|
Ron Jeremy posted:Sorry if this is addressed elsewhere: It goes way back to 1972. Route 11 was under construction, but eventually funding ran dry. Another $56 million was needed to finish it. As time went on, that number began to climb. Today, it would cost $1 billion to finish Route 11 in a much smaller, lower-cost footprint. As the state doesn't have nearly that much money to put toward new roads, when maintenance funds are insufficient for the roads we have, the project is effectively tabled. The Commissioner recently said, "When all the other unfunded projects of taken care of, then we'll think about Route 11." The former Secretary of Transportation (for the whole country) and George Bush tried to push for its completion a few years back. They worked out a nice, safe route, and got a final EIS ready, so money is pretty much the only obstacle. Of course, that doesn't solve the real problem, which is cash. Unless someone comes in with a check for a billion dollars, completing Route 11 isn't going to happen. Edit: Logically, the whole unfinished freeway thing leads to massive congestion along Routes 82 and 85, which handle the traffic that should be on a freeway. Their intersection, at Salem Four Corners, is an ongoing project for the last ten years. The way things are currently going, we're going to get a pretty weird-looking roundabout with curvaceous approaches. Personally, I preferred the straight-approach design, but there's some political stuff and inter-office bickering going on. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Jun 2, 2010 |
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
 Click here for the full 1059x642 image. This is on the campus I work at. The two red dealies are my feeble attempt at stop signs. When do private properties have to be up to federal standards again? Or at least the signs? There are some other areas that have some poor signs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 01:57
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:
According to the MUTCD: Standard: 01 Traffic control devices shall be defined as all signs, signals, markings, and other devices used to regulate, warn, or guide traffic, placed on, over, or adjacent to a street, highway, pedestrian facility, bikeway, or private road open to public travel (see definition in Section 1A.13) by authority of a public agency or official having jurisdiction, or, in the case of a private road, by authority of the private owner or private official having jurisdiction. ... 23 Except as provided in Paragraph 24, when a non-compliant traffic control device is being replaced or refurbished because it is damaged, missing, or no longer serviceable for any reason, it shall be replaced with a compliant device. Option: 24 A damaged, missing, or otherwise non-serviceable device that is non-compliant may be replaced in kind if engineering judgment indicates that: 1. One compliant device in the midst of a series of adjacent non-compliant devices would be confusing to road users; and/or 2. The schedule for replacement of the whole series of non-compliant devices will result in achieving timely compliance with the MUTCD. So basically, they should be liable for any accidents as of now. They can build an argument that the signs haven't lived out their useful service life yet. But if they cause an accident, it's easy to retort with, "of course they have!" http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/intro/intro.htm lists these things and the compliance dates for the changes added in the new MUTCD.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 03:05
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:
I second this, even though I think you did address this earlier. I drove on Route 11 today, so it was on my mind also. It was also raining very heavily in parts of Connecticut today. This made me wonder, will we ever get pavement markings that are visible in the rain? When there is a heavy rain, it is sometimes close to impossible to see the lines on the road, which makes driving a little precarious. I lived in California for a little while, and the raised markings that they have worked wonders for visibility in the rain. I know that these are not a good idea for Connecticut because of snow plowing, but is there something that would work for us here? edit: sorry for the Route 11 reference, I neglected to jump to the next page porkfriedrice fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Jun 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 07:23
|
|
|
porkfriedrice posted:I second this, even though I think you did address this earlier. I drove on Route 11 today, so it was on my mind also. It's a continuous search. Our current (epoxy) markings are much better than the painted markings most of the country uses in that respect. We can't use raised pavement markers. I saw some sunken markers in New Hampshire, but I'm not sure if that's SOP. Another marking type we're experimenting with is a raised plastic strip, black on both sides and white in the middle. That's supposed to look pretty good in the rain. Of course, yesterday, the roads were flooded within 30 seconds. I couldn't see out the windscreen, let alone the road surface. That was nasty, and awesome 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 12:31
