl:
(I guess I have a real habit of resurrecting super old threads, LOL)
Quote from: vtk on January 05, 2015, 12:21:29 PM
Did adventure number 1 just break the record for biggest necropost?
Maybe, maybe not.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-54mMN3Ib54w/TYjTzJPCsVI/AAAAAAAAHAY/RUeytnjphf4/s400/1986+Topps+Phil+and+Joe+Niekro.jpg)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 19, 2011, 12:24:21 AM
I think some roadgeeks prefer the '70 spec from a pure legibility perspective.
but not being able to tell the difference? yeah that marks you as indifferent!
I've never understood the hatred for the 1970-spec U.S. highway shields. Yeah, they're not as sexy as some of the other ones, but they're more legible.
Of course, Pennsylvania gets shit on more than any other state here, so the fact that the 1970-spec U.S. shield originated there justifies the hatred of it in many people's eyes.
Quote from: Gnutella on January 26, 2015, 10:17:06 AM
Of course, Pennsylvania gets shit on more than any other state here
How in the heck is it not Oklahoma?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2011, 08:47:16 PM
"the US highway system is obsolete. every route of importance should have an interstate shield."
That's what FritzOwl would say.
Quote from: national highway 1 on March 07, 2015, 08:47:36 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2011, 08:47:16 PM
"the US highway system is obsolete. every route of importance should have an interstate shield."
That's what FritzOwl would say.
I'll bet I-180 in Cheyenne was the inspiration behind it!
"Who cares where the old road is, it's obsolete anyway"
"I don't need a map, my GPS will find it"
"DON'T TELL ME THE WAY I'll plug the address into my GPS"
Quote from: texaskdog on March 09, 2015, 01:19:45 PM
"DON'T TELL ME THE WAY I'll plug the address into my GPS"
...and then figure out the way to go on my own. What's wrong with that (other than being stereotypically man)?
Quote from: NE2 on March 09, 2015, 02:20:26 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 09, 2015, 01:19:45 PM
"DON'T TELL ME THE WAY I'll plug the address into my GPS"
...and then figure out the way to go on my own. What's wrong with that (other than being stereotypically man)?
No, people that say that are the people who don't want to think. GPS will get you a full block from my apartment and no one ever finds it.
People who ask for directions are those who don't want to think.
To be fair, 99% of people are terrible at giving directions. I usually ask for an address.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on March 10, 2015, 07:14:52 PM
To be fair, 99% of people are terrible at giving directions. I usually ask for an address.
This. And I would prefer some kind of geographic coordinates (possibly shorthanded, for example what3words (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What3words)) versus a mailing address, but 99% of people don't understand the practical difference and can only supply the latter from memory. Fortunately geocoding of mail addresses – a task that IMO should never have become so common – is now fairly reliable in most situations (but notably not most apartment complexes).
Quote from: vtk on March 11, 2015, 01:52:10 AM
what3words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What3words)
In before someone complains that they got poor.dark.garbage. Looks like most lots are big enough to have more than one wordset, so I guess you can choose not to use one that offends you.
I randomly got maids.attractions.videotaped. Ooh, kinky.
And holy crap, statues.with.festivals is the center of the Magic Kingdom.
Yeah, I don't see this catching on.
Prime real estate:
http://map.what3words.com/WHAT+THE+FUCK+-+Avenida+Mendoza,+Rosario,+Santa+Fe+Province,+Argentina
Quote from: slorydn1 on March 11, 2015, 02:38:52 AM
Prime real estate:
http://map.what3words.com/WHAT+THE+FUCK+-+Avenida+Mendoza,+Rosario,+Santa+Fe+Province,+Argentina
You're doing it wrong. "We couldn't find any results for what.the.fuck"
PS: they sell single-word addresses. Bunch of whores. The idea is decent, but it needs a simple algorithm to convert to lat/long (preferably one that sends many word combinations to the same coords).
Quote from: NE2 on March 11, 2015, 02:46:05 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on March 11, 2015, 02:38:52 AM
Prime real estate:
http://map.what3words.com/WHAT+THE+FUCK+-+Avenida+Mendoza,+Rosario,+Santa+Fe+Province,+Argentina
You're doing it wrong. "We couldn't find any results for what.the.fuck"
PS: they sell single-word addresses. Bunch of whores. The idea is decent, but it needs a simple algorithm to convert to lat/long (preferably one that sends many word combinations to the same coords).
Huh? Weird. It worked or me, right near the corner of Av Mendoza and Bv Avellaneda in Rosario Argentina.
Quote from: slorydn1 on March 11, 2015, 02:59:50 AM
Huh? Weird. It worked or me, right near the corner of Av Mendoza and Bv Avellaneda in Rosario Argentina.
That's because the Goog has a place called "what the fuck" there. If you look at the bottom the actual words are chickens.prompt.cautious.
Quote from: NE2 on March 11, 2015, 03:16:55 AM
If you look at the bottom the actual words are chickens.prompt.cautious.
So, shouldn't the Goog place be named what.the.cluck. instead?
Quote from: NE2 on March 11, 2015, 02:46:05 AM
PS: they sell single-word addresses. Bunch of whores. The idea is decent, but it needs a simple algorithm to convert to lat/long (preferably one that sends many word combinations to the same coords).
Agreed. I would be much more enthusiastic about this if they published their algorithm, rather than keeping the secret sauce under control behind their API.
I looked at my home lot this morning, and because they divide up each parcal into 3x3 foot squares or something like that, there were numerous 3 word combos for my property. Since they were mostly unrelated words that meant nothing to me, I can't tell you now what any combination of 3 words were that I found on my property (hell, I couldn't tell you after jumping in my car this morning). Actually, I do remember one, but only because it's my mom's name.
Yeah, they're not particularly memorable. But neither is "2780 Sunset Avenue, Springfield, OH 45505"
Quote from: vtk on March 11, 2015, 02:32:21 PM
Yeah, they're not particularly memorable. But neither is "2780 Sunset Avenue, Springfield, OH 45505"
But at the very least it tells me about where you're at: In Ohio. Maybe I would recognize Springfield. And then I can drill down to Sunset Ave. At the very least I would would probably remember something about that address.
But if you told me to go to too.insecticide.thousands, it would be absolutely meaningless. Especially if you spoke it to me, how would I know if you meant too or two? Would I remember thousand or thousands? Would I remember to spell insectiside correctly?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2015, 02:56:05 PM
Quote from: vtk on March 11, 2015, 02:32:21 PM
Yeah, they're not particularly memorable. But neither is "2780 Sunset Avenue, Springfield, OH 45505"
But at the very least it tells me about where you're at: In Ohio. Maybe I would recognize Springfield. And then I can drill down to Sunset Ave. At the very least I would would probably remember something about that address.
But if you told me to go to too.insecticide.thousands, it would be absolutely meaningless. Especially if you spoke it to me, how would I know if you meant too or two? Would I remember thousand or thousands? Would I remember to spell insectiside correctly?
i think what3words attempts to account for homophones and misspellings, but generally you have a fair point.
Quote from: vtk on March 11, 2015, 01:52:10 AM
This. And I would prefer some kind of geographic coordinates (possibly shorthanded, for example what3words (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What3words))...
Well, there's my evening...even if it's kind of pointless. Some sort of alphabetical sequence or locally meaningful words might help, but it seems more like a random three-word generator.
I'm actually wanting to write up a proposal for a geolocation system that looks something like this: "USA Ohio Springfield B345-FG89". Resolving that requires a lookup table of placenames (which is tolerant of small errors, so can be derived from publicly-available information) and a simple algorithm I'm willing to publish once finalized.
I dunno man... I find "44.662, -70.27" perfectly intuitive...
° Then you'll turn right onto... hmmm, I don't know the name of the street...
° Oh crap, my GPS took me all the way to 1351 N. Birch instead of S. Birch. Now I have to drive... wait, how many blocks are in a mile?
