AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: New York  (Read 830681 times)

storm2k

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 850
  • Age: 39
  • Location: NJ
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:00 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #4675 on: April 22, 2020, 09:30:51 PM »

Re: above posts concerning NYS DOT's non-use of LEFT exit tabs. At least on Long Island they have been using the yellow LEFT box on new signs pretty much since the 2009 Manual mandated it. I can't imagine why they are not shown in the plans for the Hutchinson Pkwy. I suspect someone screwed up. Notice also that some of the signs for the I-684 exit have no exit number tab at all. Ya' have to wonder if NYS DOT doesn't even proof read their own plans.

Also what is their purpose in have the horizontal dividing line separating the street name from the city names?

That's a R8 thing and has been for years. For a while, they've done all caps in a box for the street names.
Logged

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1449
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: July 05, 2020, 10:05:20 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #4676 on: April 22, 2020, 09:36:49 PM »

I never liked those boxed street names either. I'm glad Region 10 doesn't do any of that stuff. They just print the street and city names in mixed case, very plain and simple.
Logged

Roadgeek Adam

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1101
  • Warren CR 14 - Warrensburg, NY

  • Age: 29
  • Location: East Amherst, New York
  • Last Login: July 03, 2020, 11:03:15 PM
    • My Flickr Photostream
Re: New York
« Reply #4677 on: April 23, 2020, 12:41:20 PM »

I liked the boxed street names. I think using FHWA normal fonts looked weird for street names. The boxed names was/is a good alternative.

That said, I tend to agree that exit 27 in CT will likely cease to be.
Logged
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University '17
B.A. History, Montclair State University '15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex County College '13

RestrictOnTheHanger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 123
  • Location: NY R11/R10
  • Last Login: Today at 11:20:36 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #4678 on: April 23, 2020, 01:54:36 PM »

Quote from: Alps link=topic=1487.msg2493509#msg2493509
Notwithstanding the arrow layout, which I'll forgive you since this is a mockup, "NYC Airports" is not a destination. Just use New York City.

Tell that to the MTA (I think they are responsible for crossing signs). Found on the Whitestone Bridge. This is a relatively recent installation that incorporates the left exit signage found elsewhere in R10

https://maps.app.goo.gl/oXdyQ1EUiyUbqBry9
Logged

machias

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 725
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Chicago, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 01:39:14 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #4679 on: April 23, 2020, 02:28:21 PM »

I liked the boxed street names. I think using FHWA normal fonts looked weird for street names. The boxed names was/is a good alternative.

R2 did the boxed street name thing for years as well and I complained about it every time they did it. The box obscures the legibility of the legend inside the box at night. The road name would end up being just one big blob of white.  It looked particularly bad on signs where there was just a road name and action message. It’d be a box within a box and an arrow. Awful.
Logged

jp the roadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3330
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Outside the I-291 beltway
  • Last Login: Today at 02:18:03 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #4680 on: April 23, 2020, 02:45:08 PM »

Quote from: Alps link=topic=1487.msg2493509#msg2493509
Notwithstanding the arrow layout, which I'll forgive you since this is a mockup, "NYC Airports" is not a destination. Just use New York City.

Tell that to the MTA (I think they are responsible for crossing signs). Found on the Whitestone Bridge. This is a relatively recent installation that incorporates the left exit signage found elsewhere in R10

https://maps.app.goo.gl/oXdyQ1EUiyUbqBry9

Reason why I used NYC airports here is that NYC is too vague because either option will get you to NYC.  Most people get to the Bronx (including Yankee Stadium), and the West Side of Manhattan via the Cross County and either 87 or the Sawmill/Henry Hudson.  The Hutch is a better option if you’re going to Queens (LaGuardia and JFK included) or the east side of the Bronx or lower Manhattan (via 278 and the RFK).  The Hutch turns into 678, which takes you right in to JFK, but with it being the preferred route to LaGuardia as well, I used “NYC Airports”
Logged
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1449
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: July 05, 2020, 10:05:20 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #4681 on: April 23, 2020, 08:26:59 PM »

Quote from: Alps link=topic=1487.msg2493509#msg2493509
Notwithstanding the arrow layout, which I'll forgive you since this is a mockup, "NYC Airports" is not a destination. Just use New York City.

