Roadgeek Hot Takes

[webny99]

- I don't necessarily think that Memphis needs another Mississippi River bridge. Replacements of the existing bridges, sure, but it is extremely difficult to find a place where another bridge could feasibly work.

- Speaking of Mississippi River bridges, the John James Audubon bridge was colossal waste of money.

My hot take is actually kind of the exact opposite of this. Looking at it holistically, there are only 16 bridge crossings of the lower Mississippi between Cairo and the Gulf of Mexico, or roughly 1 every 63 miles. I think it should be a national priority to increase that number to at least 20 as infrastructure funding allows.

For the Memphis area specifically, a finished beltway with two new crossings would be ideal. Though obviously very costly, I still think it should be prioritized. The current bridges and the I-40/I-55 overlap in West Memphis are currently a major constraint to the movement of people and goods: not just in the Memphis area, but also nationwide. Spreading out the load with two new bridges would significantly reduce the burden on the existing bridges and allow for a more favorable and cost-effective replacement schedule. Meanwhile, doing nothing puts us on the dangerous cusp of a repeat May 2021 scenario where one of the bridges has to be closed, thus forcing costly and time-sensitive replacement or repair work in an emergency-type situation while pressure mounts on the remaining bridge.

And there is a "weight of the world" factor to all of this: if a major collapse happened on I-40 or I-55, we are not escaping that with anything close to the 6 casualties incurred during the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse last year. I don't know how many trucks are on either bridge at any one time, on average, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's in the dozens. So in my mind, some added redundancy goes beyond just being "good to have" to actually being a necessity, at least from a future planning and risk-management perspective.

[pderocco]

- I don't necessarily think that Memphis needs another Mississippi River bridge. Replacements of the existing bridges, sure, but it is extremely difficult to find a place where another bridge could feasibly work.

- Speaking of Mississippi River bridges, the John James Audubon bridge was colossal waste of money.

My hot take is actually kind of the exact opposite of this. Looking at it holistically, there are only 16 bridge crossings of the lower Mississippi between Cairo and the Gulf of Mexico, or roughly 1 every 63 miles. I think it should be a national priority to increase that number to at least 20 as infrastructure funding allows.

For the Memphis area specifically, a finished beltway with two new crossings would be ideal. Though obviously very costly, I still think it should be prioritized. The current bridges and the I-40/I-55 overlap in West Memphis are currently a major constraint to the movement of people and goods: and not just in the Memphis area, but also nationwide. Spreading out the load with two new bridges would significantly reduce the burden on the existing bridges and allow for a more favorable and cost-effective replacement schedule. Meanwhile, doing nothing puts us on the dangerous cusp of a repeat May 2021 scenario where one of the bridges has to be closed, thus forcing costly and time-sensitive replacement or repair work in an emergency-type situation while pressure mounts on the remaining bridge.

And there is a "weight of the world" factor to all of this: if a major collapse happened on I-40 or I-55, we are not escaping that with anything close to the 6 casualties incurred during the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse last year. I don't know how many trucks are on either bridge at any one time, on average, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's in the dozens. So in my mind, some added redundancy goes beyond just being "good to have" to actually being a necessity, at least from a future planning and risk-management perspective.

That addresses a different problem from the fact that the average distance between crossings is 63 miles.

[webny99]

My hot take is actually kind of the exact opposite of this. Looking at it holistically, there are only 16 bridge crossings of the lower Mississippi between Cairo and the Gulf of Mexico, or roughly 1 every 63 miles. I think it should be a national priority to increase that number to at least 20 as infrastructure funding allows.

For the Memphis area specifically, a finished beltway with two new crossings would be ideal. ...

That addresses a different problem from the fact that the average distance between crossings is 63 miles.

Correct in the sense that two additional crossings in the same general area don't help other areas much. But the new crossings do need to be strategically located relative to where the people and goods crossing the river are, and the Memphis area is by far the largest single concentration of people/goods movement north of Baton Rouge.

Of course, any new crossings do also reduce the average distance between crossings, but that's more of a helpful side-effect than their actual purpose.

[RobbieL2415]

Pedestrian signals should always be timed, not push-to-activate, as the latter encourages their disregard.

