Unpopular Anything Road-Related Opinions

[Quillz]

To comment on an earlier discussion: I don't think you need some kind of numbering perfection by any means, but I do think any system starting from scratch should attempt some kind of meaningful order. Even if ends up being chaotic later on. I've never liked completely random setups from the start (i.e. where numbers are just assigned in the order they're built or thought of). I always prefer when attempts were made (like 1934 California), even if later on things don't have order.

I think a lot of it has to do with human nature. We generally want to find order in things. It's scary to think the universe is chaotic and disorderly. This is one of the reasons why it was once believed Earth was the center of the universe, and everything revolved around it. It was an attempt to bring order to chaos. I think humans like that.

[kurumi]

^ same. I don't mind exceptions -- they add interest to what otherwise might be a rigid system -- but having that system is useful.

Sequential exit numbers have generally less benefit to motorists than mile-based numbers; but in the sequential era, "missing" or "extra" numbers would be a hint to abandoned or changed plans and other history.

Same for a geographic or other ordering of route numbers. I found a 1931 planning map of CT routes (just before the big renumber) with some handwritten numbers erased. Based on the system, I was reasonably confident of CT 23 as a working number in Stamford (and possibly CT 21 in Greenwich). If the numbers were haphazardly assigned, and there was no such thing as a "missing" route, I'd have no idea.

[CtrlAltDel]

So we move all of BC back a year?

Or move all AD forward a year.  I don't care either way.  Might make research even more difficult, though...

Another idea would be to use the Holocene calendar, which adds 10,000 to the current year. Essentially every human event that can be pinned down to a precise date has taken place in a positive year in this system.

[CtrlAltDel]

Years . . . hmm, yeah, that would be bad to have out of order.  Also, there really needs to be a year zero.

I don't know. The current system without 0 has been in more or less common use for more than a thousand years, so if there's a need, it's a weak one.

Days of the month . . . oh my, that would be awful!

As you may know, since you mentioned Rome stuff earlier, the traditional Roman system of labeling dates with respect to the upcoming calends, nodes, and ides lasted a while, so depending on what we do here, it could be workable. (Incidentally, this system places the leap day on what we would call February 24.)

Building stories . . . actually, it might be fun to designate them with some other system.  105 W Indiana Ave, Giraffe Fl., Apt. 6 or something.

In Chicago and perhaps elsewhere, there is a number of buildings with vanity floor numbers, that is floor numbers higher than a count would indicate. Mostly it happens by creating a gap in the numbers at the top of the highest parking floor and the lowest occupied floor.

[pderocco]

Another idea would be to use the Holocene calendar, which adds 10,000 to the current year. Essentially every human event that can be pinned down to a precise date has taken place in a positive year in this system.

That's pretty close to the idea of using ten's complement numbering. We could keep AD the same, and count down before that as 2, 1, 0, 9999, 9998, 9997, etc., like a 4-digit odometer. Then, everything is a positive number, and all arithmetic would be modulo 10000.

[Quillz]

I've been thinking about how, assuming the shields were redesigned, 4di (and perhaps 4dus) can work fine. I'd use them specifically for auxiliaries that branch off another auxiliary. So something like 990 in New York would be 1290 (i.e. 1+290). This would make them pretty limited in practice, yet still be consistent if they were applied this way.

[kphoger]

I've been thinking about how, assuming the shields were redesigned, 4di (and perhaps 4dus) can work fine. I'd use them specifically for auxiliaries that branch off another auxiliary. So something like 990 in New York would be 1290 (i.e. 1+290). This would make them pretty limited in practice, yet still be consistent if they were applied this way.

1290 shouldn't take up any more space on the shield than H201, should it?

[Quillz]

I've been thinking about how, assuming the shields were redesigned, 4di (and perhaps 4dus) can work fine. I'd use them specifically for auxiliaries that branch off another auxiliary. So something like 990 in New York would be 1290 (i.e. 1+290). This would make them pretty limited in practice, yet still be consistent if they were applied this way.

1290 shouldn't take up any more space on the shield than H201, should it?

I think those need Series B to fit, unless you reduce the vertical height. Series C is preferable. 

[webny99]

One that is probably unpopular is that if you are the first car in line waiting to turn left and the light turns yellow, you should always (1) check for oncoming/other turning traffic, (2) prepare to go, and (3) do not stop, GO. If I am second in line, depending on how backed up the intersection is I will fully plan on going as well. A few times I've even gone when I'm third in line if the first car gets enough of a jump on the yellow.

[bugo]

I prefer driving on freeways to driving on 2 lane highways. I don't like having to slow down and speed up and stop and take off, I'd rather just put the cruise on and relax.

[Max Rockatansky]

I prefer single lane roads whether they be surfaced or not.  Single lane stuff seems to be where I get most of my thrills and challenging drives these days.  There doesn't seem to be much agreement with this preference in general in the mainstream road fan hobby.