Tell that to the MTA (I think they are responsible for crossing signs). Found on the Whitestone Bridge. This is a relatively recent installation that incorporates the left exit signage found elsewhere in R10

https://maps.app.goo.gl/oXdyQ1EUiyUbqBry9

Reason why I used NYC airports here is that NYC is too vague because either option will get you to NYC.  Most people get to the Bronx (including Yankee Stadium), and the West Side of Manhattan via the Cross County and either 87 or the Sawmill/Henry Hudson.  The Hutch is a better option if you’re going to Queens (LaGuardia and JFK included) or the east side of the Bronx or lower Manhattan (via 278 and the RFK).  The Hutch turns into 678, which takes you right in to JFK, but with it being the preferred route to LaGuardia as well, I used “NYC Airports”

Once again we have collision between MUTCD requirements and what makes sense locally. It's worth noting that within the Borough of Queens NY Airports was used back in the 1960's as a southbound destination on entrance ramps to I-678, the Whitestone Expwy. There really was no place or city name to use at that point as the road terminated at JFK Airport.
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13375
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 37
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 03:07:16 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #4682 on: April 23, 2020, 11:12:22 PM »

Quote from: Alps link=topic=1487.msg2493509#msg2493509
Notwithstanding the arrow layout, which I'll forgive you since this is a mockup, "NYC Airports" is not a destination. Just use New York City.

Tell that to the MTA (I think they are responsible for crossing signs). Found on the Whitestone Bridge. This is a relatively recent installation that incorporates the left exit signage found elsewhere in R10

https://maps.app.goo.gl/oXdyQ1EUiyUbqBry9

Reason why I used NYC airports here is that NYC is too vague because either option will get you to NYC.  Most people get to the Bronx (including Yankee Stadium), and the West Side of Manhattan via the Cross County and either 87 or the Sawmill/Henry Hudson.  The Hutch is a better option if you’re going to Queens (LaGuardia and JFK included) or the east side of the Bronx or lower Manhattan (via 278 and the RFK).  The Hutch turns into 678, which takes you right in to JFK, but with it being the preferred route to LaGuardia as well, I used “NYC Airports”

Once again we have collision between MUTCD requirements and what makes sense locally. It's worth noting that within the Borough of Queens NY Airports was used back in the 1960's as a southbound destination on entrance ramps to I-678, the Whitestone Expwy. There really was no place or city name to use at that point as the road terminated at JFK Airport.
Then name the airports. In this case there is no such issue. Sign NYC or at least Queens ahead.

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5868
  • Last Login: Today at 12:46:28 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #4683 on: April 23, 2020, 11:15:46 PM »

Yeah, I'd go with a borough.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

D-Dey65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2533
  • Age: 54
  • Last Login: Today at 03:11:34 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #4684 on: April 29, 2020, 09:04:44 AM »

Anyone notice the sign replacement project for the Hutchinson River Parkway from the Bruckner interchange to the Connecticut Line is next for the mileage-based exit numbers?  D263231

link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D264231
Wow, so many Exit 1's in The Bronx. It kind of makes me regret advocating mileage based exit numbers for the Hutch.


Merritt and Wilbur Cross Parkways on the other hand is a totally different story. Maybe I'll look for a thread on that on the Connecticut board.




Logged

jp the roadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3330
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Outside the I-291 beltway
  • Last Login: Today at 02:18:03 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #4685 on: April 29, 2020, 01:06:06 PM »

CTDOT has plans to eventually renumber CT 15, but probably not until at least 2026.