It's disrespectful to speed on parkways because they weren't designed for 70+mph traffic and doing so takes away from their intent and character.

[LilianaUwU]

push-to-activate encourages their disregard.

You fucking tell me. Here's an example: I'm carrying a bunch of shit from the grocery store (and thus I need the pedestrian-only phase) and I don't wanna wait an entire cycle, but I have to anyways because the person standing there already waiting to cross is a lazy bum who can't be fucking bothered to lift their arm to activate the contactless sensor that is the standard in Québec City and nowhere else.

[gonealookin]

- Not everything needs to be an Interstate, some proposed Interstates might be better left as existing state and US routes, 'bringing jobs to (insert place here)' isn't enough to justify an Interstate (ahem... North Carolina)

The Pacific Southwest board has a 59-and-counting page thread about the "Interstate 11 alignment, through Vegas and points north".  As to "points north", it's 50 comments worth of "this is not necessary, it shouldn't ever happen and it never will happen", and the remaining 57 pages are a bunch of hot air.

For that matter...I happen to be in Texas for a couple PGA Tour events, this past weekend in Houston and starting Thursday in San Antonio.  For a beach break in between I'm in the Corpus Christi/Port Aransas area, and today I drove from Houston to Corpus on US 59 and US 77, which have frequent signage designating the "Future I-69 Corridor".  Just about all of the existing roadway is four lanes, divided, posted at 75 mph, with basically no significant intersections that aren't grade-separated.  Why on earth would Texas spend all the money to upgrade that to Interstate highway?  Aside from a couple places that need bypasses, notably Refugio, it seems perfectly fine as is.  Maybe a Texas poster can tell me what I'm missing there...but as a Nevada poster I know I'm not missing anything about the silliness of I-11 extending north of Las Vegas. 

[vdeane]

- I don't necessarily think that Memphis needs another Mississippi River bridge. Replacements of the existing bridges, sure, but it is extremely difficult to find a place where another bridge could feasibly work.

- Speaking of Mississippi River bridges, the John James Audubon bridge was colossal waste of money.

My hot take is actually kind of the exact opposite of this. Looking at it holistically, there are only 16 bridge crossings of the lower Mississippi between Cairo and the Gulf of Mexico, or roughly 1 every 63 miles. I think it should be a national priority to increase that number to at least 20 as infrastructure funding allows.

For the Memphis area specifically, a finished beltway with two new crossings would be ideal. Though obviously very costly, I still think it should be prioritized. The current bridges and the I-40/I-55 overlap in West Memphis are currently a major constraint to the movement of people and goods: not just in the Memphis area, but also nationwide. Spreading out the load with two new bridges would significantly reduce the burden on the existing bridges and allow for a more favorable and cost-effective replacement schedule. Meanwhile, doing nothing puts us on the dangerous cusp of a repeat May 2021 scenario where one of the bridges has to be closed, thus forcing costly and time-sensitive replacement or repair work in an emergency-type situation while pressure mounts on the remaining bridge.

And there is a "weight of the world" factor to all of this: if a major collapse happened on I-40 or I-55, we are not escaping that with anything close to the 6 casualties incurred during the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse last year. I don't know how many trucks are on either bridge at any one time, on average, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's in the dozens. So in my mind, some added redundancy goes beyond just being "good to have" to actually being a necessity, at least from a future planning and risk-management perspective.

Is that really a hot take?  Believing Memphis should have another bridge is the opinion of the vast majority of posters here, to the point where conventional wisdom on the forum has been that there will be a third bridge, even before the study on the matter was even announced (thus, prior to that study, a fictional idea was being presented not only as fact, but as a done deal).

[Max Rockatansky]

Here's a hot take.  Most of the hot takes in this thread aren't hot takes.

[webny99]

...
Looking at it holistically, there are only 16 bridge crossings of the lower Mississippi between Cairo and the Gulf of Mexico, or roughly 1 every 63 miles. I think it should be a national priority to increase that number to at least 20 as infrastructure funding allows.

For the Memphis area specifically, a finished beltway with two new crossings would be ideal. Though obviously very costly, I still think it should be prioritized. ...

