Roadgeek Hot Takes

[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.

It may have been better for traffic, but I don't understand how tearing up another neighborhood would have been good for the City of Chicago.

Actually the plan was to run along the existing rail line from the Edens Jct to I-55. Getting over to the Ryan would have been more difficult.

[hobsini2]

I just think the driving culture you are brought up with has a lot more to do with how one views driving culture in other places. For example, it still baffles me that in Boston driving on the right should is perfectly fine at least in my experience.

I'm not trying to pick on you, but I think you made a typo (maybe a missing word or two? Or maybe "should" was meant to be "shoulder"?) somewhere in the boldfaced and the result of it is that I'm not really sure what you're trying to say there.

Yes it was shoulder. I don't know why it auto corrected it.

[kphoger]

Actually the plan was to run along the existing rail line from the Edens Jct to I-55. Getting over to the Ryan would have been more difficult.

The south part made some sense, NO way the north. Ideally, US 12 & 20 should have taken a diagonal through town instead of the long, present-day EW-NS path.

From the Strangler, follow CN rail SE to Berwyn, over Cicero Av. crossing the SanShip Canal, I-55, and Pulaski, along BNSFs Corwith railyard, then east along 49th. Over Western, turning south along CSXs railyard. Then a turn east at the ROW north of 59th. Follow from Damen to Halsted, then turn SE follow till ya cross the Ryan, adjacent to the NS tracks and merge into the Skyway. Thats it!

Connecting ramps:
At Strangler: WB to 290 (or the "new" I-90), N294, 88. Really liking the flyover I-294 idea, that would include a ramp from E88 & N294 and get rid of the slow oval ramp. EB from 290 & 88 (294 already merged).
Mannheim: WB exit, EB enter.
Harlem: WB exit, EB enter
Cicero: WB enter & exit EB exit.
I-55: from N55 to EB, from S55 to WB maybe.
Archer, Western & 49th: Probably WB exit to Archer, EB enter. Maybe a free frontage to/from Western with WB enter, EB exit.
59th & Western: WB exit, EB enter.
At Ryan: WB enter from State St. EB exit at Yale cross 63rd to SB Ryan.
Cross Ryan, merge with Skyway.

Sixteen miles, MINIMAL neighborhood disruption. Only two areas that have any residential.

New grade-separations along CN rails in this area would include Riverside Dr., Harlem (IL43), 26th St., Veterans Dr., Hainesworth , DesPlaines Av, Cermak, First Av.(IL171), 17th Av., Oak Ridge Av., Harrison St., and Wolf Rd.

LINK HERE

This highway would be some twenty to SIXTY feet in the air and there are very few (50? 60?) residences affected. I know it sounds amazing, but its true.

Grade-separated rail lines could be added along the same corridor, getting trains through town in hours instead of a day+.

If theres a better solution to Chicagos road and rail problems, bring it. Im all eyes.

LINK HERE

[hobsini2]

Actually the plan was to run along the existing rail line from the Edens Jct to I-55. Getting over to the Ryan would have been more difficult.

The south part made some sense, NO way the north. Ideally, US 12 & 20 should have taken a diagonal through town instead of the long, present-day EW-NS path.

From the Strangler, follow CN rail SE to Berwyn, over Cicero Av. crossing the SanShip Canal, I-55, and Pulaski, along BNSFs Corwith railyard, then east along 49th. Over Western, turning south along CSXs railyard. Then a turn east at the ROW north of 59th. Follow from Damen to Halsted, then turn SE follow till ya cross the Ryan, adjacent to the NS tracks and merge into the Skyway. Thats it!

Connecting ramps:
At Strangler: WB to 290 (or the "new" I-90), N294, 88. Really liking the flyover I-294 idea, that would include a ramp from E88 & N294 and get rid of the slow oval ramp. EB from 290 & 88 (294 already merged).
Mannheim: WB exit, EB enter.
Harlem: WB exit, EB enter
Cicero: WB enter & exit EB exit.
I-55: from N55 to EB, from S55 to WB maybe.
Archer, Western & 49th: Probably WB exit to Archer, EB enter. Maybe a free frontage to/from Western with WB enter, EB exit.
59th & Western: WB exit, EB enter.
At Ryan: WB enter from State St. EB exit at Yale cross 63rd to SB Ryan.
Cross Ryan, merge with Skyway.