[PColumbus73]

- Toll roads are fine

- There should be at least a one or two cash/card lanes for toll plazas, I would prefer to be able to pay the toll then and there and not wait for a bill and be charged for postage or 'administrative fees'

- Double-red (dolly) signals are great for single-lane protected left turns

- I-69 and I-73/74 as planned are wastes and ought to be smaller-scale projects

- FHWA should be able to override the I-69E/C/W numbering, Interstate numbers proposed by politicians should be treated as suggestions

[J N Winkler]

This one may or may not be contentious, but as long as I can retrieve the construction plans, including signing plans that include pattern-accurate sign panel detail and sign elevation sheets, I am not that invested in whether the project actually gets built.

[Max Rockatansky]

I dunno, a lot of the highways that never left the concept phase end up being more interesting.  The Golden Gate Freeway and Minaret Summit Highway (proposed I-70) come to mind in that line of thought. 

[Scott5114]

Interstate numbers proposed by politicians should be treated as suggestions

Unfortunately, messages from politicians are inherently white-background, not yellow.

[PColumbus73]

Interstate numbers proposed by politicians should be treated as suggestions

Unfortunately, messages from politicians are inherently white-background, not yellow.

True, but it's not great. I also wonder about a possible day when the Interstate system becomes so full of congressionally mandated interstate numbers that the system becomes unintelligible. It's one thing to have interstates that 'don't fit the grid', but make navigational sense, but it's another that every major highway in someone's congressional district is an interstate because their representative decreed it so.

Unpopular Opinion:

- Incomplete interchanges between Interstates or other freeways are fine, especially if volumes are scant and there's a nearby connection to facilitate the missing movements.

[GaryV]

I also wonder about a possible day when the Interstate system becomes so full of congressionally mandated interstate numbers that the system becomes unintelligible

What would make it unintelligible? I'm sure everyone who is reasonably competent can figure out where I-99 goes. Just as they could when it was still US-220.

[PColumbus73]

I also wonder about a possible day when the Interstate system becomes so full of congressionally mandated interstate numbers that the system becomes unintelligible

What would make it unintelligible? I'm sure everyone who is reasonably competent can figure out where I-99 goes. Just as they could when it was still US-220.

I'm probably not articulating it very well. I may be remembering it incorrectly, but I thought I read something about how Louisiana had to renumber their highway system because it became so unruly, either in terms of internal logs, or the public trying to use it.

The point about the I-69s and more recently the I-14 and I-27 proposals with their associated spurs (14N/S, 27E/W) is that they're entirely self-serving. The reason these spurs are being proposed is that the local representatives can't decide a route or don't want someone in their district to feel left out.

I feel like designating highway numbers, Interstate or otherwise, is an administrative process best left to the existing mechanisms. I know it's been discussed ad nauseam with I-99 and I-73/74 being pork projects, but I think bringing back suffixed routes against the established precedent against them is a new low.

Also, these unfunded mandates are pointless. It's a way for a Congressman to day they did something without actually doing anything. Congratulations Mississippi, you get I-69... you just got to build it. Good luck with the funding.

[vdeane]

True, but it's not great. I also wonder about a possible day when the Interstate system becomes so full of congressionally mandated interstate numbers that the system becomes unintelligible. It's one thing to have interstates that 'don't fit the grid', but make navigational sense, but it's another that every major highway in someone's congressional district is an interstate because their representative decreed it so.

Honestly, I'm thinking we're just about at the point where the interstate numbering system has become meaningless, just as happened to the US route system decades ago.

I'm probably not articulating it very well. I may be remembering it incorrectly, but I thought I read something about how Louisiana had to renumber their highway system because it became so unruly, either in terms of internal logs, or the public trying to use it.

The point about the I-69s and more recently the I-14 and I-27 proposals with their associated spurs (14N/S, 27E/W) is that they're entirely self-serving. The reason these spurs are being proposed is that the local representatives can't decide a route or don't want someone in their district to feel left out.

I feel like designating highway numbers, Interstate or otherwise, is an administrative process best left to the existing mechanisms. I know it's been discussed ad nauseam with I-99 and I-73/74 being pork projects, but I think bringing back suffixed routes against the established precedent against them is a new low.

Also, these unfunded mandates are pointless. It's a way for a Congressman to day they did something without actually doing anything. Congratulations Mississippi, you get I-69... you just got to build it. Good luck with the funding.

Not to mention pointless duplicates like I-42 and I-87, and the fragments of roads that will never be completed like I-74.

[CtrlAltDel]

Unpopular Opinion:

- Incomplete interchanges between Interstates or other freeways are fine, especially if volumes are scant and there's a nearby connection to facilitate the missing movements.

I don't know. I got skewered suggesting the opposite not too long ago.