Is that really a hot take?  Believing Memphis should have another bridge is the opinion of the vast majority of posters here, to the point where conventional wisdom on the forum has been that there will be a third bridge, even before the study on the matter was even announced (thus, prior to that study, a fictional idea was being presented not only as fact, but as a done deal).

"Memphis needs a third crossing" isn't a hot take. But I think "the lower Mississippi needs four more crossings, including two more in the Memphis area" is at least a little hot. Maybe not jalapeno hot, but let's call it like poblano hot.

[webny99]

Here's a hot take.  Most of the hot takes in this thread aren't hot takes.

OK, let's go from poblano to jalapeno. Maybe even serrano, I don't know. You guys judge.

I think some speed limits are so insanely unrealistic that it's actually OK to use your four-way flashers when following someone doing the speed limit, to warn traffic coming up behind you of an obstruction to traffic flow. Not that I take issue with someone driving the speed limit, exactly. But I do think that doing so can actually be obstructive in some cases, and I don't mean just "you're in my way and I want to go faster", but a legitimate detriment to the traffic flow of the entire roadway. And yes, that is almost always a speed limit problem, not a driver problem.

[Henry]

Clearview is ugly but is easier to read from a distance (something I notice more every year as I continue to age). Therefore, Clearview serves a useful purpose.

In my view, perhaps the most useful sign assembly for comparing the two is on southbound I-95 between Lorton and Woodbridge, Virginia, because both signs are for the same road and the same city. To be fair, the Gothic sign on the right is older and would not be formatted the same way today, but to me the main aspect for comparison purposes is the word "Woodbridge." I find it far easier to read from a distance in Clearview on the sign over the express lanes.

I don't think the font is what makes the left sign easier to read.  It's that the font size is a little larger and there's more contrast between the text color and background color.

....

Fair enough. I drive past that sign often enough to have a firm opinion that I find the typeface easier to read. Northern Virginia is a bit of a mish-mash of Clearview and Gothic signs because there are some newer Gothic signs posted after VDOT had switched to Clearview; that situation resulted from construction contracts that went out during the period when the FHWA revoked authorization for Clearview. So I drive past signs in both typefaces on a regular basis and I am firm in my opinion that my eyes find Clearview easier to read at a distance. Up close it's not as big a deal, of course.

I've grown accustomed to Clearview, and I like how most states mix it in with the FHWA Gothic for the most ideal balance (like the destination legend in the former, and everything else in the latter). The one thing I hate about it is when it's on route shields, like what MI used to do.

[Rothman]

push-to-activate encourages their disregard.

You fucking tell me. Here's an example: I'm carrying a bunch of shit from the grocery store (and thus I need the pedestrian-only phase) and I don't wanna wait an entire cycle, but I have to anyways because the person standing there already waiting to cross is a lazy bum who can't be fucking bothered to lift their arm to activate the contactless sensor that is the standard in Québec City and nowhere else.

At a lot of signals in the U.S., the push button does very little.  Getting more common that it's just to trigger audible warnings, since the walk signals are already timed with the main signals themselves.

[LilianaUwU]

I'll also go on with things Québec City tends to do: over here, a ped signal invariably means your crossing is protected. There are no conflicting car movements. This is good, actually, and Montréal should take lessons from us.

[kphoger]

You fucking tell me. Here's an example: I'm carrying a bunch of shit from the grocery store (and thus I need the pedestrian-only phase) and I don't wanna wait an entire cycle, but I have to anyways because the person standing there already waiting to cross is a lazy bum who can't be fucking bothered to lift their arm to activate the contactless sensor that is the standard in Québec City and nowhere else.

And how does that make you feel?

I think some speed limits are so insanely unrealistic that it's actually OK to use your four-way flashers when following someone doing the speed limit, to warn traffic coming up behind you of an obstruction to traffic flow. Not that I take issue with someone driving the speed limit, exactly. But I do think that doing so can actually be obstructive in some cases, and I don't mean just "you're in my way and I want to go faster", but a legitimate detriment to the traffic flow of the entire roadway. And yes, that is almost always a speed limit problem, not a driver problem.

This depends on the driving culture.

You can go the speed limit of 60 mph on I-494 around the south side of Minneapolis.  In the left lane.  And nobody will care.  They'll all just happily trail you at a safe distance, or go around you on the right, with nary a sideways look.  I don't get it, but it's true.  On the one hand, it's irritating.  But, on the other hand, it's kind of nice.