Sixteen miles, MINIMAL neighborhood disruption. Only two areas that have any residential.

New grade-separations along CN rails in this area would include Riverside Dr., Harlem (IL43), 26th St., Veterans Dr., Hainesworth , DesPlaines Av, Cermak, First Av.(IL171), 17th Av., Oak Ridge Av., Harrison St., and Wolf Rd.

LINK HERE

This highway would be some twenty to SIXTY feet in the air and there are very few (50? 60?) residences affected. I know it sounds amazing, but its true.

Grade-separated rail lines could be added along the same corridor, getting trains through town in hours instead of a day+.

If theres a better solution to Chicagos road and rail problems, bring it. Im all eyes.

LINK HERE

  I see what you did.

[SEWIGuy]

The south part made some sense, NO way the north. Ideally, US 12 & 20 should have taken a diagonal through town instead of the long, present-day EW-NS path

You mean like a....hypotenuse?

[kphoger]

I see what you did.

at least one of you did

[hobsini2]

I see what you did.

at least one of you did

Glad you linked it. I had to brush up on his idea again.

[webny99]

Texas driving culture

Hot take:

I like driving in Texas.  Texas driving is my kind of driving.  More people should drive like how they do in Texas.

(But not Dallas.)

I don't think that's a hot take, because I agree for the most part. The overall vibe perhaps a little standoffish, but I see that as a good thing for the most part too.

I actually got honked at twice while driving in Texas last spring. Both times for passing on the right and then cutting back into the left lane in front of the person I'd just passed. I didn't think it was dangerous, either time, but I must have either cut in a little closer than I'd intended or the move just came across as aggressive in general. I get the sense that passing on the right is not the norm in Texas. Nor is left lane camping. Both of which are very good things. But this New Yorker found the "Don't mess with Texas" standard to be even higher than expected. 'Twas a learning experience, to be sure.

[JayhawkCO]

I have over 3,000 miles of TX roads in Travel Mapping (and have driven many routes more than once/in both directions/etc.), and I don't remember a single thing unique to Texas drivers in Texas. I will say that if someone is driving like an idiot here in Denver, there's probably a 50/50 shot that it has a TX license plate. Maybe it's just Texas expats.

[webny99]

I have over 3,000 miles of TX roads in Travel Mapping (and have driven many routes more than once/in both directions/etc.), and I don't remember a single thing unique to Texas drivers in Texas.

Isn't that a good thing? In the sense that if there was something unique or noteworthy, it probably wouldn't be a good thing.

[JayhawkCO]

I have over 3,000 miles of TX roads in Travel Mapping (and have driven many routes more than once/in both directions/etc.), and I don't remember a single thing unique to Texas drivers in Texas.

Isn't that a good thing? In the sense that if there was something unique or noteworthy, it probably wouldn't be a good thing.

Yeah. I was just saying I don't know what the big hubbub is about driving in Texas. Seems just like any other place to me. The only places in the country where I can really tell a difference are Chicago (honking) and Connecticut (left lane hogging). I think the amount of movement around the country has diluted any regional differences pretty well.

[paulthemapguy]

My hot take is that it's a hot take to take on what others do or don't consider to be a hot take.

[kphoger]

My hot take is that it's a hot take to take on what others do or don't consider to be a hot take.

that's not really a hot take

[Rothman]

My hot take is that it's a hot take to take on what others do or don't consider to be a hot take.

that's not really a hot take

https://youtu.be/JuhTQwzizDI?si=mzqPmiX7IPUoSL0d

[Quillz]

• Clearview is fine. It was fine in 2004, it's fine in 2025. It's not an issue and I doubt the vast majority of people even looking at BGS would recognize the font is different. I've said before that I think most of the hostility is simple nostalgia, i.e. "I saw a different font growing up, it's what I'm used to seeing," so of course Clearview is immediately seen as a negative. I feel had things been reversed, Clearview came out in the 40s and "Highway Gothic" was introduced in 2004, there would be equal dislike for it.