° Alanland
Quote from: yakra on March 11, 2015, 08:58:01 PM
I dunno man... I find "44.662, -70.27" perfectly intuitive...
Yes but you need several more digits to get someone to your front door.
'Scuse me; typo! I meant 43.662,-70.27.
Quote from: vtk on March 12, 2015, 12:47:01 AM
Quote from: yakra on March 11, 2015, 08:58:01 PM
I dunno man... I find "44.662, -70.27" perfectly intuitive...
Yes but you need several more digits to get someone to your front door.
(pretending those coordinates actually take you to a town) Not if the extra digits are zeroes.
On another forum I visit, there was a thread last night about etiquette for going into the store at a gas station to buy food or soda–do you leave the car at the pump or do you move the car to a parking space first. Someone made a joke about driving past in his Tesla and waving at the people buying gas (he doesn't actually own a Tesla). This led to a discussion about Teslas.
It will be readily apparent if you read all this which guy is the non-roadgeek! This was one of these kinds of situations: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
One guy from Texas said the following (original formatting and lack of punctuation preserved):
QuoteVery nice vehicle, but 225 miles per charge doesn't work for me
That will get me to Beaumont & back or
LaGrange and back or
Galveston and back or
Livingston and back, BUT NOT
Austin, Dallas, or anywhere Texas plays football.
Besides, I haven't seen a Tesla SUV or pickup yet
To which I replied as follows:
QuoteExactly. I think a Tesla as they now exist is a fine commuter car, but the problem is, the average person who can afford to buy the Teslas now on the market doesn't really need to be all that concerned with commuting. If you buy a Tesla, you pretty much have to buy a second car for travel.
Here is where the guy who is clearly a non-roadgeek entered the discussion. He said as follows:
QuoteNope - But it probably depends where you live and travel to
In Cali, any place you would travel to by car today, you can just as easily travel to with a Tesla.
A typical car only gets around 350 miles per fill up while a Tesla you are looking at 275 miles. Thus, regardless of whether you have a Tesla or a gas car you are going to need to fill-up/recharge the car on any long trip. Plus, after 4 hours of driving you are going to need to eat. As such, there is no difference in the amount of time stopped to fill-up/recharge and eat.
I don't have one, but there are a lot of people I work with that have them and they rave about them.
He also said the following in a separate reply to someone else. I'd say this is clearly someone who would never be able to comprehend the notion of a "roadgeek"!
QuoteWhy would you drive anywhere that is 400-500 miles - seems nuts. At that distance, it is cheaper and faster to fly.
I disagreed, and I think my comments were pretty reasonable:
Quote
I pretty much completely disagree with that.
If I fill up before I leave and I spend the entire drive on Interstate or Interstate-grade highways (the latter referring to roads like, say, Florida's Turnpike or the Bee Line or US-48 in West Virginia–roads that don't have an Interstate shield but where you can still put it in sixth gear, go at least 65 mph, and not be bothered with red lights and the like), I'll get between 400 and 450 miles on a tank, even with the cruise control set at 70 mph in sixth gear. I don't drive an econobox, either–I drive a 2004 Acura TL that gets 20 to 22 mpg in all-city driving, but out on the Interstate I've averaged 31 mpg for a tank at an average speed of 71 mph.
For our drive to Florida, if I take I-95 the whole way (except for the I-295 bypasses around Richmond and Jacksonville), it's 860 miles. I'll have to refuel once, possibly twice. Couple one of those with a lunch stop. I certainly do not stop every four hours to eat! Maybe throw in two toilet stops, one a few hours prior to the gas stop and another a few hours later. The toilet stops are nowhere comparable to the amount of time you'd need to recharge a Tesla, assuming you can even find a place to do so. Come to think of it, the gas stops are nowhere comparable to the amount of time spent recharging either. It takes maybe 10 minutes at most to get gas. Figure 20 minutes for lunch. So that's half an hour. According to Tesla's website, a half-hour charge at a "supercharger" gives you about 170 miles of range. So you drive for two and a half hours and you have to stop again for at least another half an hour. My half-hour stop gives me another 400 to 450 miles, which at 70 mph is six to seven hours.
To me, it's simply not practical to stop for half an hour every two and a half hours on a long trip.
I saw your other comment asking why you wouldn't fly on a 400- to 500-mile trip. I think it depends on where you're going, why, and for how long. When we go to Florida, it's cheaper for the two of us if we drive as long as the trip is for one week or longer; we can also bring whatever luggage we like without dealing with the TSA (nice for my wife at Christmastime since she sometimes goes a little overboard). Or sometimes you can't fly. Later this year we have a trip planned to New Mexico and Arizona. We're flying into Albuquerque. We plan to visit southeast Utah (Valley of the Gods/Monument Valley) and the Grand Canyon en route to Phoenix, where we will visit my brother-in-law before flying home. Via the most direct routes (I seldom take the most direct routes!), that's around 740 miles. But you can't very well make that trip via any means other than driving! I also note the Tesla charging station near the Grand Canyon is for guests of a particular property only. I don't like the idea of having my lodging choices made for me based on charging station availability.
Don't get me wrong, the Teslas are really nice cars and they represent a very promising technology. But I think for people who like to drive a lot or who take long trips by car, they simply are not realistic as anything other than a vehicle for local use. I'd be quite concerned about even trying to drive one roundtrip from home to Charlottesville simply because of the risk of getting stuck in a traffic jam on I-95 or I-66 (depending on route) and depleting the charge while stuck, due to the unavailability of a charging station in Charlottesville.
To which the non-roadgeek made several different responses. I cannot imagine a roadgeek saying any of the following:
QuoteWhy would anyone torture themselves like that. I guess some people watched National Lampoon's vacation and said "Hey that looks like fun."
As for costs, on average it costs you about 60 cents a mile to drive - accounting for fuel, depreciation, etc.. If you have a nice car in the class of a Tesla, such as a Mercedes E-class, BMW 6 series or Audi A7, you are probably looking at closer to a $1 per mile.
At 860 miles one-way, you are looking at a cost of $1720 to drive. A round trip ticket from DC to Orlando is going to cost you around $150 a person (based on a quick Internet search for flights).
Thus, two people driving from DC to Florida and back costs $1420 more than flying. As such, I think it would be absolutely nuts for someone with a class of car like a Tesla to make such a drive versus flying.
$150 a person? Is he out of his mind? I can never find flights for less than $400 a person roundtrip. So then he claimed:
QuoteYou are coming off as very snooty in insisting your desire to spend 14 hours in a car on a godless interstate dealing with the stress of traffic, exhaust, and staring at concrete is a superior choice to someone kicking back and drinking a beer on a 2 hour flight.
That said, neither a Tesla, BMW 6-series, Mercedes E-series or other similar car are smart choices for people who like to take 1700 mile road trips.
Eventually there will be a cheap electric car with sufficient range to be an option for people who like to make 1700 mile road trips. But, that is probably 5-10 years off.
To which I replied as follows. He still hasn't responded to my point that not everyone focuses solely on cost and that some of us simply like to drive, or find exploring new roads interesting, or have other reasons for driving on a given trip.
QuoteI don't believe I said driving is superior. I said I enjoy driving.
I said a Tesla is not a practical option for most people who do anything longer than local driving. You're the one who then got a burr up his butt about the idea that because apparently in California there are a lot of charging stations, the same must be true everywhere, and you then decided to pass judgment on people who drive instead of fly by saying, and I quote here, "Why would you drive anywhere that is 400-500 miles - [sic] seems nuts."
Your statement in no way rebuts the comment that a Tesla is not practical for driving more than short distances. Seems to me you're the one who's being snooty. Just because you don't enjoy driving doesn't mean it's somehow wrong for other people to do so. I'm not sure where your little rant about "dealing with the stress of traffic, exhaust, and staring at concrete" came from, either. If that's what California is like, then you're welcome to it, but I seldom encounter much of that sort of thing when I travel. But I'm not crazy enough to try to drive to New York for Thanksgiving, either!