Meanwhile, when I imagine going the speed limit of 60 mph on I-88 in the west suburbs of Chicago (used to be 55 mph), I can hear my car getting rear-ended just sitting here.

[webny99]

I think some speed limits are so insanely unrealistic that it's actually OK to use your four-way flashers when following someone doing the speed limit, to warn traffic coming up behind you of an obstruction to traffic flow. Not that I take issue with someone driving the speed limit, exactly. But I do think that doing so can actually be obstructive in some cases, and I don't mean just "you're in my way and I want to go faster", but a legitimate detriment to the traffic flow of the entire roadway. And yes, that is almost always a speed limit problem, not a driver problem.

This depends on the driving culture.

I really think it depends more on the appropriateness of the road's speed limit, but I guess I could agree insofar as that also relates to driving culture.

And I'm not sure if this will change the heat level of my take, but the situation I was picturing was actually a two-lane road posted at 35 mph (one of any number around here that should be 45 or 50 minimum). I don't think I'd bother with four-ways behind a speed-limit driver on a freeway or four-lane arterial, because (A) I could just pass them instead and (B) speed differentials between lanes are not only expected, they're actually a boon to traffic flow.

You can go the speed limit of 60 mph on I-494 around the south side of Minneapolis.  In the left lane.  And nobody will care.  They'll all just happily trail you at a safe distance, or go around you on the right, with nary a sideways look.  I don't get it, but it's true.  On the one hand, it's irritating.  But, on the other hand, it's kind of nice.

You'll have to explain that last sentence. Nice for the people doing it, sure. But not nice for anyone else.

 I've noticed the same thing in MN, by the way. But it's not even "left-lane camping" like we have here. Because they're not necessarily locked in at the speed limit, and they're generally pretty willing to move if you give them your left blinker or express agitation in any other form. They just genuinely don't even seem to care what lane they use. They're just driving in total zen mode, fully relaxed. And that's much harder to get angry about than the grannies who are doing it intentionally to slow everyone else on the road down to their speed.

[vdeane]

I'll also go on with things Québec City tends to do: over here, a ped signal invariably means your crossing is protected. There are no conflicting car movements. This is good, actually, and Montréal should take lessons from us.

It certainly eliminates the safety issue from turning traffic (assuming people obey the selective "no turn on red" restrictions that NY likes to pair them with that are only active during the ped phase; most people ignore them), but can be really annoying as a pedestrian due to needing to wait a whole light cycle to get the walk signal.  And if you're crossing diagonally and the jurisdiction doesn't implement the "pedestrian scramble", you're waiting two light cycles - which at many intersections can mean 4-6 minutes of waiting.

speed differentials between lanes are not only expected, they're actually a boon to traffic flow

They also make it harder to move over to pass, because you're either waiting for a large gap or force someone to slow down while you accelerate.  It's one reason I'm so annoyed with people who try to merge onto freeways at 40 - because then, if I'm on the freeway, I have to slow down to let people in (either them or the people moving over to let them in), or if I'm behind them, then I become one of "those people" slowing down everyone else.

[kphoger]

You can go the speed limit of 60 mph on I-494 around the south side of Minneapolis.  In the left lane.  And nobody will care.  They'll all just happily trail you at a safe distance, or go around you on the right, with nary a sideways look.  I don't get it, but it's true.  On the one hand, it's irritating.  But, on the other hand, it's kind of nice.

You'll have to explain that last sentence. Nice for the people doing it, sure. But not nice for anyone else.

I've noticed the same thing in MN, by the way. But it's not even "left-lane camping" like we have here. Because they're not necessarily locked in at the speed limit, and they're generally pretty willing to move if you give them your left blinker or express agitation in any other form. They just genuinely don't even seem to care what lane they use. They're just driving in total zen mode, fully relaxed. And that's much harder to get angry about than the grannies who are doing it intentionally to slow everyone else on the road down to their speed.

Nice for me too.  I mean, not nice in that I'm still 90% of the way through a 700-mile drive and just want to Get There Already!  But nice in that it doesn't feel like every driver on the road is doing battle with everyone else.  It's just harder to get angry, when zero other drivers around you have any problem with anything anybody is doing.

