News:

While the Forum is up and running, there are still thousands of guests (bots). Downtime may occur as a result.
- Alex

Main Menu

For police, not wearing seat belts can be fatal mistake

Started by cpzilliacus, October 14, 2012, 06:00:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

kphoger

Crossovers, even if only intended for official use, are a huge temptation to drivers making less-than-wise choices.  I've been guilty of it a few times.  I used to deliver supplies to a rest area, and sometimes used the crossover instead of turning around at the next exit.  But I did everything as safely as possible, including sometimes stopping on the far right shoulder and waiting for all traffic to clear before turning around.  Many drivers hardly even yield before pulling out in the other direction.  With proper acceleration/deceleration space, that would be less of an issue.

Here's the diciest crossover I've used, having gotten on the highway here.

He Is Already Here! Let's Go, Flamingo!
Dost thou understand the graveness of the circumstances?
Deut 23:13
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: PKDIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.


Beltway

Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2012, 11:40:22 PM
Crossovers, even if only intended for official use, are a huge temptation to drivers making less-than-wise choices.

So the crossover is the one doing the tempting?

Quote
I've been guilty of it a few times.  I used to deliver supplies to a rest area, and sometimes used the crossover instead of turning around at the next exit.  But I did everything as safely as possible, including sometimes stopping on the far right shoulder and waiting for all traffic to clear before turning around.  Many drivers hardly even yield before pulling out in the other direction.  With proper acceleration/deceleration space, that would be less of an issue.

I've never felt any temptation to use a crossover for non-official purposes.  Apparently neither do about 99.9% of the other motorists.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert  Coté, 2002)

Brandon

Quote from: Beltway on October 21, 2012, 10:18:15 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 21, 2012, 08:25:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 21, 2012, 03:30:50 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 20, 2012, 11:07:48 PM
Yet anther reason why I think we need to close off these crossovers.  IMHO, median breaks on freeways are dangerous.

They are needed for emergency services access, and the ones on either side of an interchange are needed for snow plows to make a u-turn when plowing the ramps.

In areas with exits closer than every four to five miles, no, they aren't really needed for that kind of access.  It is far safer to use the ramps of the nearest exit.  As an example where crossovers don't exist for miles, I present to you I-55 between MP 249 and MP 277 in Illinois.  Somehow plows and emergency vehicles do just fine without the crossovers.

What part of I-55 is that?  I just checked it on Google Maps between I-155 and I-80, and I counted at least 20 crossovers.

It is not dangerous for an emergency vehicle or snow plow to use a crossover if they use their warning lights. The roof lights and strobes are extremely obvious from a long distance away.  They are not going to use a crossover unless there is sufficient need, and they don't have to use a crossover if they decide to use an interchange instead.

I told you MP 249 to MP 277.  And no, they use crossovers all the time, usually without lights.

What kind of fantasy world do you live in, Beltway?
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton, "Game of Thrones"

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg, "Monty Python's Life of Brian"

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Brandon on October 21, 2012, 08:25:27 PM
In areas with exits closer than every four to five miles, no, they aren't really needed for that kind of access.  It is far safer to use the ramps of the nearest exit.  As an example where crossovers don't exist for miles, I present to you I-55 between MP 249 and MP 277 in Illinois.  Somehow plows and emergency vehicles do just fine without the crossovers.

Sure they are. Using a random example - Say you have interchanges at MP 5 & MP 10 - which are 5 miles away.  What if an accident happened Southbound at MP 5.4...do you want a cop to travel 4.6 miles north past the accident, use the interchange, then travel 4.6 miles south, battling slowing traffic?  That's over a 9 mile detour just because you don't want a median crossover.

Have you ever used the road after a snowstorm, to determine how those ramps and roads are truly plowed?

cpzilliacus

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 06:22:13 AM
I've never felt any temptation to use a crossover for non-official purposes.  Apparently neither do about 99.9% of the other motorists.

I dislike intensely using crossovers, even when I have the ability to do so for official reasons (which I sometimes do). Ones that are just a break  in a Jersey wall I won't use - at all.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Beltway

Quote from: Brandon on October 22, 2012, 06:39:21 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 21, 2012, 10:18:15 PM
What part of I-55 is that?  I just checked it on Google Maps between I-155 and I-80, and I counted at least 20 crossovers.

It is not dangerous for an emergency vehicle or snow plow to use a crossover if they use their warning lights. The roof lights and strobes are extremely obvious from a long distance away.  They are not going to use a crossover unless there is sufficient need, and they don't have to use a crossover if they decide to use an interchange instead.