|
|
|
Wow great thread! Surprised I hadn't caught it before as this is quite interesting to me. As a fellow engineer (although of a much different trade) I often think to myself as I'm driving around the DC Metro area "Dear god what idiot thought this would be a good idea?" and it turns out I was right most of them were idiots way back when. I submit to you the most idiotic part of the DC area in my opinion. http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Glen+Oaks+Ln,+Columbia,+Howard,+Maryland+21046&ll=38.877837,-76.979184&spn=0.012595,0.027595&z=15 I'd like to ask how you would treat this if you were to redesign it to be built and completed within the next 6-7 years. To add context and background, this is the south eastern side of DC. If you're traveling north east on 395 and you'd like to get into Maryland you have two options. You can either stay on 395 north until you reach New York Ave/50 and travel east out of DC on 50. This is slow and painful due to the fact that as soon as you're off of 395 it's all stop lights. You can also try and hop from 395 over to 295 north but the only way to do so is by traveling over the Penssylvania Ave bridge then waiting at a stop light at the end of the bridge to turn left onto 295 north. It's a nightmare, any day I must travel into southern DC or northeast Virginia to see a client I go in early and leave early and I still sit in 2.5 hours of traffic for a 20 mile venture.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 19:44
|
|
|
reborn posted:Wow great thread! Surprised I hadn't caught it before as this is quite interesting to me. As a fellow engineer (although of a much different trade) I often think to myself as I'm driving around the DC Metro area "Dear god what idiot thought this would be a good idea?" and it turns out I was right most of them were idiots way back when. The answer looks pretty simple: extend the Southeast Freeway across the river via a new bride or tunnel parallel to the existing railroad bridge. Connect to 295 with two ramps: 395 NE --> 295 NE, 295 SW --> 395 SW. It looks, judging by the aerial, that this was already planned and canceled. Could be an environmental issue. If you want to ease the traffic, though, that's definitely the way to go.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 21:51
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I'm pretty sure those are satirical. Check out the rest: Cichlidae posted:It's a continuous search. Our current (epoxy) markings are much better than the painted markings most of the country uses in that respect. We can't use raised pavement markers. I saw some sunken markers in New Hampshire, but I'm not sure if that's SOP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 04:53
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:What does it tell you about our state government that without seeing those, I took it seriously? I'm thinking of writing an editorial for the Courant in which I advise replacing the Busway with a monorail. I'm sure someone would take it seriously. quote:Don't we have sunken pavement markings everywhere? The 6" lane lines on freeways are usually embedded plastic, unless we're paving in the Winter or using a thin overlay like Novachip. All the other stripes are epoxy, just laid down on top. We did use sunken markings as an experiment on the Putnam Bridge, and those have held up pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 17:18
|
|
|
Massachusetts has tons of roads with awful pavement markings. I need those stripes because I have no depth perception and driving at night can be just awful sometimes. Bad markings cut nighttime sight distances to a minimum, which makes seeing your route ahead very difficult. Connecticut's always had great pavement markings, but not all of the roads have the newest highly reflective stuff. They at least seem to reapply them more than they do in Massachusetts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 21:55
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I'm thinking of writing an editorial for the Courant in which I advise replacing the Busway with a monorail. I'm sure someone would take it seriously. I completely support this. The Connecticut Monorail Project needs to be revived. Even if it's for satirical purposes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 22:28
|
|
|
Speaking of rail boondoggles... Who here will understand what I mean when I say "Tommy's Trolleys"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 22:58
|
|
|