When I make my own shields and signs for personal projects, I use Clearview. And I think it looks just fine. One thing I've noted is the official fonts (which I bought years ago) have both the "B" and "W" variant, the latter being slightly thinner. This is to account for the slight optical illusion you see where white legend looks wider than it really is. I suspect what happens is a lot of the BGS designs are just using the generic "B," so coloring it white makes it look even wider. But the other issue is Clearview has more spacing. This means using it on standard dimensions (say, 24" by 24") can make the legend look weird: either too wide between the numerals, or it's pressed right up against the edges. I think if you alter the dimensions slightly, either go with 25" wide or use 11" height (instead of 12"), things look a lot better. (You can also reduce the spacing between legend, but that's not really a good idea).

I've found some of my oldest posts from 2010 where I said I didn't like Clearview very much. But I'm not like that anymore. I'm fine with it, and complaining about it, while fair, is a waste of time. It's going to be used, at some point you just have to accept it.

• Concurrencies are perfectly fine, but I've also come around to not using them excessively. I used to not like how California handled concurrencies, but having driven in some other states, I think how they do it is a good balance.

I was in Arizona not too long ago, and I recall US-180 being concurrent with I-40 for a long time. Or states like Colorado where US-85 (87?) is concurrent with I-25 through the entire state. To me, this becomes an instance of having discontiguous segments works better. Because practically speaking, you can't be on those routes without also being on the interstate.

California does this fairly well with CA-1. If you for whatever reason want to clinch all of CA-1, you will be on US-101 at times. There is no way around it. CA-1 also has several loops that naturally start and end at US-101. Las Cruces to Pismo Beach, for example. San Luis Obispo to San Francisco. They are distinct sections, but always return to US-101, and you have to be on that route to get to each segment. So rather than sign them concurrently, simply signing "US-101" works out perfectly fine. It makes a lot of sense practically. On the other hand, not signing concurrencies can be an issue. Something like CA-168 and US-395 used to not be signed for a while, although recently I've noticed signage. This is a case where yes, the former exists in unconnected segments, but they both go to different places than US-395 and you won't be using it as any kind of parallel. So a concurrency here should be signed, especially as it's not too long. The main thing for me has always been consistency: sign everything, or sign nothing. Or, as I explained earlier, sign concurrencies that make practical sense, but don't sign the ones that only really exist because they're piggybacking off a longer, more well-known route.

• Route numbers are for navigation, first and foremost. I don't care if it's state maintained or not. I don't care if it's relinquished or not. And I don't think the typical motorist does, either.

Again, another stupid California quirk. I don't care if Santa Monica maintains CA-2 or not, not signing it just because it's not "technically" a state route is stupid. In theory, relinquishment is supposed to be invisible to the motorist, as there is supposed to be signage, but this seems to never happen. The odd thing is I think relinquishment is actually a great idea for the most part: let the local jurisdictions handle the road, because they can usually get to any changes or improvements more quickly. But sign the damn route! Nothing to me is more frustrating than me being on a route, it suddenly seems to disappear, only to reappear later. Because of something arbitrary like a city limit. And this happens even in the modern CarPlay/GPS era.

If you have to split the difference, offer shields in either a different shape, different color scheme, or both. So basically county routes. The idea I had was to put all non-state maintained routes (both relinquished and county routes) on the same miner's spade, but a different color scheme (I like black-on-yellow, like what is used in Wyoming). It's especially bad through the Sierra, where non of the county routes are signed. Good luck trying to navigate Sherman Pass if you don't know where to make the turns. If all the roads in the area had a single consistent "190" shield, it would tell the motorist that it's a natural continuation of CA-190, but it's not actually state maintained. It would promote navigation as the most important thing, because again, I need to find Sherman Pass. I don't care if the Forest Service maintains the road, or if Inyo County does. Especially when it's 1 AM and you're almost out of gas and can't afford any wrong turns.