I told you MP 249 to MP 277.  And no, they use crossovers all the time, usually without lights.

What kind of fantasy world do you live in, Beltway?

Can you post without making personal attacks?

I don't live in Illinois.  Google Maps doesn't show mileposts.  Why didn't you answer my question about which section of I-55?

Around where I live crossovers are rarely used for non-official uses.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert  Coté, 2002)

Beltway

#81
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2012, 08:25:44 AM
Quote from: Brandon on October 21, 2012, 08:25:27 PM
In areas with exits closer than every four to five miles, no, they aren't really needed for that kind of access.  It is far safer to use the ramps of the nearest exit.  As an example where crossovers don't exist for miles, I present to you I-55 between MP 249 and MP 277 in Illinois.  Somehow plows and emergency vehicles do just fine without the crossovers.

Sure they are. Using a random example - Say you have interchanges at MP 5 & MP 10 - which are 5 miles away.  What if an accident happened Southbound at MP 5.4...do you want a cop to travel 4.6 miles north past the accident, use the interchange, then travel 4.6 miles south, battling slowing traffic?  That's over a 9 mile detour just because you don't want a median crossover.

Have you ever used the road after a snowstorm, to determine how those ramps and roads are truly plowed?

Having crossovers at each side of an interchange, allows one snow plow to make a loop and plow all 4 finger ramps in one operation with a minimum of wasted distance.  In a heavy snow he might be assigned to keep plowing that one interchange's ramps repeatedly.  It is not unsafe, as a snow plow is lit up like a Christmas tree.

Without the crossovers, a snow plow would have to leave the mainline, plow 2 ramps, and then re-enter the mainline.  There could be a lot of wasted distance, or if he plowed the mainline on the same job, he would have to skip the section between the ramp terminals and another plow would be needed to do the skipped section.

With the crossovers, a plow assigned to the mainline could plow continuously on the mainline, and a plow assigned to the interchange could plow continuously there and then work the interchange approach highway as well.  It's about the efficient use of equipment.

I speak from experience of plowing VA I-64 back in the early 1980s.
VDOT blocks some of the interchange-related crossovers with a pile of gravel during times of the year when there will be no snow.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert  Coté, 2002)

kphoger

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 06:22:13 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2012, 11:40:22 PM
Crossovers, even if only intended for official use, are a huge temptation to drivers making less-than-wise choices.

So the crossover is the one doing the tempting?

Well, that was a weird question.  Umm, no, the crossover is not a conscious entity.  But the temptation to cross the median is a lot less when there is no paved space between the roadways.  I've hardly ever seen a driver cross the median without a crossover.

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 06:22:13 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2012, 11:40:22 PM
I've been guilty of it a few times.  I used to deliver supplies to a rest area, and sometimes used the crossover instead of turning around at the next exit.  But I did everything as safely as possible, including sometimes stopping on the far right shoulder and waiting for all traffic to clear before turning around.  Many drivers hardly even yield before pulling out in the other direction.  With proper acceleration/deceleration space, that would be less of an issue.

I've never felt any temptation to use a crossover for non-official purposes.  Apparently neither do about 99.9% of the other motorists.

When I mentioned the rest area scenario to one of our other drivers (we only had five drivers), he mentioned that he'd done the exact same thing–though he usually stopped in the median and put on his hazard lights for a minute to pretend like he was making an emergency stop.  If you were to survey 1000 motorists, I bet you would come up with substantially more than one person (your 0.1%) who has used a crossover when they weren't supposed to–and even more than that who have been tempted to.  Here in Wichita, I see people use the crossover near my work exit every time they close a nearby exit for construction:  rather than turn around at the next exit, they just flip a U turn.  Also, on trips, I often see people flip a U turn when there's a huge backup due to a car wreck.  Just from conversations I've had with people, this seems to be a common temptation.

He Is Already Here! Let's Go, Flamingo!
Dost thou understand the graveness of the circumstances?
Deut 23:13
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: PKDIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Beltway

#83
Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2012, 10:46:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 06:22:13 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2012, 11:40:22 PM
Crossovers, even if only intended for official use, are a huge temptation to drivers making less-than-wise choices.

So the crossover is the one doing the tempting?
Well, that was a weird question.  Umm, no, the crossover is not a conscious entity.  But the temptation to cross the median is a lot less when there is no paved space between the roadways.  I've hardly ever seen a driver cross the median without a crossover.