Lobstaman posted:I completely support this. The Connecticut Monorail Project needs to be revived. Even if it's for satirical purposes. How about this: It's time to breathe some new life into the Connecticut River Monorail project. While the proposal serves as an attractive and innovative boon for Hartford and East Hartford, the monorail as designed would do little to alleviate the traffic nightmare that plagues our capitol. Meanwhile, we have the Busway, which is constantly beset by hefty delays and wallet-emptying cost overruns. Well, the solution seems obvious! By building a monorail instead of the Busway, we could ferry so many more passengers between Hartford and New Britain, and look fabulous while doing it! The money is already there. How much harder could it be to build a pair of rails (on a railroad bed, no less) than to pave it? It would be the starting point for a citywide monorail network, and take traffic off I-84 at the same time. Let's get started, tell the DOT what they need to do, and get our monorail on the fast track to operation! Down with buses!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Let's get started, tell the DOT what they need to do, and get our monorail on the fast track to operation! Down with buses! Hopefully I am not going way off topic, but I was wondering about your opinion. I can see the point that the busway does allow the freedom for the buses to leave the dedicated right of way and possibly bring riders more directly to their destinations. I think that the smarter move though is to try to make improvements to the existing rail line. With the busway, only the areas in between would be serviced, which really isn't that much. Now if there was a rail link, then the area served could be extended, all the way to Waterbury, possibly, but I think most importantly Bristol. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Bristol the largest city in the state without an interstate running through it? Anyway, so I was wondering, does it ever bother you to work on projects you don't agree with? Obviously it's your job and you can't pick and choose what you are given, but are the experts like you listened to? Or is it always the politicians that are listened to first, engineers second? Because this whole busway smells of politics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 02:51
|
|
|
porkfriedrice posted:Not sure how serious you were here, but it does say a lot when it is coming from a road man. And I'm pretty sure I've read on this thread that you aren't exactly a fan of the busway. Keep in mind it's purely satire! As many problems as the Busway has, a monorail would be much worse. If I publish that, it would be so rewarding to find one of the project engineers in an uproar the next day, or better yet, spark an all-out flamewar on the editorial page. quote:Hopefully I am not going way off topic, but I was wondering about your opinion. I can see the point that the busway does allow the freedom for the buses to leave the dedicated right of way and possibly bring riders more directly to their destinations. I think that the smarter move though is to try to make improvements to the existing rail line. With the busway, only the areas in between would be serviced, which really isn't that much. Now if there was a rail link, then the area served could be extended, all the way to Waterbury, possibly, but I think most importantly Bristol. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Bristol the largest city in the state without an interstate running through it? I've made a few posts in the last few pages mentioning all of the various shortcomings of the Busway. Here a few brief points off the top of my head: - It's being designed in small parts by a half dozen consultants - Nobody knows exactly where the project is going - It's been in final design for 10 years and we're still arguing over basic geometrics - Amtrak's going to rip it up to triple-track their line in a few years anyway - Nobody's ever built a busway along an active rail right-of-way before, and for good reason - It won't significantly reduce congestion on I-84, which was the initial point - There is very little / no support for it from the towns themselves - Costs have ballooned from $50M to >$750M; we're spending a million a month just designing it - Hartford and Amtrak are using the project as an excuse to milk the state for hundreds of millions - The ridership projections and initial cost estimates were based on unrealistic assumptions - The same company that proposed the Busway to begin with is the one who secured its design/build contract The rail link from Hartford to Waterbury is a lower priority than the New Haven - Hartford - Springfield high-speed line, but it would still be better than the Busway. What would really be great is a rail line between downtown Hartford and the airport, with stops at the various campuses in northern Hartford and some of the poorer neighborhoods in that area. That is some serious bang for your buck. As to Bristol, it's the largest city without freeway access, let alone an Interstate. Luckily, we're nearly done extending Route 72 as a four-lane boulevard, so that'll help out, but they really could have used the planned 72 freeway between Route 8 and I-84. quote:Anyway, so I was wondering, does it ever bother you to work on projects you don't agree with? Obviously it's your job and you can't pick and choose what you are given, but are the experts like you listened to? Or is it always the politicians that are listened to first, engineers second? Because this whole busway smells of politics. It's absolutely a political issue, and it bothers me to no end that I spend nearly all of my time working on what I see as a dead-end project. I used to get lots of little projects all around the state, which were a lot of fun, since I got to learn all about my districts. Now, though, it's the same 4 towns over and over. If I decided to quit working for the state and go work for a consultant, I'd cite that as my reason for leaving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 03:14