By the way, you didn't respond to the following paragraph from one of my earlier replies. How do you address this situation? I assume you might say you wouldn't make this trip. If so, that's fine, but based on the pictures I've seen of where we're going, I'd suggest you're missing out on something. If you could afford a private helicopter to take you around, well, I suggest in that case owning both a Tesla and a conventional-fuel car would not be an issue at all :-)
"Or sometimes you can't fly. Later this year we have a trip planned to New Mexico and Arizona. We're flying into Albuquerque. We plan to visit southeast Utah (Valley of the Gods/Monument Valley) and the Grand Canyon en route to Phoenix, where we will visit my brother-in-law before flying home. Via the most direct routes (I seldom take the most direct routes!), that's around 740 miles. But you can't very well make that trip via any means other than driving! I also note the Tesla charging station near the Grand Canyon is for guests of a particular property only. I don't like the idea of having my lodging choices made for me based on charging station availability."
The guy said "you are fooling yourself" if you don't account for depreciation and the like, to which I replied again:
QuoteAs I said before, and as you continue to fail to respond to: I think what it boils down to is that it appears to me you are focusing solely on your own assessment of the cost versus your own opinion on whether you enjoy driving. That's fine if that works for you, but it's important to remember cost is not everything to all people. There may be umpteen other reasons why people choose not to fly, or not to take the train, or whatever. I've known some people who are simply flat-out afraid to drive, and I've known other people who are afraid of flying. I'm not going to tell either one they're "wrong," though in the case of the people who are afraid to fly I will feel some sympathy for how they're missing out on options like going to Europe or Hawaii or the like.
I like to drive to Florida. Your commentary about your view of the cost doesn't change that and isn't going to change it. If you enjoy living your life focusing on the absolute cheapest way to do everything, that's your prerogative, but I'm not that obsessive.
^^ Who the hell accounts for depreciation? I sure as hell don't when I drive. There's not much point to it as I intend to keep the vehicle for many, many years, and over many, many miles. The only costs that matter are out-of-pocket, and out-of-pocket, flying is far more expensive than driving.
Quote from: Brandon on March 19, 2015, 01:43:24 PM
^^ Who the hell accounts for depreciation? I sure as hell don't when I drive. There's not much point to it as I intend to keep the vehicle for many, many years, and over many, many miles. The only costs that matter are out-of-pocket, and out-of-pocket, flying is far more expensive than driving.
Same here, but I didn't bother to argue it. What he doesn't seem to realize is that if I don't drive those 860 miles to Florida, I'm going to drive them to somewhere else. They're in the nature of a sunk cost to me because it is a cost I will incur either way.
I hate it when people like that throw the depreciation thing in my face. Newsflash: My car continues to depreciate just sitting in my garage.
I'm with ya on everything you said, 1995hoo, and not just from the roadgeek angle either. If I were to catch a plane here in New Bern to go to my brother's house in Lehigh Acres FL it would cost me at least $457 round trip (with connecting flights in both directions via Charlotte) and then the cost of renting a car for x number of days, the cost of parking my car at our local podunk airport for x number of days (etc).
Back in November 2009 when the price of gas was very similar to what it is now (actually a little higher then) and in a absolutely gas guzzling 2004 Ford F150 that trip cost me $260.32 round trip (includes the very little bit of gas I used while there). It would cost me less that now in my Mustang, especially if I opted to use 87 instead of the 93 octane I normally feed it.
Timewise, yeah, its a 1 way 12 hour trip with stops (my brother has done it in as little as 11:20 going solo- my wife's bladder doesn't match our fuel capacity, LOL). That said we sat here one time and calculated the driveway to driveway time of flying there at close to 8 hours, and it could be 9 hrs plus depending on the length of time the layover in Charlotte would be. Yeah total flight time is less 3.5 hours but all you guys and gals who fly alot know its more than double that with all the BS one has to go through before the flight, again at the connecting airport, and God forbid your 1st flight is delayed just a few minutes you will find yourself waiting for an even LATER connecting flight.
Stress of being in traffic? Yeah, right, I'll take that over the stress of being in the cattle roundup at an airport any day of the week and twice on Sunday, LOL.
"You have to pay money to drive on a road!"
Said by some girl when I was telling her how to get to Miami and said it would cost about $10 to drive on the Florida Turnpike. Then she decided she didn't want to go because of the tolls. I replied"you could take US 27."
QuoteThere may be umpteen other reasons why people choose not to fly, or not to take the train, or whatever. I've known some people who are simply flat-out afraid to drive, and I've known other people who are afraid of flying. I'm not going to tell either one they're "wrong," though in the case of the people who are afraid to fly I will feel some sympathy for how they're missing out on options like going to Europe or Hawaii or the like.
I haven't been on a plane since I was 5 (1974) but I think the range of places I can't go is smaller than this...
In 2012 I went to England by boat by driving to Brooklyn. Spent 9 days in London and used BritRail to see some other parts of England as well. Was it more expensive and time consuming than flying? Absolutely. Will I be doing it again? Absolutely. Trying to find a 2016 schedule that will allow us to go to Norway. Hawaii has been on the table as a retirement trip...
My resistance at home comes from going to faraway places in the USA and Canada. My wife is not a big fan of endless driving and always wants to try using trains which are not as convenient in America and have other logistical challenges for us.
I feel bad for people I know who think any drive over 2 hrs is too long and please make it stop. Since it is either expensive or inconvenient to fly to a lot of places that would be a day's drive or less, I think they miss out on a lot of good places to visit...
Mapmikey
In lots of places, there's little or no public transit, so if you fly there you need to add renting a car to the cost of flying.
One of the many reasons I don't even consider flying anywhere is because if you drive, you can take whatever you want with you and you can deviate from your planned route anytime you wish for any reason you want.
As for electronic vehicles, until such time that an affordable vehicle is manufactured that can travel 400-500 miles at highway speeds and be completely refueled in about five minutes, they will never be viable.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 19, 2015, 04:57:59 PM
One of the many reasons I don't even consider flying anywhere is because if you drive, you can take whatever you want with you and you can deviate from your planned route anytime you wish for any reason you want.
As for electronic vehicles, until such time that an affordable vehicle is manufactured that can travel 400-500 miles at highway speeds and be completely refueled in about five minutes, they will never be viable.
Electric vehicles are viable as a niche market, city cars for people who have another car for road trips, or who travel outside the city so rarely enough that renting for those times is a good option.
If you live in an ultra-competitive vacation market like Ft. Lauderdale, sometimes flying is/was actually cheaper than driving...but only rarely. (Much of this was due to Southwest and Spirit embroiled in a low-fare war; yet other major carriers still played hardball.) If you weren't flying into a regional airport, and you booked perhaps a month in advance, there were some stupid-low fares, even on heavier business travel days. As much as I enjoy driving, some of those $400-500 round-trips to Seattle were tough to beat, even in the heyday of $3/gallon gas. If you had a last-minute flight to say, Little Rock...that might be equivalent of a few car payments.
When the electric car can go 500 miles on a charge at an average speed of 60mph, I'll give it a shot when the prices get down to the $30k mark. Unfortunately, that's about a decade away.
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 19, 2015, 02:22:25 PM
I haven't been on a plane since I was 5 (1974) but I think the range of places I can't go is smaller than this...
In 2012 I went to England by boat by driving to Brooklyn. Spent 9 days in London and used BritRail to see some other parts of England as well. Was it more expensive and time consuming than flying? Absolutely. Will I be doing it again? Absolutely. Trying to find a 2016 schedule that will allow us to go to Norway. Hawaii has been on the table as a retirement trip...
....
Fair point. Realistically, though, the average person out there who doesn't consider driving long distances to be an option probably won't consider a transatlantic cruise to be an option either.
Quote from: Brandon on March 19, 2015, 01:43:24 PM
^^ Who the hell accounts for depreciation? I sure as hell don't when I drive. There's not much point to it as I intend to keep the vehicle for many, many years, and over many, many miles. The only costs that matter are out-of-pocket, and out-of-pocket, flying is far more expensive than driving.
