AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..  (Read 29708 times)

bzakharin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1532
  • Last Login: July 19, 2019, 03:40:35 PM
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #75 on: August 31, 2016, 02:53:52 PM »

Is there a reason why this restriction only applies to MA 128 and not to any other state route overlapping an interstate (I-86 and NY 17 co-exist on many guide signs, for example)?
The directive regarding not posting MA 128 shields on BGS and LGS signs within the I-95/MA 128 overlap area, which was issued in the early 1990s, came from the FHWA Massachusetts regional office.  The signing folks at the New York FHWA regional office may have a different opinion on the matter of Interstate/state route overlaps where the state route does not continue past the overlap section at one or both ends.
How common is it to actually have a state route overlap with an Interstate (or even US route)? I can only think of I-278 and NY 440 off the top of my head, and that one is not acknowledged if this sign is any indication: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6192858,-74.1632918,3a,75y,279.11h,96.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4ymiJIsbMdm8-7N40IKzCA!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Logged

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6989
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 09:58:04 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #76 on: August 31, 2016, 03:11:16 PM »

Is there a reason why this restriction only applies to MA 128 and not to any other state route overlapping an interstate (I-86 and NY 17 co-exist on many guide signs, for example)?
The directive regarding not posting MA 128 shields on BGS and LGS signs within the I-95/MA 128 overlap area, which was issued in the early 1990s, came from the FHWA Massachusetts regional office.  The signing folks at the New York FHWA regional office may have a different opinion on the matter of Interstate/state route overlaps where the state route does not continue past the overlap section at one or both ends.
How common is it to actually have a state route overlap with an Interstate (or even US route)? I can only think of I-278 and NY 440 off the top of my head, and that one is not acknowledged if this sign is any indication: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6192858,-74.1632918,3a,75y,279.11h,96.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4ymiJIsbMdm8-7N40IKzCA!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

State routes:
I-93 and MA 3
I-89 and NH 11
I-293, NH 101, and NH 3A
I-86 and NY 17
I-465 and IN 37

Interstate/US combinations are much more common. I-25, I-86 (western), I-465, and I-393 are overlapped with US routes for most of their lengths, and I-25 is a relatively major Interstate.
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus:
US ⒔50
MA ⒐2⒉40.9⒐10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚12⒎14⒈159
NH 27,111A(E),128; NY 366; GA 42,140; FL A1A; CT 32, VT 5A, QC 16⒉16⒌263

Flickr

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10123
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 09:17:48 PM
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #77 on: August 31, 2016, 03:21:40 PM »

Keep in mind that for the DC beltway, 495 was on the whole thing first, from 1961-1975, while 95 went into DC
I assumed everyone on a roads forum knew that! :-)
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6989
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 09:58:04 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #78 on: August 31, 2016, 03:46:30 PM »

Keep in mind that for the DC beltway, 495 was on the whole thing first, from 1961-1975, while 95 went into DC
I assumed everyone on a roads forum knew that! :-)

We always have new members. I definitely didn't know that when I joined in 2013.
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus:
US ⒔50
MA ⒐2⒉40.9⒐10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚12⒎14⒈159
NH 27,111A(E),128; NY 366; GA 42,140; FL A1A; CT 32, VT 5A, QC 16⒉16⒌263

Flickr

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1093
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 01:35:18 AM
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #79 on: August 31, 2016, 03:50:36 PM »

I-40 and TN SR 56 and also SR 58.
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13251
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 57
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 07:30:10 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #80 on: August 31, 2016, 04:38:05 PM »

How common is it to actually have a state route overlap with an Interstate (or even US route)? I can only think of I-278 and NY 440 off the top of my head, and that one is not acknowledged if this sign is any indication: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6192858,-74.1632918,3a,75y,279.11h,96.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4ymiJIsbMdm8-7N40IKzCA!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

Quite common, actually.