But just for fun, here is what the Merritt/Wilbur Cross would look like with mileage-based numbers

Exit 1: NY 120A NORTH (unless NYSDOT and CTDOT finally come to a mutual agreement to number it 19B)
Exit 3: Round Hill Rd
Exit 4: Lake Ave
Exit 5: North St
Exit 8: Den Rd
Exit 9: CT 104
Exit 10: CT 137
Exit 13: CT 106
Exit 14: CT 124
Exit 15: CT 123
Exit 16 A/B (NB ONLY): US 7
Exit 17 A/B: Main Ave (TO US 7 SB)
Exit 20: CT 33
Exit 21: CT 57
THE NO EXIT ZONE :)
Exit 27: CT 58
Exit 28: CT 59
Exit 29: Park Ave
Exit 30: CT 111
Exit 32A: CT 25 SOUTH (NB); CT 25 NORTH (SB)
Exit 32B: CT 25 NORTH (NB); CT 127 (SB)
Exit 33 (NB ONLY): CT 108
Exit 34: CT 8 NORTH (NB); CT 8/CT 108 (SB)
Exit 36: CT 110
Exit 37: SR 796 (Milford Connector TO I-95/US 1)
Exit 38A (38 SB): Wheelers Farms Rd
Exit 38B (NB ONLY) Wolf Harbor Rd
Exit 41: CT 121
Exit 42 A/B: CT 34
Exit 46: CT 63/CT 69
Exit 50: CT 10
Exit 51 (A/B SB): Whitney Ave
Exit 52 (NB ONLY): Dixwell Ave
Exit 53: CT 22
Exit 58: Quinnipiac St/Wallingford Ctr (NB); South Turnpike Rd/Quinnipiac St (SB)
Exit 59: CT 150
Exit 61: US 5
Exit 64A (SB ONLY): I-91 SOUTH
Exit 64 (64B SB): East Main St
Exit 65A (NB ONLY): I-91 NORTH/CT 66 EAST
Exit 65B (NB ONLY): I-691 WEST

And the Hartford portion
Exit 79: CT 99 SOUTH
Exit 80A: I-91 SOUTH
Exit 80B: Brainard Rd/Airport Rd
Exit 81 (NB ONLY): I-91 NORTH
Exit 82: US 5 NORTH/CT 2 (NB ONLY)/East River Dr
Exit 83 (NB ONLY): Silver Lane
Logged
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

crispy93

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 71
  • Location: New York
  • Last Login: July 04, 2020, 01:25:06 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #4686 on: May 08, 2020, 08:30:10 PM »

Anyone notice the sign replacement project for the Hutchinson River Parkway from the Bruckner interchange to the Connecticut Line is next for the mileage-based exit numbers?  D263231

link: https://www.dot.ny.gov/doing-business/opportunities/const-contract-docs?p_d_id=D264231

I was looking forward to seeing the signage plans but I don't like these. Looks like they're identical replacements for the ones already in place, which were probably installed piecemeal over the years.

  • Some street names have the line between street and town.
  • The 684 sign only has an exit tab in the sign at the gore (advance sign still says NEXT LEFT), and no LEFT tab. Same for the CCP exit southbound.
  • Merritt is misspelled as "Merrit"
  • No indication that the northbound exit for the CCP is two lanes.
  • I don't like that the northbound exit for the CCP says RIGHT LANE instead of 1/4 MILE or just an arrow, and that "To Sprain Pkwy" says NEXT RIGHT instead of EXIT 6 B
  • Only one of the signs for 287 west mentions Westchester Ave.
  • The EXIT ## gore signs look like the weird scrunched up ones posted on the Taconic in Putnam and southern Dutchess. On the map plans, they look correct. But the index of signs at the bottom shows the weird ones.
  • At the end of the document, where it shows how certain signs should be mounted, it shows Exit 9A with a left-justified tab but it's a normal right-hand exit. The actual map plans are correct, though.

Are these finalized? Any point in telling Region 8 now? I assume a plan from Region 11 will be forthcoming for the Bronx section? Will that section (finally) have mile markers, too?
« Last Edit: May 09, 2020, 04:06:43 PM by Alps »
Logged

dgolub

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1892
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Mineola, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 12:06:16 PM
    • East Coast Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #4687 on: May 09, 2020, 08:33:31 AM »

Will the new CT 15 exit numbers start at the state line or continue the numbering from New York?
Logged

shadyjay

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1294
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Lwr CT River Valley
  • Last Login: July 05, 2020, 09:45:35 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #4688 on: May 09, 2020, 11:30:17 AM »

Will the new CT 15 exit numbers start at the state line or continue the numbering from New York?