I presume depreciation matters to someone who demands the latest model car all the time and buys a new car and trades in the old one every couple years. Given internet articles comparing buying new vs. used, this would seem to be the typical behavior for any American consumer that can afford it.
Quote from: kkt on March 19, 2015, 04:09:28 PM
In lots of places, there's little or no public transit, so if you fly there you need to add renting a car to the cost of flying.
Forgot to respond to this earlier.
Public transit is often irrelevant if you take trips to multiple places, too. Our family vacations when I was a kid were usually of the sort where we'd go somewhere for two or three nights, then move on to somewhere else for the next few nights, etc., over a two-week period. (An example would be in 1986 when we went to Ottawa, North Bay, Cochrane, Moosonee and Moose Factory, Sudbury, the coast of Georgian Bay, and Toronto/Niagara Falls.) Even if you flew somewhere to start a trip like that (we didn't), you'd still do a lot of driving. Nowadays when we go to Florida during the summer, we do a loop visiting relatives in multiple places, so there again we'd be renting a car. (For Thanksgiving or Christmas we visit only one relative and so we COULD borrow her SUV, but we never want to fight the airport crowds around those holidays.)
I never flew anywhere for a vacation (not counting Christmas in 1973 when I was six months old) until a trip to Cozumel in 2001. I'm sure growing up taking vacations in the car, typically a 1982 Honda Accord, helped influence my willingness to take long car trips as an adult, and I'm sure my dad's desire to get off the Interstate (or similar) when feasible influenced my tendency to do the same, though I'm more interested in the roads per se than he is/was (he'll get off the Interstate for scenery/change of pace, I'll do it just because it's a different route than I've used before or one I'm less likely to get to use again).
I'm sure some of the non-roadgeeks find that sort of trip inconceivable. I know a lot of people think of a vacation as meaning you go to one place, spend the whole trip at the same place, and then go home–such as "going to the beach" and staying at one motel, going out to the same strip of sand each day, and then going to dinner. We sometimes do that for ski trips, but otherwise I've very seldom taken that sort of vacation, either as an adult or as a kid.
QuoteDepreciation
I imagine the first guy that said "new cars depreciate $1,000 when you drive it off the lot" was a used car salesman. Yes, if you drive the car off the lot then decide you don want it, you probably aren't going to get your full money back (except for dealerships that specifically offer such a deal). But then again, if you drive a used vehicle off the lot and decide you don't want it, you're probably not going to get a full refund either.
Once someone starts arguing depreciation, it's usually best to walk away. The arguments will only get more absurd from there.
QuoteConvenience Store Purchases
If I'm getting something quick, and there's pumps open, I'll run in while fueling up. If I'm going to be doing something that takes time, I'll pull into a parking spot. It's a bit different in Jersey due to the full service as we generally don't get out of our cars to pump gas, but when I have done it no one has ever said anything. Usually they leave the gas receipt for me on the door handle as well.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 19, 2015, 10:55:35 PMI never flew anywhere for a vacation (not counting Christmas in 1973 when I was six months old) until a trip to Cozumel in 2001. I'm sure growing up taking vacations in the car, typically a 1982 Honda Accord, helped influence my willingness to take long car trips as an adult, and I'm sure my dad's desire to get off the Interstate (or similar) when feasible influenced my tendency to do the same, though I'm more interested in the roads per se than he is/was (he'll get off the Interstate for scenery/change of pace, I'll do it just because it's a different route than I've used before or one I'm less likely to get to use again).
It strikes me that your interlocutor on the other forum, if he is not being a troll, has rather limited experience of vacation formats if he is setting up knocking back a beer on an airplane as an alternative to the supposed horror of driving 400 miles (which I know from experience is a bit of a trial on rural California freeways during weekend trip days).
As for flying versus driving, there are contexts where one has a clear advantage over the other and others where the two are competitive. My personal preference is to drive in the US and Canada, but I tend to fly in Europe, because flight availability and access to rail-based transit lend themselves better to citybreak trips or InterRail-style vacations on my typical travel budget. In the US I tend to feel that flying makes the most sense when conserving vacation time justifies the added cost of plane tickets and car rental.
QuoteI'm sure some of the non-roadgeeks find that sort of trip inconceivable. I know a lot of people think of a vacation as meaning you go to one place, spend the whole trip at the same place, and then go home–such as "going to the beach" and staying at one motel, going out to the same strip of sand each day, and then going to dinner. We sometimes do that for ski trips, but otherwise I've very seldom taken that sort of vacation, either as an adult or as a kid.
It can be fun to stay in one place, but I wouldn't do that at the beach or at a ski resort. I enjoyed the nearly one month I spent in Vienna in the summer of 2010, where I bought myself a year pass to the Kunsthistorisches Museum and proceeded to wring my money's worth out of it several times over while doing a lot of urban exploration, a day trip to Bratislava, and a few days in Budapest.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2015, 04:06:59 AMOnce someone starts arguing depreciation, it's usually best to walk away. The arguments will only get more absurd from there.
As Roadman's travel budget thread shows, debates that are implicitly about marginal versus average cost pricing (such as whether to consider wear and tear when taking your own car on a roadtrip, versus renting) tend to generate more heat than light. This problem is not confined to depreciation by any means.
In regard to convenience store purchases, I usually won't bother to move my car as long as (1) I plan to be in the shop only a very brief period of time (typically to purchase coffee or to visit the restroom), and (2) at least one pump is vacant and available for a new drive-up. However, I will move my car if I plan to be at the station for an extended period of time, even if I am in the convenience store for only a small fraction of that time. Once, when filling up in California, I moved my car to a parking space, and then walked the window washing squeegee back and forth about ten times before taking the camera and walking all over the nearby interchange for some sign shots. It was a busy station and my windshield was so thickly encrusted with bug dirt that I preferred to be weird than to block a pump.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 20, 2015, 12:22:53 PM
.... In the US I tend to feel that flying makes the most sense when conserving vacation time justifies the added cost of plane tickets and car rental.
....
Our planned trip to New Mexico and Arizona that I mentioned in one or two of the quotations in my earlier post is a fine example of that, IMO: It would take three or four days at each end for us to drive between Northern Virginia and that area, which is time we simply do not have available to us. But if we're going to Quebec to go skiing for a week, it's a single day's drive at either end. I have no problem allowing a full day for the drive like that as long as the trip is for at least a week. I'm not as keen on spending an entire day driving for, say, a weekend trip, but that's based simply on my sense of the value of the time involved–and also on the value of my wife's vacation time. At the end of the year she's allowed to roll over a certain amount and they pay her for any remaining unused time. So there's a potential financial aspect to taking the faster option of flying in certain cases!
"INSERT DOT NAME HERE" does an excellent job, and follows all of the MUTCD guidelines.
MUTCD Sucks.
CalTrans has the best way of doing things.
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 20, 2015, 12:44:56 PM
"INSERT DOT NAME HERE" does an excellent job, and follows all of the MUTCD guidelines.
MUTCD Sucks.
CalTrans has the best way of doing things.
CalTrans actually has some really good ideas, but constraining themselves to a maximum guide sign height really hurts them.
Things never said by a roadgeek:
"Oklahoma has some great looking signs, especially that one for Craig County."
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 20, 2015, 12:39:25 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 20, 2015, 12:22:53 PM
.... In the US I tend to feel that flying makes the most sense when conserving vacation time justifies the added cost of plane tickets and car rental.
....
Our planned trip to New Mexico and Arizona that I mentioned in one or two of the quotations in my earlier post is a fine example of that, IMO: It would take three or four days at each end for us to drive between Northern Virginia and that area, which is time we simply do not have available to us. But if we're going to Quebec to go skiing for a week, it's a single day's drive at either end. I have no problem allowing a full day for the drive like that as long as the trip is for at least a week. I'm not as keen on spending an entire day driving for, say, a weekend trip, but that's based simply on my sense of the value of the time involved–and also on the value of my wife's vacation time. At the end of the year she's allowed to roll over a certain amount and they pay her for any remaining unused time. So there's a potential financial aspect to taking the faster option of flying in certain cases!