• Any significant road that crosses a state border should be assigned a number.
• The US route system should be overhauled to have truly minimum design standards. In a perfect world, the interstates would be like the autobahns: strict design standards with no speed limits, and US routes would be minimum freeways but with slightly lower standards. (Or at the very least, perhaps expressways).

Again, citing California, since it's what I'm used to, it does seem that the US routes here have found a nice middle ground. There is a clear quality difference with US-97 and US-395 compared to, say, CA-36 or CA-89. The former are much wider, have clear medians, and are at least expressways. But they still have at-grade junctions, they have lower speed limits. To me, this is a good middle ground. It gives the US routes a proper niche that has been missing since, well, always, since there was never really any minimum standards to begin with (perhaps beyond being paved).

I think I've posted most of these before. And yes, a lot of them are just my stupid pet peeves about stuff.

[Mav94]

US 52 should end at I-94 in St. Paul. The segment in North Dakota should be a state highway or US x8x.

[thenetwork]

Texas driving culture

Hot take:

I like driving in Texas.  Texas driving is my kind of driving.  More people should drive like how they do in Texas.

(But not Dallas.)

Agreed that Texas drivers in Texas are pretty friendly...

EXCEPT in my general experience, once Texas drivers LEAVE their state, they also leave their Texas driving courtesies back at the state line.

[JayhawkCO]

I was in Arizona not too long ago, and I recall US-180 being concurrent with I-40 for a long time. Or states like Colorado where US-85 (87?) is concurrent with I-25 through the entire state. To me, this becomes an instance of having discontiguous segments works better. Because practically speaking, you can't be on those routes without also being on the interstate.

Technically, US87 didn't stay on I-25 for the entirety of its time in Colorado. On the short Fountain->Colorado Springs section of US85, US87 multiplexed with the US Route instead of the interstate. Now that CODOT has renamed that stub CO85, it appears that US87 is back on I-25 for the entire length.

[Mapmikey]

US 52 should end at I-94 in St. Paul. The segment in North Dakota should be a state highway or US x8x.

A different idea would be to have US 52 replace US 10 from MSP to West Fargo.

[SEWIGuy]

US 52 should end at I-94 in St. Paul. The segment in North Dakota should be a state highway or US x8x.

US-52 should end when it crosses the Mississippi and US-67 should replace it up to I-94 in St. Paul.

[kphoger]

Distance signs and interchange sequence signs should be flipped.  Longer distances should be at the top.


Currently, it's inconsistent.  See the rightmost sign panel below.  Obviously, the frontage road comes first, then the I-10 on-ramp comes after that.  Closer one is on the bottom, farther one is on the top.



And yet, that's the opposite of how interchange sequence signs are laid out.  Same thing for any other sort of distance sign.  On the sign below, it's the farther one that's on the bottom, closer one on top.



Make it consistent.

[PColumbus73]

I disagree. For distance signs, we'd naturally rank distances from nearest at top to farthest at bottom. The I-10 / Frontage Road sign is a diagrammic sign, if we flipped the I-10 / Frontage Road orientation on the sign, it would imply that as we are traveling that the intersection with I-10 would come before the Frontage Road.

[kphoger]

For distance signs, we'd naturally rank distances from nearest at top to farthest at bottom.

What I'm saying is that that's less 'natural' than the other way.  Upward-pointing arrows mean 'ahead', so farther up more naturally means farther ahead.  Diagrammatic signs show farther destinations farther at the top, so farther up more naturally means farther ahead.

I imagine quickly getting accustomed to something like this.

[PColumbus73]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, at first I read it as if the diagrammic should be flipped.

For distance signs, it might be a matter of how we naturally order things and how we expect a list to be ordered when we're scanning it for information.

[kphoger]

Distance signs and interchange sequence signs should be flipped.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, at first I read it as if the diagrammic should be flipped.

Indeed.