No plans are up yet, and probably won't be for a while, for a ConnDOT CT 15 renumbering.  But to make them part of a distance-based system, they would most likely start at the NY state line (with #1) and count up.  I can't imagine they'd continue the NY numbering again!

IMO, they should have renumbered the exits when signs were replaced a couple years ago. 
Logged
My FLICKR page has gone PRO!  Road photos (and more) from throughout the Northeast...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/collections/72157657234163953/

crispy93

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 71
  • Location: New York
  • Last Login: July 04, 2020, 01:25:06 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #4689 on: May 09, 2020, 01:59:16 PM »

I-84 was opened in segments in the pre-NSML era. Does anyone know what the speed limit on 84 was when it first opened? The section east of the river was mostly raised to 65 MPH around the same time in late 2008/early 2009 when the highway was transferred from NYSTA back to NYSDOT. Which agency raised the limit? I wonder why it was 55 for so long after NSML's repeal and the 2003 law that let NYSDOT/TA set 65 zones on their own without the legislature's approval.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11191
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: July 05, 2020, 09:59:03 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #4690 on: May 09, 2020, 10:54:31 PM »

Will the new CT 15 exit numbers start at the state line or continue the numbering from New York?

No plans are up yet, and probably won't be for a while, for a ConnDOT CT 15 renumbering.  But to make them part of a distance-based system, they would most likely start at the NY state line (with #1) and count up.  I can't imagine they'd continue the NY numbering again!

IMO, they should have renumbered the exits when signs were replaced a couple years ago. 
It's worth noting that the mileposts start at 0 at the NY line, so if the exit numbers were to match they would need to reset.  Maybe CT knew NY would be converting the Hutch soon and wanted to wait until that was done before changing CT 15?
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1449
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: July 05, 2020, 10:05:20 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #4691 on: May 10, 2020, 08:24:45 PM »

It doesn't much matter. As per the MUTCD, the exit numbers for the Merritt Pkwy. must start at zero at the state line, so anything New York does on the Hutch is irrelevant to Connecticut. 
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11191
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: July 05, 2020, 09:59:03 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #4692 on: May 10, 2020, 09:59:06 PM »

It doesn't much matter. As per the MUTCD, the exit numbers for the Merritt Pkwy. must start at zero at the state line, so anything New York does on the Hutch is irrelevant to Connecticut. 
Exit 30/27 (future exit 19) straddles the state border.  CT would not be able to change the numbers is one fell swoop without the NY side changing first, or else the exit numbers would be made even worse than they already are.  ALL southbound signage (with the exception of one gore sign), as well as one of the northbound gore signs, is in CT.

Also, last time I checked, exit numbers/mileage starting at 0 is not actually mandated by the MUTCD.  In fact, there a a ton of examples around the country where they don't.  Just look at the entire state of Arizona (minus most interstates), for example.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2020, 10:01:45 PM by vdeane »
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1449
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: July 05, 2020, 10:05:20 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #4693 on: May 10, 2020, 10:17:10 PM »

Vdeane, are you saying that the numbering can start with 1 instead of 0 (zero)? No argument there. But what I was saying was that the exit numbering is required to start at the state line as per Sec.2E-31-11. The southern/western terminus within that state. So Connecticut could not just continue New York's numbering. Though yes, I see that this interchange is a special case right at the state border so some tailoring for that specific location might be needed.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11191
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: July 05, 2020, 09:59:03 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #4694 on: May 10, 2020, 10:40:03 PM »

Vdeane, are you saying that the numbering can start with 1 instead of 0 (zero)? No argument there. But what I was saying was that the exit numbering is required to start at the state line as per Sec.2E-31-11. The southern/western terminus within that state. So Connecticut could not just continue New York's numbering. Though yes, I see that this interchange is a special case right at the state border so some tailoring for that specific location might be needed.
Here's the actual text you just cited:

Quote
Regardless of whether a mainline route originates within a State or crosses into a State from another State, the southernmost or westernmost terminus within that State shall be the beginning point for interchange numbering.
It says "the southernmost or westernmost terminus within that State shall be the beginning point"... it does not say what it should begin at.  I-17 in Arizona begins at 194, for example.  In any case, the mileage for CT 15 starts at 0 at the border, and I already noted that they would have to reset the numbering to match the mileage before you decided to chime in.  As such, I have no idea why you decided to argue the point, especially since I was never arguing that CT should continue continuing NY's numbering in the first place - it was that signs like this one could not have their numbers changed without NY changing first, and since NY's previous renumbering of the Hutch broke the sequence, they couldn't just leave that at exit 27 and change everything else.  IMO the correct solution is for that interchange to be numbered exit 19 and only exit 19 and for CT to renumber everything else off CT 15's mileage.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1420
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: Today at 10:53:52 AM
Re: New York
« Reply #4695 on: May 10, 2020, 10:48:38 PM »

I have long been an advocate for starting the milage and exit numbers for the Hutch/Merritt/Wilbur Cross Pkwy/Berlin Tpke/Wilbur Cross Hwy at the Whitestone Bridge with no reset at the CT border.

That road network is so historic that I think it might be cool to do the milage and numbering this way.
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13375
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 37
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 03:07:16 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New York
« Reply #4696 on: May 11, 2020, 01:31:46 AM »

I have long been an advocate for starting the milage and exit numbers for the Hutch/Merritt/Wilbur Cross Pkwy/Berlin Tpke/Wilbur Cross Hwy at the Whitestone Bridge with no reset at the CT border.

That road network is so historic that I think it might be cool to do the milage and numbering this way.
It's supported by the MUTCD, but only as long as CT re-mileposts the highway to match.

jp the roadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3330
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Outside the I-291 beltway
  • Last Login: Today at 02:18:03 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #4697 on: May 11, 2020, 01:39:37 AM »

I have long been an advocate for starting the milage and exit numbers for the Hutch/Merritt/Wilbur Cross Pkwy/Berlin Tpke/Wilbur Cross Hwy at the Whitestone Bridge with no reset at the CT border.

That road network is so historic that I think it might be cool to do the milage and numbering this way.
It's supported by the MUTCD, but only as long as CT re-mileposts the highway to match.

And it is currently mileposted from the NY border, so they won't.  And no, they won't reset the mileposts at the Sikorsky Bridge either to give separate mileage for the Merritt and Wilbur Cross.  Question is: Will CTDOT install mileposts along the entire length of CT 15, including the Berlin Turnpike and the Hartford expressway portion? 
Logged
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

D-Dey65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2533
  • Age: 54
  • Last Login: Today at 03:11:34 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #4698 on: May 21, 2020, 11:39:28 PM »

Old News 12 Long Island about a vacant lot in Coram which didn't mention the fact that this was the ROW for the formerly proposed realignment and widening of NY 25:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150712230705/http://longisland.news12.com/news/neighbors-businesses-complain-of-vacant-coram-lot-1.10629981

Just something I thought I'd bring up.

Logged

D-Dey65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2533
  • Age: 54
  • Last Login: Today at 03:11:34 PM
Re: New York
« Reply #4699 on: June 09, 2020, 09:43:22 PM »

Hey, I just discovered an old road in Millwood in Westchester County.

It begins somewhere around NY 133 just across from the power lines where it runs parallel to the Old Put (North County) Trailway. Then it crosses NY 120 diagonally just before that left turn where it ends at NY 100.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1914203,-73.7975064,3a,75y,253.4h,96.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1JWswx81AB8Nv7mzKD6Fdw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en


https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1916021,-73.7974817,3a,75y,358.43h,97.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk1Urq6bVwWegloO9wvfO9w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

From there it crosses NY 100 and runs along the east side of Shingle House Road, but I'm not 100% sure of how far north it goes from there:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1925226,-73.7974672,3a,75y,349.71h,96.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seZs736fBSzmCdTa3o7hOwA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

I checked to see if it was a spur from the Old Put, but no such luck.

Logged

 


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.