If I can get someone in approximately a day's drive, I'll drive. I will keep an eye on airline flights though, and if I can get a decent fare, I'll consider flying, depending on our travel needs.
One of these days I'll drive out west to Vegas. Including coming up later this spring, I've flown out there about 8 times, although in all but a few I've rented a car and did some considerable driving while out there. For just a trip to Vegas, I haven't been able to justify another week or 10 days time off just to drive there and back.
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 20, 2015, 12:44:56 PM
MUTCD Sucks.
Actually, I say this quite often. I think the document is too rigid and inflexible in many instances, does not allow states to make their own determinations on how to mark or sign highways, etc. Long-timers know that I have a few issues with the MUTCD.
"Why would I know anything about a guy named Bud Shuster"
"I hate looking out the window on a car trip"
"What does this green colored road mean on the atlas?"
"I watched CHiPs for the fine acting" (perhaps not said by anyone, ever)
Quote from: Chris19001 on March 20, 2015, 02:06:04 PM
"Why would I know anything about a guy named Bud Shuster"
My roadgeek dream is to be on Jeoperdy, with the final answer being: "I-99 was named in honor of this person."
Nevermind the fact that I will not know the question to every other answer in either round.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 20, 2015, 01:36:57 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 20, 2015, 12:44:56 PM
MUTCD Sucks.
Actually, I say this quite often. I think the document is too rigid and inflexible in many instances, does not allow states to make their own determinations on how to mark or sign highways, etc.
It's not so much "it sucks", but that it is a
set of guidelines, whereas we have some folks here that assume it's essentially Article VIII of the United States Constitution. Otherwise, it
should be open to some interpretation for useful, concise, and consistent regional differences.
Quote from: formulanone on March 20, 2015, 02:33:46 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 20, 2015, 01:36:57 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 20, 2015, 12:44:56 PM
MUTCD Sucks.
Actually, I say this quite often. I think the document is too rigid and inflexible in many instances, does not allow states to make their own determinations on how to mark or sign highways, etc.
It's not so much "it sucks", but that it is a set of guidelines, whereas we have some folks here that assume it's essentially Article VIII of the United States Constitution. Otherwise, it should be open to some interpretation for useful, concise, and consistent regional differences.
Sorry that was my point. It is a great guide, but not the rule of law.
Quote from: slorydn1 on March 19, 2015, 01:54:42 PMIt would cost me less that now in my Mustang, especially if I opted to use 87 instead of the 93 octane I normally feed it.
Side bar: most of today's cars have higher engine compression ratios than their 20-to-30 year old predecessors. As a result, many of today's vehicles not only run better with the higher octane gasolines; but they usually get better mileage with the higher-grade fuel on top of it, thereby compensating for the price difference at the pump (especially on longer drives).
One needs to remember that 87 octane unleaded came into the market (early 1980s) when the average engine compression ratio on new cars was 7-to-1 or 8-to-1 (and their overall performances reflected such). Most if not all of today's new gasoline-powered vehicles have a compression ratio of 9-to-1 and higher.
In short, 87 octane gasoline is realistically obsolete in today's market. While knock engine knock sensors can hide knocks; they can't hide performance and fuel economy.
My 2007 Mustang with the 4.0L V6 has a 9.7-to-1 compression ratio. According to my brother, who knows more about cars than I do, 90 octane would be the ideal fuel for my car. Since such isn't readily available (and the 89 mid-grade being disproportionately-priced in most instances); I just mix the 87 & 93 grades (at different times) when refueling.
I do similar with my '97 Crown Vic (which has the 4.6L V8 and a 9-to-1 compression ratio) as well.
^^ Regardless, follow your owner's manual.
Quote from: Brandon on March 20, 2015, 04:26:10 PM
^^ Regardless, follow your owner's manual.
That's just it. A fair amount of those list
87 as the minimum recommended octane; when in reality it
should list a higher octane rating. Maybe not a premium (93) octane, but definitely higher than 87. We're not in 1982 anymore.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 20, 2015, 04:44:40 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 20, 2015, 04:26:10 PM
^^ Regardless, follow your owner's manual.
That's just it. A fair amount of those list 87 as the minimum recommended octane; when in reality it should list a higher octane rating. Maybe not a premium (93) octane, but definitely higher than 87. We're not in 1982 anymore.
If they required a higher octane, they'd mention it, as my mother's 300M (2003) does. There is a recommendation for 89 octane in it. Again, follow your owner's manual. Higher octanes
do not provide better mileage or performance
unless the manufacturer specifies it. I
really hate seeing this higher octane equals better performance/mileage myth. It's false, false, false. :banghead:
Out in the higher elevations (i.e. Colorado), "Regular" octane is 86, with mid-grade at 87 octane. My car does just fine with the 86 in the tank, even though the manual says 87. I'm not going to spend the 15-20 cents difference for the 87.
Quote from: kphoger on March 11, 2015, 10:19:59 PM
° Oh crap, my GPS took me all the way to 1351 N. Birch instead of S. Birch. Now I have to drive... wait, how many blocks are in a mile?
I've never lived in a city where "blocks" are a meaningful concept–the arterials form a grid of square miles but these "blocks" are not subdivided uniformly–so I tend to use miles or fractions thereof rather than blocks, and couldn't say how big a standard block is in the cities that use them.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 20, 2015, 04:13:46 PM
Quote from: slorydn1 on March 19, 2015, 01:54:42 PMIt would cost me less that now in my Mustang, especially if I opted to use 87 instead of the 93 octane I normally feed it.
Side bar: most of today's cars have higher engine compression ratios than their 20-to-30 year old predecessors. As a result, many of today's vehicles not only run better with the higher octane gasolines; but they usually get better mileage with the higher-grade fuel on top of it, thereby compensating for the price difference at the pump (especially on longer drives).
One needs to remember that 87 octane unleaded came into the market (early 1980s) when the average engine compression ratio on new cars was 7-to-1 or 8-to-1 (and their overall performances reflected such). Most if not all of today's new gasoline-powered vehicles have a compression ratio of 9-to-1 and higher.
In short, 87 octane gasoline is realistically obsolete in today's market. While knock engine knock sensors can hide knocks; they can't hide performance and fuel economy.
My 2007 Mustang with the 4.0L V6 has a 9.7-to-1 compression ratio. According to my brother, who knows more about cars than I do, 90 octane would be the ideal fuel for my car. Since such isn't readily available (and the 89 mid-grade being disproportionately-priced in most instances); I just mix the 87 & 93 grades (at different times) when refueling.
I do similar with my '97 Crown Vic (which has the 4.6L V8 and a 9-to-1 compression ratio) as well.
This is very true.
My 2014 5.0 is rated at 420hp on 93 octane and 410hp on 87. It's PCM is designed to allow the car to run on either. I prefer 93 and that's all my car has ever ingested since new. We tried 87 a couple of times on my wife's 2012 and we didn't like the performance decrease-it even sounds different somehow. I have thought about, however, on Interstate only trips when I'm going to burn through a tank in 5 hours if it wouldn't be worth it to save the $0.40-$0.50 per gallon by putting 87 in it. Invariably I go back to the "nothing but the best for my baby" mode and put 93 in it.
Someone else mentioned the owners manual, that's absolutely great advice. My manual calls for either, with the proviso that there will be a performance decrease when 87 is used. My F150 explicitly called for 87, and even had a note in the manual that it would actually be wasteful to put 93 in it.
I too had a Grand Marquis, a 2001. We offloaded it when we got my wife's Mustang, it was a great road trip car, too :biggrin:
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 21, 2015, 04:56:44 AMQuote from: kphoger on March 11, 2015, 10:19:59 PM
° Oh crap, my GPS took me all the way to 1351 N. Birch instead of S. Birch. Now I have to drive... wait, how many blocks are in a mile?