Kentucky has KY 841 co-signed with I-265 for its entire length.

In Virginia you will find, for example, VA 55 signed with a portion of I-66 and VA 100 signed along I-81 for a decent distance.

There's at least one in Ohio (I-70 and OH 4) that comes to mind offhand.

I-77 and WV 2 is another example.

US/interstate concurrencies are much more common.
Logged

bzakharin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1532
  • Last Login: July 19, 2019, 03:40:35 PM
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #81 on: August 31, 2016, 06:16:20 PM »

Yeah, I know plenty US / Interstate concurrencies. I meant Interstate / State and US / State.
Logged

US 81

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 226
  • Location: Texas
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 07:35:59 PM
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #82 on: August 31, 2016, 08:03:35 PM »

Yeah, I know plenty US / Interstate concurrencies. I meant Interstate / State and US / State.

Pretty common in western TX along I-10, I-20 and I-40.
Logged

Eth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2417
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Georgia
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 09:38:21 PM
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #83 on: August 31, 2016, 10:11:06 PM »

How common is it to actually have a state route overlap with an Interstate (or even US route)? I can only think of I-278 and NY 440 off the top of my head, and that one is not acknowledged if this sign is any indication: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6192858,-74.1632918,3a,75y,279.11h,96.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4ymiJIsbMdm8-7N40IKzCA!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

In Georgia, nearly any Interstate/US overlap would necessarily bring a state route along for the ride*, but there actually aren't that many of those: I-75/US 41/SR 7 for a few miles north of Valdosta, I-516 with US 17/SR 25 and/or US 80/SR 26, and a 15-mile stretch of I-20/US 278/SR 12 east of Atlanta. (Exceptions: US 19 doesn't bring SR 9 with it when it briefly hops onto I-285 (unsigned SR 407), nor does US 23 bring along SR 13 on I-985 (unsigned SR 365/419).) If I'm not mistaken, there is only one are only two signed Interstate/state concurrency concurrencies in Georgia that doesn't don't also involve a US route: the entirety of I-575 is co-signed with SR 5 and the ends of I-516/SR 21 are independent of US 17 and US 80.

* besides the unsigned 4xx state route that's already on the Interstate
« Last Edit: August 31, 2016, 10:14:37 PM by Eth »
Logged

SSOWorld

  • 'Sconsin
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3083
  • Interstate <Make up your mind!>

  • Age: 46
  • Location: MAH House!
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 10:34:46 PM
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #84 on: August 31, 2016, 10:48:59 PM »



Best part is that everyone calls the I-96 multiplex "275" locally anyways, so much for 2d being more significant.

Just from reading this thread (and thinking of this topic in the past) it does seem like concurrencies of this kind - at least on the Interstate level - are primarily the result of the public refusing to use a newer number for an existing road, as is the case with the Beltway/I-495 around DC (where at one point 495 didn't exist on the eastern half), Route 128 around Boston (where 128 signage has been reduced somewhat over the years, yet hasn't resulted in locals calling it "95"), and US 40 in St. Louis (I don't know if the segment of US 40/I-64 west of I-270 is called "US 40" as well).

Conversely, in the example of one of these types of multiplexes that is presently being removed (US 50/Business 80 in Sacramento), even though some form of 80 numbering had existed on that stretch since the 1960s, the through-route configuration in Oak Park for US 50 likely led to the dominance of 50 as the regular term for that route over the last 10-15 years - even though 50 is the newer (1982 to present) designation between West Sacramento and 99!


Same is true for locals in Wausau, Stevens Point - they still call it "highway 51" (emphasis on "highway").  This makes "highway 41" redundant :P
Logged
Scott O.

Not all who wander are lost...
Ah, the open skies, wind at my back, warm sun on my... wait, where the hell am I?!
As a matter of fact, I do own the road.
Raise your what?

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ssoworld-roads/

Wisconsin - out-multiplexing your state since 1918.

