For police, not wearing seat belts can be fatal mistake

Started by cpzilliacus, October 14, 2012, 06:00:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

agentsteel53

yep, it's basically a U-turn ramp.  kinda interesting to be traveling on I-10 westbound and have the opportunity to switch to I-10 eastbound as a well-signed mainline exit.

if you are so inclined, you can make a U-turn from I-20 westbound to I-20 eastbound, only briefly touching I-10.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com


Kacie Jane

Quote from: Beltway on October 24, 2012, 05:38:01 PM
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.

It is a freeway-to-freeway crossover ramp that allows one to make a median U-turn from I-10 WB to I-10 EB.  Its dimensions don't change that fact, they only make the U-turn maneuver safer than the one on the Palisades Parkway.

Brandon

Quote from: Kacie Jane on October 24, 2012, 07:57:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 24, 2012, 05:38:01 PM
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.

It is a freeway-to-freeway crossover ramp that allows one to make a median U-turn from I-10 WB to I-10 EB.  Its dimensions don't change that fact, they only make the U-turn maneuver safer than the one on the Palisades Parkway.

And a lot safer than the former U-Turn ramp at I-55 and IL-129 (Exit 238) in Braidwood.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton, "Game of Thrones"

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg, "Monty Python's Life of Brian"

Beltway

Quote from: Steve on October 24, 2012, 06:53:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 24, 2012, 05:38:01 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2012, 03:45:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 24, 2012, 02:45:56 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2012, 06:33:36 AM
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.

I worked in roadway final design for 5 years back in the 1980s, on secondary, primary, freeway, and Interstate highway projects (and I am -not- claiming to be an "expert" in the field). 

Even then I would have called that a ramp, albeit a least-expensive (yeah, I'll say it, "cheap" ) way to connect WB I-20 to EB I-10, and obsolete even then in the 1980s for current Interstate highway standards, although in the mid-1960s when designed it might have been an acceptable design, for the era as well as for the traffic volumes of probably no more than about 5,000 AADT on the mainlines.  Even today there is probably very little traffic between I-20 and easterly I-10, given the rural nature of the area, and the acute angle of that "wye" , and the surface highways available that provide shorter service for the local traffic that would use that "wye" .

Go ahead and call it what you want; crossover, crossover-ramp, ramp, I don't care.

To move this issue forward, is Texas planning on modernizing this interchange?  There is plenty of existing right-of-way available for a modern semi-directional interchange, i.e. with no left-hand ramp terminals.  These highways today probably carry over 25,000 AADT with over 25% large trucks.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert  Coté, 2002)

agentsteel53

Quote from: Beltway on October 25, 2012, 03:49:30 PM
To move this issue forward, is Texas planning on modernizing this interchange?  There is plenty of existing right-of-way available for a modern semi-directional interchange, i.e. with no left-hand ramp terminals.  These highways today probably carry over 25,000 AADT with over 25% large trucks.

is it needed?  how much of that AADT actually makes the sharp turn from a westbound road to an eastbound?  given the destination of the traffic, it is probably most advantageous to take a north-south cutoff from one to the other.  TX-17 comes to mind as being useful for that purpose.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Beltway

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 25, 2012, 06:05:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 25, 2012, 03:49:30 PM
To move this issue forward, is Texas planning on modernizing this interchange?  There is plenty of existing right-of-way available for a modern semi-directional interchange, i.e. with no left-hand ramp terminals.  These highways today probably carry over 25,000 AADT with over 25% large trucks.

is it needed?  how much of that AADT actually makes the sharp turn from a westbound road to an eastbound?  given the destination of the traffic, it is probably most advantageous to take a north-south cutoff from one to the other.  TX-17 comes to mind as being useful for that purpose.

That was one of my points, that there is probably very little traffic between I-20 and easterly I-10.  The issue would be the operational problems with the left exit and the left entrance, is it worth perhaps $10 million to provide a ramp with a right exit and a right entrance?

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert  Coté, 2002)

kphoger

Quote from: Beltway on October 25, 2012, 08:53:59 PM
is it worth perhaps $10 million to provide a ramp with a right exit and a right entrance?

Probably not, which is precisely why I don't have a problem with having some open turnarounds on freeways.

He Is Already Here! Let's Go, Flamingo!
Dost thou understand the graveness of the circumstances?
Deut 23:13
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: PKDIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 01:20:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 25, 2012, 08:53:59 PM
is it worth perhaps $10 million to provide a ramp with a right exit and a right entrance?

Probably not, which is precisely why I don't have a problem with having some open turnarounds on freeways.

I must disagree. 

Crossovers are inherently hazardous, because they require deceleration on the fast shoulder to use them, and then acceleration (again, on the fast shoulder).

I have seen more than a few wrecks that happened because a "regular" motorist used a crossover to execute a "U" Turn.

Drivers should make the "U" turn at the next interchange.  If the demand justifies it, then a "U" type flyover ramp should be built to allow the movement to be made safely.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

kphoger

#158
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 26, 2012, 02:44:19 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 01:20:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 25, 2012, 08:53:59 PM
is it worth perhaps $10 million to provide a ramp with a right exit and a right entrance?

