For police, not wearing seat belts can be fatal mistake

[Beltway]

Besides, like I said, the sign message is self-contradictory.  If you are in the USA, you don't make a u-turn into the USA.

Just consider yourself to be in the frontier zone at that point– No man's land –having left the USA but not yet arrived at México. 

No, the border is a discrete line, there is no "no man's land".

A freeway should be built to freeway standards, not with grossly substandard features to "save money".  IOW, build a bridge and ramps there.

What is non-freeway about it?  What constitutes 'freeway standards' other than being free of cross traffic and stops?  A highway can be a freeway without conforming to Interstate standards, if that's what you're assuming 'freeway standards' to mean.

Slow down in left lane, enter decel lane, make U turn, enter accel lane, speed up, weave across two lanes one lane..... This is the correct procedure to get from WB I-20 to EB I-10–which is apparently 'freeway-standard'.  Add an option lane to my illustration, spread the median a bit, and flare the ramp from freeway to surface highway, and there's realistically no difference at all.

Oh please.  Your diagram has an intersection.  I-10/I-20 has auxiliary lanes at least 2,000 feet long, and a ramp that could handle about 40 mph traffic

[Beltway]

I snipped it because it's off-topic. You're arguing like a Repub-a-dub-dub.

Like I said, someone screwed up when they designed and posted that sign.

[kphoger]

Oh please.  Your diagram has an intersection.  I-10/I-20 has auxiliary lanes at least 2,000 feet long, and a ramp that could handle about 40 mph traffic

So if the median were bulged out enough to accommodate....what? 40 mph? 35 mph? and longer auxilliary lanes, then you'd be OK with a crossover on a freeway?  Geez, it was just an MSpaint drawing done to illustrate the point; I wasn't exactly measuring turning radii and lane lengths.  My point is that I-10/I-20 has what amounts to a crossover, and it's not there to serve an intersecting road.

[Kacie Jane]

I don't have a dog in this fight one way or the other, but I figured a map of Exit 3 on the Palisades Parkway might be relevant to the discussion at hand. http://goo.gl/maps/mLm1r

(Curiously, the SB->NB U-turn is missing from Google maps.)

[Beltway]

Oh please.  Your diagram has an intersection.  I-10/I-20 has auxiliary lanes at least 2,000 feet long, and a ramp that could handle about 40 mph traffic

So if the median were bulged out enough to accommodate....what? 40 mph? 35 mph? and longer auxilliary lanes, then you'd be OK with a crossover on a freeway?  Geez, it was just an MSpaint drawing done to illustrate the point; I wasn't exactly measuring turning radii and lane lengths.  My point is that I-10/I-20 has what amounts to a crossover, and it's not there to serve an intersecting road.

Wrong.  WB I-20 has a ramp to EB I-10, with a left exit and a left entrance.

[NE2]

Wrong.  WB I-10 has a ramp to EB I-10, with a left exit and a left entrance. That's the definition of a crossover.

[deathtopumpkins]

If you have to U-turn from I-10 westbound onto I-10 eastbound through the median in order to exit onto I-20, then that interchange meets the same design as kphoger posted, just with one of the U-turns replaced by a direct ramp.



Beyond the I-10/20 interchange and Palisades Parkway interchange already mentioned, there are numerous other examples of this design in the United States. Here are some that I've driven recently:

• It has since been closed off in the WB-EB direction, but traffic entering NH 16/US 4 at Exit 4 in Portsmouth, NH has a median u-turn from EB-WB
• While it is not a freeway to the east, I would consider this one to be a freeway to the west: The connector from I-295 to US 1 in Brunswich, ME. Mainline US 1 traffic actually has to use a median u-turn and then cross 2 lanes so as to not continue onto I-295.
• Perhaps an even more dangerous setup exists in Poughkeepsie, NY on the US 9 freeway. This one is remarkably hard to use due to the presence of both outside and inside ramps on each side of the median u-turns, and is the only notably substandard feature on the several-mile-long freeway.
• There are multiple examples of this on the Lake Ontario State Parkway: 1 2  While admittedly there is one stretch of the LOSP built with a few at-grade intersections, most of the road is a full freeway. The Robert Moses State Parkway (which would have been the western end of the LOSP had it been finished) also has one.
• The Taconic State Parkway also has a few built to access state park turnoffs, and, while it is not technically a freeway on the northern half, all major intersections are grade-separated, and almost all minor ones are just RIROs

As to the "U-turn to USA" sign, that's standard wording. Most border crossings have one of those. And they exist elsewhere too, like the "U-turn to Boston" on the MassPike (I-90), which is still located within the city of Boston.

How would you word it instead Beltway? "U-turn to the USA even though you haven't technically left it yet"?

[kphoger]

No, the border is a discrete line, there is no "no man's land".