[PColumbus73]

True, but it's not great. I also wonder about a possible day when the Interstate system becomes so full of congressionally mandated interstate numbers that the system becomes unintelligible. It's one thing to have interstates that 'don't fit the grid', but make navigational sense, but it's another that every major highway in someone's congressional district is an interstate because their representative decreed it so.

Honestly, I'm thinking we're just about at the point where the interstate numbering system has become meaningless, just as happened to the US route system decades ago.

I'm probably not articulating it very well. I may be remembering it incorrectly, but I thought I read something about how Louisiana had to renumber their highway system because it became so unruly, either in terms of internal logs, or the public trying to use it.

The point about the I-69s and more recently the I-14 and I-27 proposals with their associated spurs (14N/S, 27E/W) is that they're entirely self-serving. The reason these spurs are being proposed is that the local representatives can't decide a route or don't want someone in their district to feel left out.

I feel like designating highway numbers, Interstate or otherwise, is an administrative process best left to the existing mechanisms. I know it's been discussed ad nauseam with I-99 and I-73/74 being pork projects, but I think bringing back suffixed routes against the established precedent against them is a new low.

Also, these unfunded mandates are pointless. It's a way for a Congressman to day they did something without actually doing anything. Congratulations Mississippi, you get I-69... you just got to build it. Good luck with the funding.

Not to mention pointless duplicates like I-42 and I-87, and the fragments of roads that will never be completed like I-74.

On the first point, it seems so. Now that there is nothing left of the original system to build, the states can take their pick of the leftovers. The suffixed proposals give me particular heartburn, since they were phased out on the grounds that they would create confusion and leading myself back to the point that they are self-serving to the Congressman who wrote it so. North Carolina, for what it's worth, is making their interstate submissions (I-42 and 87) through AASHTO and the FHWA rather than their political connections.

I think the reasoning behind I-42 and 87 is partly 'if they (I-76/84/86/88) can do it, why can't we' not understanding that for the existing duplicates, there wasn't much of a choice. I-87(NC) might fall under the category of not having any other choice, being that the next unused odd number would be I-67. But still, if the reasoning is an aspiration for it to be combined with I-87(NY), then where is the cooperation from Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey? Also... what kind of commitments is Virginia making to build their portion of I-87, or will there be a 12 mile (or so) gap between I-64 and the state line? I-42 doesn't have that issue at all and I haven't heard of any plans, even aspirational ones, of connecting the two segments.

[vdeane]

I think the reasoning behind I-42 and 87 is partly 'if they (I-76/84/86/88) can do it, why can't we' not understanding that for the existing duplicates, there wasn't much of a choice. I-87(NC) might fall under the category of not having any other choice, being that the next unused odd number would be I-67. But still, if the reasoning is an aspiration for it to be combined with I-87(NY), then where is the cooperation from Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey? Also... what kind of commitments is Virginia making to build their portion of I-87, or will there be a 12 mile (or so) gap between I-64 and the state line? I-42 doesn't have that issue at all and I haven't heard of any plans, even aspirational ones, of connecting the two segments.

Unfortunately there is a lot of that mentality.  But I would argue that I-87, I-84, and I-86 didn't need to duplicate.  The Southway should have been an even 2di.  If I-82 were replaced with an odd 2di, western I-84 could have taken the I-82 number.  And western I-86 should be a 3di.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to solve I-76 or I-88, so they probably did need to duplicate there.

[Scott5114]

My understanding is that, the way the I-69 legislation is written, there really is no actual need for the suffixes; it just defines three corridors and refers to them as the west, central, and eastern corridors. It was TxDOT who looked at that and decided that the safest way to comply with the legislation was to call them I-69W, I-69C, and I-69E. But, rules as written, they could have done I-69, I-269, and I-469, or whatever.

TxDOT, of course, already had I-35E and I-35W on the books, so they probably see no potential for confusion.

[wanderer2575]

My understanding is that, the way the I-69 legislation is written, there really is no actual need for the suffixes; it just defines three corridors and refers to them as the west, central, and eastern corridors. It was TxDOT who looked at that and decided that the safest way to comply with the legislation was to call them I-69W, I-69C, and I-69E. But, rules as written, they could have done I-69, I-269, and I-469, or whatever.

TxDOT, of course, already had I-35E and I-35W on the books, so they probably see no potential for confusion.

Or they wanted to avoid a political fight over which corridor got designated as 69 and which ones got designated as children.  Same reason that 35E and 35W haven't been renumbered to 35 and x35.

[Scott5114]

Or they wanted to avoid a political fight over which corridor got designated as 69 and which ones got designated as children.  Same reason that 35E and 35W haven't been renumbered to 35 and x35.

I can't imagine Brownsville, McAllen, and Laredo have that much political pull, but I might be wrong.