I've never lived in a city where "blocks" are a meaningful concept–the arterials form a grid of square miles but these "blocks" are not subdivided uniformly–so I tend to use miles or fractions thereof rather than blocks, and couldn't say how big a standard block is in the cities that use them.
In Wichita and rural Sedgwick County, which is where Kphoger is talking about, the rule of thumb is 8 blocks per mile in the north-south direction and 16 blocks per mile in the east-west direction. (BTW, there is actually a Birch in Wichita, but it runs east-west, and has extent in only one quadrant of the city, so addresses on it do not need a compass-point prefix.) The block spacing rule and the road naming conventions that follow from it are not necessarily followed in the smaller towns far outside the Wichita urbanized area, such as Clearwater, Cheney, Garden Plain, etc.
It is in Butler County (next one east) where things get really confusing. Andover is essentially contiguous to Wichita on the far western fringe of the county, so it borrows the east-west element of the Wichita street grid. As a result, Butler SW 70th St. abruptly becomes 21st St. at the approximate point where it crosses the Turnpike (part of the Turnpike interchange trumpet is an Andover exclave although 21st St. is not entirely within Andover, and thus signed as crossing the Andover city limits, until nearly a mile west). In rural Butler County, however, the rule is 10 blocks per mile north-south, with the dividing line being Parallel St., the extension of 77th St. N. from Sedgwick County east into Butler County. US 54-400 overlaps 100th St. for much of its length between east Wichita and Augusta.
I'm lost
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 20, 2015, 03:14:54 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 20, 2015, 02:33:46 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 20, 2015, 01:36:57 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 20, 2015, 12:44:56 PM
MUTCD Sucks.
Actually, I say this quite often. I think the document is too rigid and inflexible in many instances, does not allow states to make their own determinations on how to mark or sign highways, etc.
It's not so much "it sucks", but that it is a set of guidelines, whereas we have some folks here that assume it's essentially Article VIII of the United States Constitution. Otherwise, it should be open to some interpretation for useful, concise, and consistent regional differences.
Sorry that was my point. It is a great guide, but not the rule of law.
Right - here are a few examples:
* Left exit tabs - well adapted for what?
* FYA's - Whatever happened to the rules of the road?
* Wisconsin adapting FIB Poles in their traffic lights (overkill)
FHWA seems to treat it like it's law and push state DOTs into it (as stated before)
Quote from: jwolfer on March 21, 2015, 06:07:37 PM
I'm lost
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ssoworld.org%2Fpics%2FRocketNotHelping-GOTG1.png&hash=dd7ab7e41d7865e0fa5b04b5f58afcf1d69b24bc)
:awesomeface:
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 21, 2015, 04:56:44 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 11, 2015, 10:19:59 PM
° Oh crap, my GPS took me all the way to 1351 N. Birch instead of S. Birch. Now I have to drive... wait, how many blocks are in a mile?
I've never lived in a city where "blocks" are a meaningful concept–the arterials form a grid of square miles but these "blocks" are not subdivided uniformly–so I tend to use miles or fractions thereof rather than blocks, and couldn't say how big a standard block is in the cities that use them.
Furthermore, in many places there's no easy relation between address numbers and counting blocks from the zero point. Some people might say the address above is "in the 1300 block" of Birch, but around here the physical block more likely has an address range like 1335—1383, and the next block 1391—1439, then 1447—1495... and that's if the blocks are at all regular, which they often aren't.
There are indeed plenty of cities where one block represents other than 100 units of address space--50 being not uncommon as an alternate--but my impression has been that this is largely an "Old Northwest" problem.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 21, 2015, 08:35:23 PM
There are indeed plenty of cities where one block represents other than 100 units of address space--50 being not uncommon as an alternate--but my impression has been that this is largely an "Old Northwest" problem.
Most places in Illinois have 100 units of address space to the block, with a typical 8 blocks to the mile. A good example is the Chicago grid.
You can use "blocks" easily in larger cities that are grid style (Chicago, Milwaukee), but then there are different formats: Rectangular (NYC: Manhattan particularly), angular with changing patterns (Twin Cities, LA, SF, StL) Confusing.
Smaller towns vary
As you get further out from downtown and the lot sizes increase, the block system gets crazy. The neighborhood I'm in process of buying a house in has two 100 blocks between streets in the E-W format and very little N/S (given that the lots are 2 by X in the E-W grid) The city limit lines the northern part of the lots on the street I'm on.
"Roads are gay"
Quote from: SSOWorld on March 22, 2015, 09:19:49 AM
You can use "blocks" easily in larger cities that are grid style (Chicago, Milwaukee), but then there are different formats: Rectangular (NYC: Manhattan particularly), angular with changing patterns (Twin Cities, LA, SF, StL) Confusing.
Smaller towns vary
As you get further out from downtown and the lot sizes increase, the block system gets crazy. The neighborhood I'm in process of buying a house in has two 100 blocks between streets in the E-W format and very little N/S (given that the lots are 2 by X in the E-W grid) The city limit lines the northern part of the lots on the street I'm on.
Jacksonville is nearly all of Duval County Florida. Near downtown, address grids are more consistent. Farther out its less consistent. But still patterned. Its interesting that on different sides of the St Johns river the address grid is different even though the same distance from downtown. West side of river has addresses around 8000, east side is 10900 at the Buckman bridge( i295)
Clay county has no rhyme nor reason. My neighborhood as addresses below 1000 but next neighborhood is 2300 ish
Even in Wichita, the 8/16 rule breaks down for the low-numbered blocks. The 16 progression does not become regular until Hillside (3100 block) on the east and West (3900 block) on the west, and the 8 progression is not regular until 13th Street (1300 block) on the north and Harry (1500 block) on the south. Out in the rural county, where Wichita names tend to be suppressed in favor of numbers, a trip south to north crosses 23rd S. (Pawnee), 15th S. (Harry), 2nd S. (Maple), 4th N. (Central), and 13th N. Similarly, west to east crosses 39th W. (West), 24th W. (Meridian--still more likely to be signed by name in rural areas because it is the actual sixth principal meridian), 10th W. (Seneca), 2nd E. (Broadway), 16th E. (Hydraulic), and 31st E. (Hillside).
Quote from: KG909 on March 22, 2015, 10:14:49 AM
"Roads are gay"
Nobody should say this, because its offensive and roads don't have genders anyway.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 22, 2015, 11:11:56 AM
Quote from: KG909 on March 22, 2015, 10:14:49 AM
"Roads are gay"
Nobody should say this, because its offensive and roads don't have genders anyway.
They could be implying that the roads are happy.
But roads don't have emotions either.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on March 22, 2015, 11:16:09 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 22, 2015, 11:11:56 AM
Quote from: KG909 on March 22, 2015, 10:14:49 AM
"Roads are gay"
Nobody should say this, because its offensive and roads don't have genders anyway.
They could be implying that the roads are happy.
But roads don't have emotions either.
But people do, so the original comment is not helpful.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 22, 2015, 02:13:42 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on March 22, 2015, 11:16:09 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 22, 2015, 11:11:56 AM
Quote from: KG909 on March 22, 2015, 10:14:49 AM
"Roads are gay"
Nobody should say this, because its offensive and roads don't have genders anyway.
They could be implying that the roads are happy.
But roads don't have emotions either.
But people do, so the original comment is not helpful.
Yeah, I was hoping that we had advanced past the age where calling inanimate objects "gay" as a casual insult was a socially acceptable thing to do. I guess a better way of phrasing that would've been "roads are lame" since I remember "gay" being a 2000s synonym for lame when used in that context.
Not that it has ever been right to use that phrasing.
But that's offensive to cripples :bigass:
Quote from: NE2 on March 22, 2015, 04:31:10 PM
But that's offensive to cripples :bigass:
Road geeks would never say:
"Roads are incredibly uninteresting and should be considered subpar entertainment."
If anyone wants to find out which roads were gay in the early 90s, watch the first 15 seconds or so of this (satirical news show*).