Theoretically, yes; practically, no.  Take, for example, the border between Western Sahara and Mauritania.  There's a nice asphalt highway on both sides, heading north from Moroccan immigration and heading south from Mauritanian immigration.  However, in between, there is a 3.4-km stretch of this.  This widely known stretch of desert sand is maintained by neither country, and is commonly called No Man's Land.  Technically, the whole stretch lies within Western Sahara, but you might say the line here is a bit wide.  I would consider the whole stretch to be the frontier zone.  A driver heading south would have already filled out Moroccan exit paperwork, yet might very well decide to 'return to Western Sahara' if his car started getting stuck in the sand.  Obviously this example is not exactly the same as the California one, but I just wanted to explain what I meant in referring to the whole area as the frontier zone.  At that point in the California example, you're basically already committed to enter México, with no exits between you and the customs facility; from a practical standpoint, you're in México, even if you have not technically crossed over the arbitrary line.

[SidS1045]

the "U-turn to Boston" on the MassPike (I-90), which is still located within the city of Boston.

...but NOT on the Turnpike itself.  It's on an exit ramp (18-19-20) and is restricted to passenger cars with E-ZPass only.

[vdeane]

No, the border is a discrete line, there is no "no man's land".

Theoretically, yes; practically, no.  Take, for example, the border between Western Sahara and Mauritania.  There's a nice asphalt highway on both sides, heading north from Moroccan immigration and heading south from Mauritanian immigration.  However, in between, there is a 3.4-km stretch of this.  This widely known stretch of desert sand is maintained by neither country, and is commonly called No Man's Land.  Technically, the whole stretch lies within Western Sahara, but you might say the line here is a bit wide.  I would consider the whole stretch to be the frontier zone.  A driver heading south would have already filled out Moroccan exit paperwork, yet might very well decide to 'return to Western Sahara' if his car started getting stuck in the sand.  Obviously this example is not exactly the same as the California one, but I just wanted to explain what I meant in referring to the whole area as the frontier zone.  At that point in the California example, you're basically already committed to enter México, with no exits between you and the customs facility; from a practical standpoint, you're in México, even if you have not technically crossed over the arbitrary line.

And an example on this continent: US 11 at the Canadian border has nearly a whole mile between US and Canadian customs.  This isn't even a bridge; there's no reason for US customs to be 7/10 mile inland.  They just did it.  You can't drive US 11 all the way to the border without having to drive through customs.

A water example: Cornwall Island.  In order to leave the island, in either direction, you have to pass through customs, even though the island is technically in Canada, thanks to the dispute over arming customs officers.  The total distance between the plazas is nearly three miles long.  In order to access Cornwall Island from the US, one legally has to drive to the mainland, U turn at the traffic circle (oval), and head back, paying $6.50 in tolls for what would otherwise be a free trip.

[agentsteel53]

And an example on this continent: US 11 at the Canadian border has nearly a whole mile between US and Canadian customs.  This isn't even a bridge; there's no reason for US customs to be 7/10 mile inland.  They just did it.  You can't drive US 11 all the way to the border without having to drive through customs.

on the Alaska Highway, US customs are right across the border, but Canada customs are a good 20km down the road into Yukon.

[Dr Frankenstein]

And an example on this continent: US 11 at the Canadian border has nearly a whole mile between US and Canadian customs.  This isn't even a bridge; there's no reason for US customs to be 7/10 mile inland.  They just did it.  You can't drive US 11 all the way to the border without having to drive through customs.

Interestingly enough, the speed limits are metric over the entire stretch, using the signs defined in the 2003 MUTCD.

[vdeane]

And an example on this continent: US 11 at the Canadian border has nearly a whole mile between US and Canadian customs.  This isn't even a bridge; there's no reason for US customs to be 7/10 mile inland.  They just did it.  You can't drive US 11 all the way to the border without having to drive through customs.

on the Alaska Highway, US customs are right across the border, but Canada customs are a good 20km down the road into Yukon.

And there are numerous roads and driveways in between too.  Must be fun to live between customs stations.

[agentsteel53]

And there are numerous roads and driveways in between too.  Must be fun to live between customs stations.

it is reminiscent of how Latin American countries sometimes do customs and immigration. you check yourself out of one country, and into another, and in between there may be a lengthy border segment in which there is no enforcement of legal presence. 

Mexico, for example, has a ~30km "frontier zone" and most of the time (barring a random check at the border itself) you can drive into the country without anyone asking you any questions until an Aduana depot about 30km in.

[kphoger]

And there are numerous roads and driveways in between too.  Must be fun to live between customs stations.

it is reminiscent of how Latin American countries sometimes do customs and immigration. you check yourself out of one country, and into another, and in between there may be a lengthy border segment in which there is no enforcement of legal presence. 

Mexico, for example, has a ~30km "frontier zone" and most of the time (barring a random check at the border itself) you can drive into the country without anyone asking you any questions until an Aduana depot about 30km in.