Probably not, which is precisely why I don't have a problem with having some open turnarounds on freeways.

I must disagree. 

Crossovers are inherently hazardous, because they require deceleration on the fast shoulder to use them, and then acceleration (again, on the fast shoulder).

I have seen more than a few wrecks that happened because a "regular" motorist used a crossover to execute a "U" Turn.

Drivers should make the "U" turn at the next interchange.  If the demand justifies it, then a "U" type flyover ramp should be built to allow the movement to be made safely.

So you'd say the crossover at I-10/I-20 is insufficient and should be removed in favor of a flyover, similar to I-24/I-57 in Illinois (realizing, of course, that the two interchanges are not exactly the same)?

[link fixed]

He Is Already Here! Let's Go, Flamingo!
Dost thou understand the graveness of the circumstances?
Deut 23:13
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: PKDIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Beltway

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 26, 2012, 02:44:19 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 01:20:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 25, 2012, 08:53:59 PM
is it worth perhaps $10 million to provide a ramp with a right exit and a right entrance?

Probably not, which is precisely why I don't have a problem with having some open turnarounds on freeways.

I must disagree. 

Crossovers are inherently hazardous, because they require deceleration on the fast shoulder to use them, and then acceleration (again, on the fast shoulder).

I have seen more than a few wrecks that happened because a "regular" motorist used a crossover to execute a "U" Turn.

Drivers should make the "U" turn at the next interchange.  If the demand justifies it, then a "U" type flyover ramp should be built to allow the movement to be made safely.

I suppose it would depend on what kind of a 'freeway' we are talking about, as some parkways have fairly low design speeds.

Certainly anything built to Interstate standards in the U.S., it would be hazardous to have a public-use crossover.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert  Coté, 2002)

Beltway

Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 04:52:41 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 26, 2012, 02:44:19 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 01:20:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 25, 2012, 08:53:59 PM
is it worth perhaps $10 million to provide a ramp with a right exit and a right entrance?

Probably not, which is precisely why I don't have a problem with having some open turnarounds on freeways.

I must disagree. 

Crossovers are inherently hazardous, because they require deceleration on the fast shoulder to use them, and then acceleration (again, on the fast shoulder).

I have seen more than a few wrecks that happened because a "regular" motorist used a crossover to execute a "U" Turn.

Drivers should make the "U" turn at the next interchange.  If the demand justifies it, then a "U" type flyover ramp should be built to allow the movement to be made safely.

So you'd say the crossover at I-10/I-20 is insufficient and should be removed in favor of a flyover, similar to I-24/I-57 in Illinois (realizing, of course, that the two interchanges are not exactly the same)?

No, we are not at all accepting your "argument by exception" here.  As pointed out, I-10/I-20 has auxiliary lanes 1/2 mile long, and yes, it should be replaced.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert  Coté, 2002)

kphoger

Quote from: Beltway on October 26, 2012, 05:00:53 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 04:52:41 PM
So you'd say the crossover at I-10/I-20 is insufficient and should be removed in favor of a flyover, similar to I-24/I-57 in Illinois (realizing, of course, that the two interchanges are not exactly the same)?
No . . . and yes . . .

Gotcha.  ;-)

He Is Already Here! Let's Go, Flamingo!
Dost thou understand the graveness of the circumstances?
Deut 23:13
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: PKDIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

bugo

This discussion about I-10/20 should really be split off to another topic.

As for the ramp in question: I don't have a problem with it.  I would guess traffic counts are fairly low on the ramp.

What's the roadway that parallels the ramp?  Is it an older ramp, or a remnant of when US 80/290 met here?

Beltway

Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 05:03:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 26, 2012, 05:00:53 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 04:52:41 PM
So you'd say the crossover at I-10/I-20 is insufficient and should be removed in favor of a flyover, similar to I-24/I-57 in Illinois (realizing, of course, that the two interchanges are not exactly the same)?
No . . . and yes . . .

Gotcha.  ;-)

Creative snipping and use of the ellipsis (the ... ) is often a dishonest dialectic tactic.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert  Coté, 2002)

Alps

Quote from: Beltway on October 26, 2012, 05:31:01 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 05:03:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 26, 2012, 05:00:53 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 04:52:41 PM
So you'd say the crossover at I-10/I-20 is insufficient and should be removed in favor of a flyover, similar to I-24/I-57 in Illinois (realizing, of course, that the two interchanges are not exactly the same)?
No . . . and yes . . .

Gotcha.  ;-)

Creative snipping and use of the ellipsis (the ... ) is often a dishonest dialectic tactic.
Use of "is often" is often a dishonest dialectic tactic.

Beltway

#165
Quote from: Steve on October 26, 2012, 06:02:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 26, 2012, 05:31:01 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 05:03:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 26, 2012, 05:00:53 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 04:52:41 PM
So you'd say the crossover at I-10/I-20 is insufficient and should be removed in favor of a flyover, similar to I-24/I-57 in Illinois (realizing, of course, that the two interchanges are not exactly the same)?
No . . . and yes . . .