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Keep in mind it's purely satire! As many problems as the Busway has, a monorail would be much worse. If I publish that, it would be so rewarding to find one of the project engineers in an uproar the next day, or better yet, spark an all-out flamewar on the editorial page. Oh no, I knew that the monorail thing was satire. I was just making sure that I was correct when I was talking about your view on the busway project. Didn't want to get my facts wrong. Cichlidae posted:The rail link from Hartford to Waterbury is a lower priority than the New Haven - Hartford - Springfield high-speed line, but it would still be better than the Busway. What would really be great is a rail line between downtown Hartford and the airport, with stops at the various campuses in northern Hartford and some of the poorer neighborhoods in that area. That is some serious bang for your buck. I know that the state has put way more of a priority on many, many other things. I just wanted to give the alternative to the busway. And trust me, I would much rather see a lot of other things get done than this, namely Route 11, but I know that project will probably never get done, either. Oh well. Thanks for answering all of our questions, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 03:36
|
|
|
porkfriedrice posted:Thanks for answering all of our questions, by the way. Hey, if I didn't want to answer questions, I wouldn't have made the thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 03:57
|
|
|
Boston / Storrs / New London / New York City rail link. Make that happen. Or better yet... Boston / Storrs / New London / New York City BUSWAY. Connect to the Silver Line stub tunnel on Atlantic Ave. in Boston and make a beeline for UCONN. Do it underground so they buses will have to go 1/2 the speed they would in mixed traffic and drive along that horrible pavement the T used for the SL (it's already failing). The sad thing is, it would probably attract more riders than the one CT is trying to build*. And somehow cost less. * Not including lost tourists who think they're on their way from Logan to Faneuil Hall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 04:45
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:The 6" lane lines on freeways are usually embedded plastic, unless we're paving in the Winter or using a thin overlay like Novachip. All the other stripes are epoxy, just laid down on top. We did use sunken markings as an experiment on the Putnam Bridge, and those have held up pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 05:19
|
|
|
Crackpipe posted:Boston / Storrs / New London / New York City rail link. Isn't this what Acela (sp?) is?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 15:11
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:Isn't this what Acela (sp?) is? Ah yes, the Acela, the high speed train so fast it only takes 30 minutes less than a normal Amtrak ride! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 16:17
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:Isn't this what Acela (sp?) is? Acela doesn't go through Storrs. No train does, as a matter of fact! BklynBruzer posted:Ah yes, the Acela, the high speed train so fast it only takes 30 minutes less than a normal Amtrak ride! That's what you get when you run new trains on a 150-year-old track with grade crossings. True high-speed rail should be on its own right of way, separate from freight and slow passenger trains. We just can't afford that in New England.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 17:10
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Acela doesn't go through Storrs. No train does, as a matter of fact! I was surprised to find out the Vermonter (née Montrealer) used to stop in Willimantic for a time. Did they tell them to wait for their train on the pile of needles along the track?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 20:05
|
|
|
Crackpipe posted:I was surprised to find out the Vermonter (née Montrealer) used to stop in Willimantic for a time. No kidding. But hey, they've got the Frog Bridge now! You hear that, potential tourists? It's giant frogs on spools of thread! No, come back! Don't give all your soda and candy money to Norwiiiiiccchhhh! Ah, that's sort of an inside joke. Allow me to share. Around Norwich, Route 2 is a surface street in the middle of downtown. Tons of signals, slow, narrow. Route 2A is a freeway that skirts the city and rejoins 2 on the other side near the casinos. At one point, the DOT was considering swapping the route designations, sending through traffic along the freeway instead of through red-light hell. Norwich got pretty angry. The mayor said, "But we need that traffic! Those people on the way to the casinos, they stop in Norwich and buy soda and candy bars!" The proposal to swap the numbers didn't go through.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 22:41