[LilianaUwU]

I'll also go on with things Québec City tends to do: over here, a ped signal invariably means your crossing is protected. There are no conflicting car movements. This is good, actually, and Montréal should take lessons from us.

It certainly eliminates the safety issue from turning traffic (assuming people obey the selective "no turn on red" restrictions that NY likes to pair them with that are only active during the ped phase; most people ignore them), but can be really annoying as a pedestrian due to needing to wait a whole light cycle to get the walk signal.  And if you're crossing diagonally and the jurisdiction doesn't implement the "pedestrian scramble", you're waiting two light cycles - which at many intersections can mean 4-6 minutes of waiting.

I certainly won't wait two cycles. Most intersections here do have a pedestrian scramble, though, so it doesn't matter unless I'm on the main roads.

[pderocco]

You can go the speed limit of 60 mph on I-494 around the south side of Minneapolis.  In the left lane.  And nobody will care.  They'll all just happily trail you at a safe distance, or go around you on the right, with nary a sideways look.  I don't get it, but it's true.  On the one hand, it's irritating.  But, on the other hand, it's kind of nice.

So that's what they call Minnesota Nice.

[pderocco]

At a lot of signals in the U.S., the push button does very little.  Getting more common that it's just to trigger audible warnings, since the walk signals are already timed with the main signals themselves.

Sort of like the >< button on most elevators.

[hobsini2]

Here are some of my biggest takes:

- I-69W in Texas should be completely ditched and replaced with an I-6 running from Laredo to Corpus Christi.

- I don't necessarily think that Memphis needs another Mississippi River bridge. Replacements of the existing bridges, sure, but it is extremely difficult to find a place where another bridge could feasibly work.

I-69W as I-6 I can agree with. Makes sense. I just don't know how much traffic would be west of Alice. But in the overall picture, I can get behind that.

As for Memphis Bridges, if I-269 was extended west, north of Tunica to cross the Mississippi at Horseshoe Lake, AR then turn straight north to I-40 west of I-55 near the weigh stations at MM 274, that would be a useful bypass of the current situation in Memphis.
North of Memphis would be more difficult with Meeman-Shelby Forest St Park and Wapanocca NWR in the way.

[hobsini2]

Chicago wasted a golden opportunity by not building I-494. That would've been very helpful to traffic bypassing downtown to the west.

Absolutely agree with I-494 Crosstown Expy. Would be really useful now with the current Kennedy construction going on.

[hobsini2]

- Not everything needs to be an Interstate, some proposed Interstates might be better left as existing state and US routes, 'bringing jobs to (insert place here)' isn't enough to justify an Interstate (ahem... North Carolina)

Shouting this out to everyone in the back who cries that I-76 should continue to Atlantic City.  And broadcasting it via bullhorn for those that claim it'll increase development and jobs along the Expressway in what's actually a federally protected national reserve where development is unwanted.

I would just have the ACE become part of I-76 because it goes to a popular destination in Atlantic City for streamlining purposes. Not because I think it would spur business growth.

[webny99]

This depends on the driving culture.

How about a driving culture hot take?

New York driving culture = assume everyone is smart and get angry when they're not.
Minnesota driving culture = assume everyone is dumb and be impressed when they're not.
Texas driving culture = assume everyone is armed and act accordingly.

And maybe a few more. But I think most states can probably fit into one of those three, if only roughly.

[hobsini2]

- Not everything needs to be an Interstate, some proposed Interstates might be better left as existing state and US routes, 'bringing jobs to (insert place here)' isn't enough to justify an Interstate (ahem... North Carolina)

I used to agree, but I kind of think otherwise now. I think "interstate" should be pretty synonymous with limited-access highway. US routes could be divided highways. State highways being undivided. This is kind of how Puerto Rico does their roads. The same route number might change signage depending in its "quality" where highway 1 could have primary, urban primary, secondary, and tertiary segments of the same highway.

Agreed. If it is a quality expressway/freeway with limited access over a long distance, I got no problem with it being labeled an interstate. But I also think that not every freeway needs to be an interstate. I-865, I-375 FL, I-175 FL are all glorified exit ramps.