Gotcha.  ;-)

Creative snipping and use of the ellipsis (the ... ) is often a dishonest dialectic tactic.
Use of "is often" is often a dishonest dialectic tactic.

It was nicer than how I really think about it --

Creative snipping and use of the ellipsis (the '...' ) IS a dishonest debating tactic.

Would you like it if I edited your post?

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert  Coté, 2002)

NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Beltway

Quote from: NE2 on October 27, 2012, 01:11:12 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 12:59:57 AM
Would you like it if I fucked your goats?

The moderators need to step in and end the editing of other people's material.

Or is this group just m.t.r.lite?
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert  Coté, 2002)

InterstateNG

I'm surprised the smartest guy in the room has such thin skin.
I demand an apology.

Alps

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 01:30:28 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 27, 2012, 01:11:12 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 12:59:57 AM
Would you like it if I fucked your goats?

The moderators need to step in and end the editing of other people's material.

Or is this group just m.t.r.lite?
No one's editing anyone else's material.

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 01:30:28 AM
I married John Lansford as soon as it became legal in DC
See?

Alps

Quote from: InterstateNG on October 27, 2012, 01:42:20 AM
I'm surprised the smartest guy in the room has such thin skin.
Says the guy who complains the moderators aren't doing enough. Seriously... the reason we have mods on this forum is to prevent it from spiralling downhill. It's not our intent to censor everything and keep everything in line. A lot of us know each other, we banter, we muck around. We try to walk the line between scaring newbies away and pissing off those who believe in the First Amendment.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 04:52:41 PM
So you'd say the crossover at I-10/I-20 is insufficient and should be removed in favor of a flyover, similar to I-24/I-57 in Illinois (realizing, of course, that the two interchanges are not exactly the same)?

[link fixed]

I am not personally familiar with either location, though I like the "U-Turn" flyover linked above, for it removes the danger associated with "traditional" crossovers.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Beltway

Quote from: Steve on October 27, 2012, 02:05:06 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 01:30:28 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 27, 2012, 01:11:12 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 12:59:57 AM
Would you like it if I fucked your goats?

The moderators need to step in and end the editing of other people's material.

Or is this group just m.t.r.lite?
No one's editing anyone else's material.

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 01:30:28 AM
I married John Lansford as soon as it became legal in DC
See?

You just edited my post.  You are a moderator here, correct? 

If so, you are helping make this group like another m.t.r, which by the way is basically dead because of a range of disfunctional behaviors over a long period of time.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert  Coté, 2002)

Brandon

This post modification stuff isn't really good for the group, IMHO.  Granted, we have some fights here, it's really silly and don't help anyone or anything.

I can do it as well:

Quote from: Steve on October 27, 2012, 02:05:06 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 01:30:28 AM
I married John Lansford as soon as it became legal in DC
See how I got fucked by a goat.

Rather easy, yet rather juvenile.  That said, it isn't for the mods to do, but rather for the individuals to act like the mature adults they are supposed to be.  The only thing I would ask of the mods, and I've seen it from time to time, is a chastising of those who continue to act like asses here.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton, "Game of Thrones"

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg, "Monty Python's Life of Brian"

kphoger

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 27, 2012, 03:55:45 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 26, 2012, 04:52:41 PM
So you'd say the crossover at I-10/I-20 is insufficient and should be removed in favor of a flyover, similar to I-24/I-57 in Illinois (realizing, of course, that the two interchanges are not exactly the same)?

[link fixed]

I am not personally familiar with either location, though I like the "U-Turn" flyover linked above, for it removes the danger associated with "traditional" crossovers.

The flyover at that location (in Illinois) is so rarely used, I tend to think it's overkill; in fact, during snow storms, it's barely passable because nobody uses it.  The only reason I can think of that a vehicle couldn't just go through Goreville would be clearance issues for a large truck, in which case I'm sure it could just turn around at the IL-148 junction.  Just like the Texas example, though, it's a little-used movement.

Quote from: Beltway on October 27, 2012, 12:59:57 AM
Creative snipping and use of the ellipsis (the '...' ) IS a dishonest debating tactic.

What I was getting at by my snarky snippity is that you seem to maintain both that the Texas example is sufficient for a freeway and also that it is substandard for a freeway.  Also, I keep saying that crossovers are fine assuming sufficient accel/decel lanes, yet your main defense in saying the Texas example is a different beast is that it has sufficient accel/decel lanes.

Quote from: Beltway on October 26, 2012, 04:58:20 PM
I suppose it would depend on what kind of a 'freeway' we are talking about, as some parkways have fairly low design speeds.

Certainly anything built to Interstate standards in the U.S., it would be hazardous to have a public-use crossover.

I think this is the real issue.  Not being an Interstate doesn't mean a road isn't a freeway.  In fact, not all Interstates were built to Interstate standards.  Freeway standards in other countries are different from our own, but that doesn't mean the roads there aren't freeways.

What I've been trying to drive home is the fact that crossovers do exist on freeways, and that many of them function just fine–not as well as a flyover, perhaps, but just fine for the price tag.

He Is Already Here! Let's Go, Flamingo!
Dost thou understand the graveness of the circumstances?
Deut 23:13
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: PKDIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.



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.