AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: The Future of the U.S. Numbered Highway System  (Read 1168 times)

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10352
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: October 15, 2019, 07:58:33 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: The Future of the U.S. Numbered Highway System
« Reply #25 on: September 12, 2019, 08:02:12 PM »

I'll just leave it with this: Texas has been known to take corridor definitions very, very narrowly (see: I-69E/C/W).
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6018
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:17:05 AM
Re: The Future of the U.S. Numbered Highway System
« Reply #26 on: September 14, 2019, 03:45:19 AM »

I'll just leave it with this: Texas has been known to take corridor definitions very, very narrowly (see: I-69E/C/W).

Just for the sake of designation -- and keeping the funding stream open as wide as possible.  To that end, they (probably wisely) elected to not overestimate the intelligence and capability for rational thinking of their pet congresspeople -- particularly those who were part of the original corridor concept back in the early/mid 1990's.  As far as actual in-the-field routing goes, it'll be up to the planners & engineers, who tend to "straightline" routing oddities for the sake of monetary outlay as much as anything (hence bridging the Brazos at its narrowest point). 

This should have been saved for the I-14 thread -- but please take note that US 190 itself between I-35 and I-45 was an overlay of a series of state or other US highways (TX 36, US 79, TX 6, TX 21); there's not a bit of 190 there that isn't MPX'd with other field-signed routes.  A real grid-pattern anomaly!
Logged

Hot Rod Hootenanny

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1848
  • Diplomat of Solid Sound

  • Age: 44
  • Location: Middle of Nowhere, Ohio
  • Last Login: October 14, 2019, 08:40:17 PM
    • 20th Century roadfan material
Re: The Future of the U.S. Numbered Highway System
« Reply #27 on: September 18, 2019, 05:17:17 PM »

I'll just leave it with this: Texas has been known to take corridor definitions very, very narrowly (see: I-69E/C/W).

Just for the sake of designation -- and keeping the funding stream open as wide as possible.  To that end, they (probably wisely) elected to not overestimate the intelligence and capability for rational thinking of their pet congresspeople -- particularly those who were part of the original corridor concept back in the early/mid 1990's.  As far as actual in-the-field routing goes, it'll be up to the planners & engineers, who tend to "straightline" routing oddities for the sake of monetary outlay as much as anything (hence bridging the Brazos at its narrowest point). 

This should have been saved for the I-14 thread -- but please take note that US 190 itself between I-35 and I-45 was an overlay of a series of state or other US highways (TX 36, US 79, TX 6, TX 21); there's not a bit of 190 there that isn't MPX'd with other field-signed routes.  A real grid-pattern anomaly!

Well, considering US 190 originally stopped at the Mississippi River, seeing it mpx'd with other routes doesn't shock me.
Logged
SAVE AAROADS!! ONLY TALK ABOUT ROADS!

 


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.