*I can't work out what exactly its satirising - the separate gay counter culture, the ever-changing fashion trends within it, the homophobic nature of the media, or all of the above.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on March 22, 2015, 02:32:53 PMYeah, I was hoping that we had advanced past the age where calling inanimate objects "gay" as a casual insult was a socially acceptable thing to do. I guess a better way of phrasing that would've been "roads are lame" since I remember "gay" being a 2000s synonym for lame when used in that context.
Try an 80s synonym - I remember using it in nursery school. And in the early 90s when I was about 6, it was most commonly used in phrases like "kissing girls, that's gay". In fact, IIRC, older people have told me that they used it on the playground
before the homosexual community used it for themselves.
But the fascist language police must clamp down those who use the word to mean something different (and often, as they are very young, totally unaware of the other meaning) because some people have decided to define themselves by that word and might be offended! I'm offended by their bigotry!
I knew a fellow whose last name was "Gay." He was having a really tough time deciding whether to change his name. He felt changing it dishonored his family and his parents, but he was utterly fed up with having his name mocked all the time. Good thing for him he was just old enough that he was not a kid when the homosexual community decided to adopt that word–as a kid, that'd be brutal.
I can relate to having your name made fun of because my last name is the same as a particular (now deceased) TV personality and my first name is the same as a cartoon character (to make the latter weirder, my PARENTS' first names are the same as said cartoon character's parents' first names). But I've never thought about changing either name–I feel like I've been made fun of my whole life and by now it pretty much rolls off. I guess for the guy I knew named "Gay" he hadn't grown up hearing it, so maybe that was the difference.
One of my high school teachers had the last name of Gay and I don't remember anyone ever making fun of him because of his name.
But speaking of the term "gay" coming into use to mean "homosexual," why do we have to invent words and terms when there are already perfectly good words? Like "African-American" for "Negro." (Are blacks who live in England African-American?) Like "vegetarian" for "herbivore." Or "straight' for "heterosexual." And so forth and so on.
I indeed saw an article once referring to Lewis Hamilton (a British black man) as an "African-American F1 driver."
I'm sure he would take issue with that characterization.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 22, 2015, 10:19:58 PM
One of my high school teachers had the last name of Gay and I don't remember anyone ever making fun of him because of his name.
But speaking of the term "gay" coming into use to mean "homosexual," why do we have to invent words and terms when there are already perfectly good words? Like "African-American" for "Negro." (Are blacks who live in England African-American?) Like "vegetarian" for "herbivore." Or "straight' for "heterosexual." And so forth and so on.
Because words are always political when you're labeling groups of people. An equally valid question to yours is "Why can't people just be nice?" But they're not, and words play a role.
Quite often the words used to describe minority groups within a population are chosen by the majority. That fact alone can feel disempowering to a group already lacking control over their own affairs. Quite often seemingly harmless words grow a more and more sinister connotation. And beyond all of this, language evolves shorthand and slang terms all the time, and their leogitmacy ebbs and flows like all words.
Holy fuck I caused some shit didn't I...
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 22, 2015, 10:53:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 22, 2015, 10:19:58 PM
One of my high school teachers had the last name of Gay and I don't remember anyone ever making fun of him because of his name.
But speaking of the term "gay" coming into use to mean "homosexual," why do we have to invent words and terms when there are already perfectly good words? Like "African-American" for "Negro." (Are blacks who live in England African-American?) Like "vegetarian" for "herbivore." Or "straight' for "heterosexual." And so forth and so on.
Because words are always political when you're labeling groups of people. An equally valid question to yours is "Why can't people just be nice?" But they're not, and words play a role.
Quite often the words used to describe minority groups within a population are chosen by the majority. That fact alone can feel disempowering to a group already lacking control over their own affairs. Quite often seemingly harmless words grow a more and more sinister connotation. And beyond all of this, language evolves shorthand and slang terms all the time, and their leogitmacy ebbs and flows like all words.
The particular examples you cite are not very good. Homo/heterosexual are really scientific terms normal people wouldn't use (not to mention they are too long). Negro is not originally an English word, nor one original to the people to whom it was/is applied. Some may say "but it just means black, but there is a perfectly normal word for "black" in English, isn't there? Some of the ethnic slurs for Jews are just words for "Jew" in Polish and German.
Quote from: bzakharin on March 23, 2015, 09:32:08 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 22, 2015, 10:53:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 22, 2015, 10:19:58 PM
One of my high school teachers had the last name of Gay and I don't remember anyone ever making fun of him because of his name.
But speaking of the term "gay" coming into use to mean "homosexual," why do we have to invent words and terms when there are already perfectly good words? Like "African-American" for "Negro." (Are blacks who live in England African-American?) Like "vegetarian" for "herbivore." Or "straight' for "heterosexual." And so forth and so on.
Because words are always political when you're labeling groups of people. An equally valid question to yours is "Why can't people just be nice?" But they're not, and words play a role.
Quite often the words used to describe minority groups within a population are chosen by the majority. That fact alone can feel disempowering to a group already lacking control over their own affairs. Quite often seemingly harmless words grow a more and more sinister connotation. And beyond all of this, language evolves shorthand and slang terms all the time, and their leogitmacy ebbs and flows like all words.
The particular examples you cite are not very good. Homo/heterosexual are really scientific terms normal people wouldn't use (not to mention they are too long). Negro is not originally an English word, nor one original to the people to whom it was/is applied. Some may say "but it just means black, but there is a perfectly normal word for "black" in English, isn't there? Some of the ethnic slurs for Jews are just words for "Jew" in Polish and German.
Are you talking about me or the poster I quoted? I didn't make any examples.
"Negro" is an ideal example of what I described, a name chosen by others, and one that was the dominant descriptor during a period of great indignity for the described. It may be innocuous on the surface, but how words are used is often as important as which words are chosen.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 22, 2015, 11:11:56 AM
Quote from: KG909 on March 22, 2015, 10:14:49 AM
"Roads are gay"
Nobody should say this, because its offensive and roads don't have genders anyway.
I believe in that particular context;
gay means stupid not homosexual.
Side bar: I've known at least two different people whose
first (nick)name was
Gay; typically it was short for either Gayton or Gaylord.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 23, 2015, 11:29:56 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 22, 2015, 11:11:56 AM
Quote from: KG909 on March 22, 2015, 10:14:49 AM
"Roads are gay"
Nobody should say this, because its offensive and roads don't have genders anyway.
I believe in that particular context; gay means stupid not homosexual.
I know folks who think "He tried to Jew them down" isn't offensive when not talking about a Jewish person. It's worse, IMO, because you're no longer just denigrating someone, you're reducing their whole identity to this one characteristic you're associating them with. Same with "gay = lame, stupid, etc."
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 23, 2015, 12:15:48 PMIt's worse, IMO, because you're no longer just denigrating someone, you're reducing their whole identity to this one characteristic you're associating them with. Same with "gay = lame, stupid, etc."
How so? Isn't conflating one aspect (and a WEIRD aspect at that*) with someone's whole identity that what you are doing, not those who aren't even talking about a person's identity?
*Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich and Democratic. Sexuality was invented as a psuedo-scientific divider about 100 years ago in Western Academia. While its filtered out into the poorer, less educated and non-Western places, its still a minority way of looking at the world in the world today. Sexual behaviour, sure, but until the 1900s, no one was attacked for their sexual orientation.
If "caucasian" is the appropriate term for light-skinned, then what would be the appropriate term for dark-skinned?
I think I'll start calling myself "Native American." After all, I was born in Lexington, Ky. :bigass:
Quote from: hbelkins on March 23, 2015, 04:20:20 PM
If "caucasian" is the appropriate term for light-skinned, then what would be the appropriate term for dark-skinned?
I think I'll start calling myself "Native American." After all, I was born in Lexington, Ky. :bigass:
Listen, just call people what they like to be called, or better yet call them what they call themselves.