It is clearly illegal and risky.  There are many things on the highway that are illegal and risky, and it is not possible to make all of them impossible to do.

Properly designed crossovers exist for an important reason.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert  Coté, 2002)

kphoger

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 10:49:49 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2012, 10:46:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 06:22:13 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 21, 2012, 11:40:22 PM
Crossovers, even if only intended for official use, are a huge temptation to drivers making less-than-wise choices.

So the crossover is the one doing the tempting?
Well, that was a weird question.  Umm, no, the crossover is not a conscious entity.  But the temptation to cross the median is a lot less when there is no paved space between the roadways.  I've hardly ever seen a driver cross the median without a crossover.

It is clearly illegal and risky.  There are many things on the highway that are illegal and risky, and it is not possible to make all of them impossible to do.

Properly designed crossovers exist for an important reason.

Yes, I agree.  I also generally do not have a problem with crossovers–with no restrictions–as long as there is deceleration and acceleration room.  It's the ones with no wiggle room that I think are the real culprits.

He Is Already Here! Let's Go, Flamingo!
Dost thou understand the graveness of the circumstances?
Deut 23:13
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: PKDIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

vdeane

I wonder if there's a cultural/legal component too.  I've never seen crossovers used for anything but speed enforcement, snow plows, and DOT usage.  I wonder if the fact that it's illegal to make a U turn except at marked intersections on select divided highways has anything to do with this.  When such a move needs to be made, we tend to think "lets find a side street or business to loop back on" rather than "U turn next opportunity".
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

NE2

Quote from: deanej on October 22, 2012, 11:40:19 AM
I wonder if there's a cultural/legal component too.  I've never seen crossovers used for anything but speed enforcement, snow plows, and DOT usage.  I wonder if the fact that it's illegal to make a U turn except at marked intersections on select divided highways has anything to do with this.  When such a move needs to be made, we tend to think "lets find a side street or business to loop back on" rather than "U turn next opportunity".
Doubt it. U-turns are legal at most intersections in Florida, yet I almost never see someone U-turning on the freeway. Cutting across three lanes to the exit, sure, but not cutting across the median.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Beltway

Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2012, 11:00:00 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 10:49:49 AM
It is clearly illegal and risky.  There are many things on the highway that are illegal and risky, and it is not possible to make all of them impossible to do.

Properly designed crossovers exist for an important reason.
Yes, I agree.  I also generally do not have a problem with crossovers–with no restrictions–as long as there is deceleration and acceleration room.  It's the ones with no wiggle room that I think are the real culprits.

How is an inanimate object a "culprit"?  Again you are trying to transfer blame to the crossover.

Official-use-only crossovers don't need "deceleration and acceleration room", not in the sense of accell/decell lanes.  The roof lights are an official signal to yield, and visible from a long distance away.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert  Coté, 2002)

kphoger

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 12:18:56 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2012, 11:00:00 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 10:49:49 AM
It is clearly illegal and risky.  There are many things on the highway that are illegal and risky, and it is not possible to make all of them impossible to do.

Properly designed crossovers exist for an important reason.
Yes, I agree.  I also generally do not have a problem with crossovers–with no restrictions–as long as there is deceleration and acceleration room.  It's the ones with no wiggle room that I think are the real culprits.

How is an inanimate object a "culprit"?  Again you are trying to transfer blame to the crossover.

Official-use-only crossovers don't need "deceleration and acceleration room", not in the sense of accell/decell lanes.  The roof lights are an official signal to yield, and visible from a long distance away.


By "with no restrictions", I mean available to you and me and everybody to use; my car doesn't have roof lights, sorry to say.  Besides which, roof lights plus more accel/decel room is definitely safer than roof lights with no accel/decel room.

He Is Already Here! Let's Go, Flamingo!
Dost thou understand the graveness of the circumstances?
Deut 23:13
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: PKDIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

hbelkins

The crossovers on the Jersey barrier sections of I-44 (the toll roads) in Oklahoma seem to be very poorly designed.
Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: hbelkins on October 22, 2012, 01:42:41 PM
The crossovers on the Jersey barrier sections of I-44 (the toll roads) in Oklahoma seem to be very poorly designed.