The difference being that there is an actual immigration building (along with whole cities) at the border itself.

[agentsteel53]

The difference being that there is an actual immigration building (along with whole cities) at the border itself.

is this true for every legal Mexico entry point?  what about the river crossings across the Rio Grande which the US closed after 9/11, from which one cannot get to anywhere else in Mexico via road?

in the US, the only legal crossing without a port of entry I can think of is Hyder, AK, as the road doesn't go anywhere past it.

[J N Winkler]

Another border example:  the corredor fiscal on the west side of Nogales, between Mariposa (the US port of entry) and Nogales III (the Mexican port of entry).  Mariposa is right at the international boundary, while Nogales III is a considerable distance south of it.  It is technically Mexican territory in its entirety but in practice anyone traversing it in either direction is in "no man's land" since legal exit is impossible without clearing customs on one side or the other.

[kphoger]

The difference being that there is an actual immigration building (along with whole cities) at the border itself.

is this true for every legal Mexico entry point?  what about the river crossings across the Rio Grande which the US closed after 9/11, from which one cannot get to anywhere else in Mexico via road?

in the US, the only legal crossing without a port of entry I can think of is Hyder, AK, as the road doesn't go anywhere past it.

If you're referring to Santa Elena and Boquillas del Carmen, opposite Big Bend National Park, then I've crossed at both of them before 9/11.  They are actually not technically inaccessible by road; in fact, I believe Boquillas is served by a federal highway, albeit a gravel one.  Back in the late '90s, at least, there was even semi-regular bus service between Santa Elena and Manuel Benavides along desert roads which look like this.  I suppose it may have been possible to enter México via those towns without ever encountering a government official at the border itself.

[deathtopumpkins]

the "U-turn to Boston" on the MassPike (I-90), which is still located within the city of Boston.

...but NOT on the Turnpike itself.  It's on an exit ramp (18-19-20) and is restricted to passenger cars with E-ZPass only.

If you read the discussion before that post, you'll note that my point was that the wording of the sign said "U-turn to Boston" even though it's still in Boston. Whether this is part of an exit or not is irrelevant.

[Beltway]

Wrong.  WB I-10 has a ramp to EB I-10, with a left exit and a left entrance. That's the definition of a crossover.

It was not designed or built or needed to serve as a "crossover".

That ramp was designed and built to provide a connection from WB I-20 to EB I-10. The I-10/I-20 junction is a grade separated full directional 3-way freeway interchange, albeit an obsolete design that is over 40 years old (left-hand ramp terminals fell out of favor in highway engineering over 20 years ago).

[NE2]

Wrong.  WB I-10 has a ramp to EB I-10, with a left exit and a left entrance. That's the definition of a crossover.

It was not designed or built or needed to serve as a "crossover".

...the fuck? It's a crossover to make up for a missing movement.

[kphoger]

Wrong.  WB I-10 has a ramp to EB I-10, with a left exit and a left entrance. That's the definition of a crossover.

It was not designed or built or needed to serve as a "crossover".

...the fuck? It's a crossover to make up for a missing movement.

And, whether a driver heading east on I-10 started out on I-10 West or I-20 West is irrelevant in the way the crossover functions.  The route number doesn't matter, since they're duplexed by the time you get to the crossover:  what you have is a left exit, median U turn, left entrance, and quick lane change.

[Beltway]

WB I-10 has a ramp to EB I-10, with a left exit and a left entrance. That's the definition of a crossover.

It was not designed or built or needed to serve as a "crossover".

...the fuck? It's a crossover to make up for a missing movement.

It is a freeway-to-freeway -ramp- that is almost 1/2 mile long.  The median itself is over 1/4 mile wide at the widest.  There is a scale on the map, that's where I got the size from.

[Alps]

WB I-10 has a ramp to EB I-10, with a left exit and a left entrance. That's the definition of a crossover.

It was not designed or built or needed to serve as a "crossover".

...the fuck? It's a crossover to make up for a missing movement.

It is a freeway-to-freeway -ramp- that is almost 1/2 mile long.  The median itself is over 1/4 mile wide at the widest.  There is a scale on the map, that's where I got the size from.

Crossovers go from one direction to the other direction. It's a crossover. You're wrong. You're allowed to be wrong. In fact, you in particular are, because you seem to do it a lot.

[Alps]

No, the border is a discrete line, there is no "no man's land".

Theoretically, yes; practically, no.  Take, for example, the border between Western Sahara and Mauritania.  There's a nice asphalt highway on both sides, heading north from Moroccan immigration and heading south from Mauritanian immigration.  However, in between, there is a 3.4-km stretch of this.  This widely known stretch of desert sand is maintained by neither country, and is commonly called No Man's Land.

And if you look at the Map, the road is called that too