"Caucasian," for what it's worth, comes from enormously stupidly racist 19th-century "scholarship" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Christoph_Meiners) that labeled the European as the fairest and prettiest human race on earth, as contrasted to the ugly and morally deficient Negroid (there's your answer in the context of the question as posed) race. For some reason the exotic people of the Caucasus were decided to be emblematic of this. More arbitrary nonsense from the era that brought you phrenology.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 23, 2015, 05:24:28 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 23, 2015, 04:20:20 PM
If "caucasian" is the appropriate term for light-skinned, then what would be the appropriate term for dark-skinned?
I think I'll start calling myself "Native American." After all, I was born in Lexington, Ky. :bigass:
Listen, just call people what they like to be called, or better yet call them what they call themselves.
....
Based on some of the things I've heard blacks call each other, I think the suggestion in boldface is probably not necessarily the best idea for white people to follow!
Quote from: english si on March 23, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 23, 2015, 12:15:48 PMIt's worse, IMO, because you're no longer just denigrating someone, you're reducing their whole identity to this one characteristic you're associating them with. Same with "gay = lame, stupid, etc."
How so? Isn't conflating one aspect (and a WEIRD aspect at that*) with someone's whole identity that what you are doing, not those who aren't even talking about a person's identity?
It's doing that, too. But it's attaching some big negative to the term identifying a group, and then taking that one step further and using that term only to imply that negative quality in other contexts (as in our friend's jesting "Roads are gay" usage above).
Quote*Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich and Democratic.
Usually the group that doesn't get what the big deal is.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 23, 2015, 05:24:28 PM
Listen, just call people what they like to be called, or better yet call them what they call themselves.
Just don't call me late for supper! :sombrero: :-D
In before Gay Street in Baltimore and Gay Avenue in Knoxville, Tennessee.
What the hell does "in before" mean anyway? It doesn't even mean "in before," it means "I, right now, am the one that thought of saying this." Sometimes I just don't understand the internet.
in before someone links Urban Dictionary
Quote from: NE2 on March 25, 2015, 06:10:17 PM
in before someone links Urban Dictionary
Well, there goes *that* idea...
No need, I get it. It says, "The predictable thing here is X," like it's some kind of cover for saying predictable thing X because the person "totally called it."
I once knew a rather nerdy, very white gentleman from South Africa. Upon receiving his U.S. citizenship, he started referring to himself as an African American.
And, by the way, it becomes perfectly socially acceptable to call something "gay" as long as you tack on "not that there's anything wrong with that" (in before someone links to a Seinfeld clip). Better yet, just use the term "retarded".
I know someone called "in before Gay St", but how about Gay Rd? I think there's one in southwest Franklin or southeast Madison county...
Also, this might belong in Funniest Road Names, but it also seems to fit this current sidetracked discussion: I recently noticed in Bucyrus OH, Gay St is located between two streets with guys' names.
There's a Gay St. in the West Village. Kind of like having Chinese St. in Chinatown.
Quote from: thenetwork on March 20, 2015, 06:51:01 PM
Out in the higher elevations (i.e. Colorado), "Regular" octane is 86, with mid-grade at 87 octane. My car does just fine with the 86 in the tank, even though the manual says 87. I'm not going to spend the 15-20 cents difference for the 87.
Guatemala and other Central American nations, dispense regular gasoline at 87 octane [RON], which is 83 octane in USA-speak. Guatemala City is at lower elevation than Denver, and the region does have population centers at low coastal elevation.
Somehow, all those people's cars aren't blowing up or shutting down on the road.
Quote from: kphoger on March 25, 2015, 11:30:13 PM
I once knew a rather nerdy, very white gentleman from South Africa. Upon receiving his U.S. citizenship, he started referring to himself as an African American.
And he's technically right. To be frank, he's more "African" than many who wear the term, having actually come from there recently (as are immigrants from Nigeria or Liberia).
QuoteAnd, by the way, it becomes perfectly socially acceptable to call something "gay" as long as you tack on "not that there's anything wrong with that" (in before someone links to a Seinfeld clip). Better yet, just use the term "retarded".
I prefer "fucktard" when discussing people though. :bigass:
Quote from: kphoger on March 26, 2015, 08:47:39 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on March 20, 2015, 06:51:01 PM
Out in the higher elevations (i.e. Colorado), "Regular" octane is 86, with mid-grade at 87 octane. My car does just fine with the 86 in the tank, even though the manual says 87. I'm not going to spend the 15-20 cents difference for the 87.
Guatemala and other Central American nations, dispense regular gasoline at 87 octane [RON], which is 83 octane in USA-speak. Guatemala City is at lower elevation than Denver, and the region does have population centers at low coastal elevation.
Somehow, all those people's cars aren't blowing up or shutting down on the road.
Modern engines have anti-knock systems that will retard timing or decrease pressure in order to prevent knocking, at the expense of performance. Also, the vehicles sold in third-world countries typically don't use engines that require higher octane in the first place.
Lower octane gas is sold at higher elevations because the lower air pressure decreases the potential for knocking. Using 85.5 or 86 at elevation in an engine designed for 87 is fine.
The vehicles sold in Central America are typically the same models sold in more prosperous nations. Recent best-selling cars in Guatemala, for example, include Chevy Aveo, Toyota Hilux and Yaris, VW Polo, Mazda3, Hyundai Santa Fe... While they are generally the smaller offerings from each marque, they are hardly cars unseen in the USA and Europe. Considering that the argument has been made on here that 87 octane (R+M)/2 has outlived its usefulness, I find it interesting that gasoline with a significantly lower rating is still being dispensed in North America. FWIW, Colombia also dispenses 83 octane gasoline.
Same model doesn't necessarily mean the same engine options. What might be sold in the US with 3 different engine options including some with a super/turbocharger may only have the base model available in those countries. And there's a little less concern over engine performance when you're in a country that has no posted limits above 80 or 90 km/h than there would be when trying to merge into 70mph traffic on the freeway.
If those same base engine models or similar are also sold in the American market, then my point remains that we have not outlived the usefulness of low-grade gasoline.
As for engine performance, you may be underestimating Central Americans' love of hard acceleration as soon as the light turns green, passing against oncoming traffic on uphills, and driving as fast as traffic and road geometry (not posted limits) allow.
The US/Canada is a pretty specific market for the automakers because of stringent requirements for safety and emissions control equipment. Quite often a "world car" will have one FSM just for the US and Canada and another for the rest of the world. Even when engines of the same displacement are available elsewhere, they don't necessarily have the same induction systems or sensor complements. For example, in the early 1980's big Fords sold in the US and Canada had moved on to throttle body fuel injection, while the same cars sold in Mexico had variable-venturi carburetors and a 5.7-L V8 option was available.
I think the strongest argument for being able to drive a car in a country where US regulations for minimum gasoline octane do not apply is that international conventions guarantee the legal ability of a car to travel in foreign countries without requiring permanent importation (including conversion of fuel and exhaust systems to meet local regulations) in each country. This means that any automaker who sells a car that is too frail to run on foreign gas risks ceding market share to another automaker that sells a more forgiving design. However, this reasoning does not necessarily extend to (say) driving a catalyst-equipped car in one of the very few countries, such as Algeria, where leaded gasoline is still legal and is still widely sold.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 29, 2015, 11:03:26 PMFor example, in the early 1980's big Fords sold in the US and Canada had moved on to throttle body fuel injection, while the same cars sold in Mexico had variable-venturi carburetors and a 5.7-L V8 option was available.
The 5.
8L (aka the 351 Windsor) offered on full-sizes Fords & Mercurys had the variable-venturi carburation system
through 1991. In the US market, that engine was restricted to the Police-Packaged Fords (LTDs then later Crown Vics) after 1980. IIRC, that 5.8L/351W VV was still offered as an option for the retail full-size Fords & Mercs in the Canadian market after 1980.
The throttle-body then later sequential-port-injected 5.8s were only offered on the F-series trucks, Broncos & E-series (Econoline/Club Wagon) vans.