I don't know if you have ever seen the ones on some of the oldest portions of the Capital Beltway in Montgomery County, Maryland.  Little more than a gap in the wall (because the right-of-way is narrow, and there is no shoulder at all on the left side of the freeway).
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Beltway

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2012, 03:58:48 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 22, 2012, 01:42:41 PM
The crossovers on the Jersey barrier sections of I-44 (the toll roads) in Oklahoma seem to be very poorly designed.

I don't know if you have ever seen the ones on some of the oldest portions of the Capital Beltway in Montgomery County, Maryland.  Little more than a gap in the wall (because the right-of-way is narrow, and there is no shoulder at all on the left side of the freeway).

Which would be utilized only in certain types of emergencies, such as when absolutely necessary to gain access to the other roadway, such as when jammed traffic would prevent easy access via an interchange.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert  Coté, 2002)

Beltway

#92
Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2012, 01:14:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 12:18:56 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2012, 11:00:00 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 10:49:49 AM
It is clearly illegal and risky.  There are many things on the highway that are illegal and risky, and it is not possible to make all of them impossible to do.

Properly designed crossovers exist for an important reason.
Yes, I agree.  I also generally do not have a problem with crossovers–with no restrictions–as long as there is deceleration and acceleration room.  It's the ones with no wiggle room that I think are the real culprits.
How is an inanimate object a "culprit"?  Again you are trying to transfer blame to the crossover.

Official-use-only crossovers don't need "deceleration and acceleration room", not in the sense of accell/decell lanes.  The roof lights are an official signal to yield, and visible from a long distance away.
By "with no restrictions", I mean available to you and me and everybody to use; my car doesn't have roof lights, sorry to say.  Besides which, roof lights plus more accel/decel room is definitely safer than roof lights with no accel/decel room.

You were discussing emergency crossovers on Interstate highways.  Non-official use is prohibited.  On a 70-mph design, accell/decell lanes would be about 1,000 feet long, and that would be wasteful in that case.

Crossovers open the the public on non-freeways are a different subject, and they should have ample accell/decell lanes.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert  Coté, 2002)

vdeane

Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2012, 01:14:23 PM
By "with no restrictions", I mean available to you and me and everybody to use; my car doesn't have roof lights, sorry to say.  Besides which, roof lights plus more accel/decel room is definitely safer than roof lights with no accel/decel room.
I don't know what percentage of median crossovers are "with no restrictions" in the US, but in NY we don't, and will never have, any; they're all emergency/official vehicles only.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Alps

Quote from: Beltway on October 22, 2012, 09:02:57 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2012, 08:25:44 AM
Quote from: Brandon on October 21, 2012, 08:25:27 PM
In areas with exits closer than every four to five miles, no, they aren't really needed for that kind of access.  It is far safer to use the ramps of the nearest exit.  As an example where crossovers don't exist for miles, I present to you I-55 between MP 249 and MP 277 in Illinois.  Somehow plows and emergency vehicles do just fine without the crossovers.

Sure they are. Using a random example - Say you have interchanges at MP 5 & MP 10 - which are 5 miles away.  What if an accident happened Southbound at MP 5.4...do you want a cop to travel 4.6 miles north past the accident, use the interchange, then travel 4.6 miles south, battling slowing traffic?  That's over a 9 mile detour just because you don't want a median crossover.

Have you ever used the road after a snowstorm, to determine how those ramps and roads are truly plowed?

Having crossovers at each side of an interchange, allows one snow plow to make a loop and plow all 4 finger ramps in one operation with a minimum of wasted distance.  In a heavy snow he might be assigned to keep plowing that one interchange's ramps repeatedly.  It is not unsafe, as a snow plow is lit up like a Christmas tree.

Having crossovers at each side also helps when VDOT closes the through route exit ramp with no warning and no posted detour - and long distance to the next exit...
...

hbelkins

Quote from: Steve on October 22, 2012, 06:12:22 PM
Having crossovers at each side also helps when VDOT closes the through route exit ramp with no warning and no posted detour - and long distance to the next exit...
...

Do you speak from personal experience?
Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: hbelkins on October 22, 2012, 10:08:10 PM
Quote from: Steve on October 22, 2012, 06:12:22 PM
Having crossovers at each side also helps when VDOT closes the through route exit ramp with no warning and no posted detour - and long distance to the next exit...
...

Do you speak from personal experience?

VDOT and others will sometimes close a ramp for milling and repaving overnight - and sometimes for other reasons (there were a lot of those this past two years while the I-495 Express Lanes were being built).  But those are decently signed and the spacing between the interchanges is generally not very far.