SSOWorld

  • 'Sconsin
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3083
  • Interstate <Make up your mind!>

  • Age: 46
  • Location: MAH House!
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 10:34:46 PM
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #85 on: August 31, 2016, 10:49:31 PM »



Best part is that everyone calls the I-96 multiplex "275" locally anyways, so much for 2d being more significant.

Just from reading this thread (and thinking of this topic in the past) it does seem like concurrencies of this kind - at least on the Interstate level - are primarily the result of the public refusing to use a newer number for an existing road, as is the case with the Beltway/I-495 around DC (where at one point 495 didn't exist on the eastern half), Route 128 around Boston (where 128 signage has been reduced somewhat over the years, yet hasn't resulted in locals calling it "95"), and US 40 in St. Louis (I don't know if the segment of US 40/I-64 west of I-270 is called "US 40" as well).

Conversely, in the example of one of these types of multiplexes that is presently being removed (US 50/Business 80 in Sacramento), even though some form of 80 numbering had existed on that stretch since the 1960s, the through-route configuration in Oak Park for US 50 likely led to the dominance of 50 as the regular term for that route over the last 10-15 years - even though 50 is the newer (1982 to present) designation between West Sacramento and 99!


Same is true for locals in Wausau, Stevens Point - they still call it "highway 51" (emphasis on "highway").  This makes "highway 41" redundant :P

Excuse me... "HWY"! :awesomeface:
Logged
Scott O.

Not all who wander are lost...
Ah, the open skies, wind at my back, warm sun on my... wait, where the hell am I?!
As a matter of fact, I do own the road.
Raise your what?

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ssoworld-roads/

Wisconsin - out-multiplexing your state since 1918.

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9283
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 12:11:53 PM
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #86 on: August 31, 2016, 11:24:31 PM »

Some may argue that US 17 & 92 could be one.  If it were any state out west, the number of US 92 would have been decommissioned.  If it were California, US 17 would be concurrent with I-4 from DeLand to Lake Alfred and the rest between those points would be CA state designations except US 441 ( if it were allowed to continue south of Lake City) might stay on OBT though.

I believe US 92 is concurrent more with US 17 than being alone.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8937
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 11:10:32 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #87 on: August 31, 2016, 11:32:28 PM »

Some may argue that US 17 & 92 could be one.  If it were any state out west, the number of US 92 would have been decommissioned.  If it were California, US 17 would be concurrent with I-4 from DeLand to Lake Alfred and the rest between those points would be CA state designations except US 441 ( if it were allowed to continue south of Lake City) might stay on OBT though.

I believe US 92 is concurrent more with US 17 than being alone.

Technically both US 92 and US 292 ought not to be a thing anymore considering they are intra-state and under 300 miles.  But with that said I think they are viable enough corridors on their own to justify them still existing.  Most of the roads out west that were decomissioned were abandoned or the Interstate traffic was realigned to bypass them significantly.   At the very least they both connect to other parts of the US and Interstate systems which is good enough for me with the high traffic counts.

WNYroadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 381
  • Age: 29
  • Last Login: Today at 12:42:18 AM
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #88 on: August 31, 2016, 11:53:58 PM »

Any concurrencies where one route terminates at the end of it. Seriously, truncate that route back.

New York is full of these:

NY 15/NY 21 (NY 15 terminates at southern end of overlap)
NY 21/NY 332 (NY 332 terminates at southern end of overlap)
NY 14A/NY 245 (both terminate at northern end of overlap)
NY 31F/NY 350 (both terminate at southern end of overlap)
US 20A/NY 64 (US 20A terminates at northern end of overlap)
NY 31E/NY 271 (both terminate at southern end of overlap)
Logged

dzlsabe

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 827
  • More concrete, less guns.