Over the course of decades of driving in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I have only seen a closure (with no warning) in the aftermath of a crash involving hazardous materials, one or more fatalities, or a criminal investigation (my people were working one night near I-395 at South Glebe Road (Va. 120) when an Alexandria police officer was shot (the officer eventually recovered), which resulted in a total shut-down of the northbound lanes for a crime scene investigation involving several agencies (City of Alexandria, Arlington County and the Virginia State Police)).

Aside from a fuel tank truck wreck and fire, the worst HAZMAT incident on a ramp that I can remember in Northern Virginia was the truck that was carrying a load of explosives (I think it might have been black powder) turned on its side in the old Springfield Interchange in Fairfax County on the ramp that then  carried all I-95 northbound traffic.  The incident resulted in the shutdown of everything running through the interchange until a team of special agents from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms could come to the scene and unload a pretty large load (in was measured in tons) entirely by hand and and reload it onto another truck.  It took hours to finish the off-load and reload, and traffic was impacted over 60 miles away in Maryland.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Alps

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2012, 11:08:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 22, 2012, 10:08:10 PM
Quote from: Steve on October 22, 2012, 06:12:22 PM
Having crossovers at each side also helps when VDOT closes the through route exit ramp with no warning and no posted detour - and long distance to the next exit...
...

Do you speak from personal experience?

VDOT and others will sometimes close a ramp for milling and repaving overnight - and sometimes for other reasons (there were a lot of those this past two years while the I-495 Express Lanes were being built).  But those are decently signed and the spacing between the interchanges is generally not very far.

Over the course of decades of driving in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I have only seen a closure (with no warning) in the aftermath of a crash involving hazardous materials, one or more fatalities, or a criminal investigation (my people were working one night near I-395 at South Glebe Road (Va. 120) when an Alexandria police officer was shot (the officer eventually recovered), which resulted in a total shut-down of the northbound lanes for a crime scene investigation involving several agencies (City of Alexandria, Arlington County and the Virginia State Police)).
Well, you missed this one, then. Regular work detail repaving the ramp, middle of the day on a weekday. Absolutely no advance warning until past the previous exit, and even then I'm not sure there was all that much - regardless, it would have been trivially easy to use the last exit and proceed through from there, but ridiculously non-trivial to continue on the Interstate.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Steve on October 23, 2012, 12:43:23 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2012, 11:08:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 22, 2012, 10:08:10 PM
Quote from: Steve on October 22, 2012, 06:12:22 PM
Having crossovers at each side also helps when VDOT closes the through route exit ramp with no warning and no posted detour - and long distance to the next exit...
...

Do you speak from personal experience?

VDOT and others will sometimes close a ramp for milling and repaving overnight - and sometimes for other reasons (there were a lot of those this past two years while the I-495 Express Lanes were being built).  But those are decently signed and the spacing between the interchanges is generally not very far.

Over the course of decades of driving in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I have only seen a closure (with no warning) in the aftermath of a crash involving hazardous materials, one or more fatalities, or a criminal investigation (my people were working one night near I-395 at South Glebe Road (Va. 120) when an Alexandria police officer was shot (the officer eventually recovered), which resulted in a total shut-down of the northbound lanes for a crime scene investigation involving several agencies (City of Alexandria, Arlington County and the Virginia State Police)).
Well, you missed this one, then. Regular work detail repaving the ramp, middle of the day on a weekday. Absolutely no advance warning until past the previous exit, and even then I'm not sure there was all that much - regardless, it would have been trivially easy to use the last exit and proceed through from there, but ridiculously non-trivial to continue on the Interstate.
I noticed NJ does this.  They won't post a detour at the previous exit when the next exit is closed.  I talked to someone at NJDOT at a public meeting about this, and they said it's due to people commonly ignoring the signs beforehand.

Take this example: A few years back in Jersey: I-295's NB Exit 57 (US 130 North) was closed due to a pavement rehab project.  The signed detour was to go to Exit 60 (I-195), then to 206 South, then to 130 South, then to I-295 South, where one could make a u-turn by turning onto 295 South then immediately off 295 utulizing the cloverleaf ramps to 130 North. The signed detour was about 8 miles long.

The proper detour (IMO) should have been using Exit 56 (3/4 mile before Exit 57).  From this exit, there are multiple options to get back to US 130 at the 295 interchange area within about 2 - 3 miles.  But since the exit was before the exit that was closed, it wasn't signed as a detour route.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.