  • Location: SHIKAAKWA
  • Last Login: April 14, 2019, 12:56:04 AM
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #89 on: September 01, 2016, 12:17:51 AM »

Does twelve miles of I-90 AND 94 through downtown Chicago count?
Logged
ILs mantra..the beatings will continue until the morale improves but Expect Delays is good too. Seems some are happy that Chicago/land remains miserable. Status quo is often asinine...Always feel free to use a dictionary as I tend to offend younger or more sensitive viewers. Thanx Pythagoras. :rofl:

Charles2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 332
  • Age: 59
  • Location: Helena, AL
  • Last Login: Today at 12:45:32 AM
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #90 on: September 01, 2016, 01:47:40 AM »

Alabama US/State Route Concurrencies:

20/59: US-11 & AL-5 (Exit 97-108)
20: US-78 (Exit 153-156), US-431 (Exit 188-191)
22: US-78 (MS state line-Exit 85)
65: US-80 (Exit 167-168), US-82 (Exit 168-179), AL-14 (Exit 179-181), US-31 (Exit 284-287), AL-69 (Exit 299-304), US-31 (Exit 354-TN state line
85: US-80 (Exit 6-22), US-29 (Exit 51-64),US-280 (Exit 58-62)
359: US-11 & AL-69 (entire route)

Logged

74/171FAN

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1583
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Harrisburg, PA
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 08:07:51 PM
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #91 on: September 01, 2016, 04:37:02 AM »

Some may argue that US 17 & 92 could be one.  If it were any state out west, the number of US 92 would have been decommissioned.  If it were California, US 17 would be concurrent with I-4 from DeLand to Lake Alfred and the rest between those points would be CA state designations except US 441 ( if it were allowed to continue south of Lake City) might stay on OBT though.

I believe US 92 is concurrent more with US 17 than being alone.

Technically both US 92 and US 192 ought not to be a thing anymore considering they are intra-state and under 300 miles.  But with that said I think they are viable enough corridors on their own to justify them still existing.  Most of the roads out west that were decomissioned were abandoned or the Interstate traffic was realigned to bypass them significantly.   At the very least they both connect to other parts of the US and Interstate systems which is good enough for me with the high traffic counts.

FTFY.
Logged
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8937
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 11:10:32 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #92 on: September 01, 2016, 09:14:18 AM »

Some may argue that US 17 & 92 could be one.  If it were any state out west, the number of US 92 would have been decommissioned.  If it were California, US 17 would be concurrent with I-4 from DeLand to Lake Alfred and the rest between those points would be CA state designations except US 441 ( if it were allowed to continue south of Lake City) might stay on OBT though.

I believe US 92 is concurrent more with US 17 than being alone.

Technically both US 92 and US 192 ought not to be a thing anymore considering they are intra-state and under 300 miles.  But with that said I think they are viable enough corridors on their own to justify them still existing.  Most of the roads out west that were decomissioned were abandoned or the Interstate traffic was realigned to bypass them significantly.   At the very least they both connect to other parts of the US and Interstate systems which is good enough for me with the high traffic counts.

FTFY.

Yeah I had that rejected submission FDOT made about FL 50 being added as a US Route on my mind way long ago.  I don't know what route number they applied for but I was going to make a comment about US 292.

Strider

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 667
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 09:14:36 PM
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #93 on: September 01, 2016, 11:13:28 AM »

Seriously, VA 3 and VA 14 in the Middle Peninsula.
Wasn't US 76 and US 74 concurrent in NC at one time with US 76 kinda serving as a business route then going back over to be concurrent with US 74 once again?

HB- FTFY

Also I thought US 76 did that in Wilmington now.

Finally, this thread existed 5 years ago but with no posts since 2011.  Oddly HB started it.



Yeah you are correct. US 76 acts like a business route in Wilmington while US 74 bypasses it slightly to the north before dipping back into Wilmington.

Another unnecessary concurrencies: I-73/I-74/US 220. IMO, I-74 should just end at I-73, and US 220 should be moved back to its original routing (except around Greensboro as I-73 bypasses the city to the west, and the segment between Candor and Ellerbe as US 220 was recently being put back on its original routing.)
Logged

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6553
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: July 19, 2019, 04:14:18 PM
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #94 on: September 01, 2016, 11:59:46 AM »

Is there a reason why this restriction only applies to MA 128 and not to any other state route overlapping an interstate (I-86 and NY 17 co-exist on many guide signs, for example)?
The directive regarding not posting MA 128 shields on BGS and LGS signs within the I-95/MA 128 overlap area, which was issued in the early 1990s, came from the FHWA Massachusetts regional office.  The signing folks at the New York FHWA regional office may have a different opinion on the matter of Interstate/state route overlaps where the state route does not continue past the overlap section at one or both ends.
Val, how long will that NY 17 concurrency w/I-86 last once all of it is upgraded to Interstate standards?

Roadman, what's the deal behind newer MA 3 signage along the Southeast Expressway (concurrent w/I-93 & US 1) now restricted to just trailblazer signage & reassurance markers (all the newer BGS'/LGS' just have I-93 & US 1 shields)?

Unlike 128, MA 3 can't be truncated (not without redesignating the Pilgrim's Highway with another route number) per say because the route extends beyond the I-93/US 1 concurrency at both ends.  Personally, MA 3 between Cambridge & Neponset should revert back to its pre-1971 routing (MA 203 would be eliminated).

Heck, had Boston/MassDPW waited a few years before purging its C-route system (the MA 3 change occurred simultaneously w/such); MA 3 would've been left alone... especially given the extended I-93 & the de-facto I-95 corridor assignments.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10101
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 12:56:08 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #95 on: September 01, 2016, 12:48:16 PM »

Val, how long will that NY 17 concurrency w/I-86 last once all of it is upgraded to Interstate standards?
That's a good question.  There was the impression that NY 17 would be truncated when I-86 was complete, but the fact that the I-86 upgrade is on indefinite hold means that, in practice, it's going to be around for a while.  Region 6 had been slowly phasing out NY 17 signage, but I've heard that their current traffic engineer has directed the signs to be replaced in kind.  Region 5 might be phasing it out too - the new signs near exit 10 are I-86 only (and take a page from Region TO).
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9283
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 12:11:53 PM
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #96 on: September 01, 2016, 01:09:46 PM »

Why cannot US 76 be truncated to I-75 at Dalton?  Does it need to go all the way to Chatanooga anymore while with US 41?

Then again why can't US 23 be truncated to end at US 1 or even Atlanta?  Or US 25 to Ludwici being its concurrency with US 341 is ignored completely. 

GADOT of course runs it all is the answer, but considering GADOT has secret route numbers signed, having the extra US routes signed is causing more maintenance for their agency.  With US 76 it shadows an interstate that carries the load to the place of terminus, so that is really excessive.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1093
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 01:35:18 AM
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #97 on: September 01, 2016, 01:20:56 PM »

I havent' seen US 74 & US 64 mentioned at all.  US 64 and US 74 are concurrent from NC to I-75 in Chattanooga.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9283
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 12:11:53 PM
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #98 on: September 01, 2016, 01:45:41 PM »

I havent' seen US 74 & US 64 mentioned at all.  US 64 and US 74 are concurrent from NC to I-75 in Chattanooga.
I forgot US 74, but its shorter.  However US 64 does continue on both sides of Chatanooga for hundreds of miles each way.  US 64 goes to Nags Head, NC while to the west it makes it to Teec Nos Poz, AZ a distance of 2326 miles total with I-75 being a good way along that line.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9283
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: July 20, 2019, 12:11:53 PM
Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
« Reply #99 on: September 01, 2016, 01:46:56 PM »

The VA 2/ US 301 concurrency between Richmond, VA and Bowling Green, VA.  Does VA 2 really need to be signed here at all?
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

 


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.