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:The rail link from Hartford to Waterbury is a lower priority than the New Haven - Hartford - Springfield high-speed line, but it would still be better than the Busway. What would really be great is a rail line between downtown Hartford and the airport, with stops at the various campuses in northern Hartford and some of the poorer neighborhoods in that area. That is some serious bang for your buck. They have a website to fix it though! It's even been updated in 2010. http://waterbury-newcanaanrail.org/ Edit: This one annoys me since I would use the heck out of this train to get to NYC in 2 hours from a station that's a 2 minute drive. But the schedule means that missing your train is deadly, and the last train back is something silly like 9:30 PM. smackfu fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Jun 4, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 23:07
|
|
|
Anything to get the monorail back in the Courant is fine with me Why is 91 south getting repaved? It was paved from rumble strip to rumble strip last year from exits 27 to 23 last year, now it's getting milled and paved from 26 to 20. Will it be shoulder to shoulder this time?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 01:47
|
|
|
I have noticed these new signs that have been installed on the Arrigoni Bridge over the Connecticut River. I only go to Middletown about five times a year, so to me anyway, it seems like a recent addition. They seem like they will be electronic arrows of some sort. What's up with these? (Sorry for the quality, cell phone pic.) Also, to anyone who'd like to answer actually, how the heck do I post maps and imagery from Google maps to this forum? I have tried using the link that they provide, but it won't post the image here. I think I have to upload the map to an image hosting site first, but when I put the URL into waffleimages or photobucket etc it says image upload failed. How are you guys doing it? Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 01:55
|
|
|
Lobstaman posted:Anything to get the monorail back in the Courant is fine with me Last Fall's project was mine. My coworker had another one farther south, in Cromwell and Middletown. There shouldn't be any overlap. There is still some minor work ongoing on my project, as we couldn't put on pavement markings last year (it was too cold), so they'll have some lane closures to handle that. porkfriedrice posted:I have noticed these new signs that have been installed on the Arrigoni Bridge over the Connecticut River. I only go to Middletown about five times a year, so to me anyway, it seems like a recent addition. They seem like they will be electronic arrows of some sort. What's up with these? (Sorry for the quality, cell phone pic.) I'll check it out Monday. I have a project to install new lighting on the bridge, but I haven't seen any plans yet. Could be overhead lane use signs, too, to make the middle two lanes reversible. I think I would have heard about that, though. How many of them are there? As to posting images from map websites, you'll have to take a screencap and host it somewhere like tinypic or waffleimages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 02:27
|
|
|
cichlidae posted:I'll check it out Monday. I have a project to install new lighting on the bridge, but I haven't seen any plans yet. Could be overhead lane use signs, too, to make the middle two lanes reversible. I think I would have heard about that, though. How many of them are there? edit: Typos and grammar porkfriedrice fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Jun 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 02:40
|
|
|
porkfriedrice posted:There actually a lot of them. Not sure of the bridge terminology, but there was a set on each side of the overhead bars at the ends of the arches. So I think it was three sets in each direction, one at each end and one in the middle. Two of the three sets had three signs, the other, which I posted, had two. Do you think drivers will freak out of it is actually for reversing lanes? How would this be implemented? I doubt it's reversible lanes, since I think I would have heard about it. You never know, though. Asylum Street in Hartford's set up for reversible lanes with similar signs, but it hasn't been used in ages. The Arrigoni could really use it, frankly, since it has a very directional distribution of traffic in the peak hours. Unless there are double white stripes down now, though, it can't be put into operation. Cichlidae fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Jun 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 03:30
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Norwich got pretty angry. The mayor said, "But we need that traffic! Those people on the way to the casinos, they stop in Norwich and buy soda and candy bars!" The proposal to swap the numbers didn't go through. That is the saddest things I've read in a while. I don't know why it bothers me so much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 17:59
|
|
|
Crackpipe posted:That is the saddest things I've read in a while. I don't know why it bothers me so much. I know there's a particularly bad one of these in PA, where the highway drops onto a surface street for a few blocks, and the town won't let them build a direct connector because they need the traffic. I can't find it now on Wikipedia, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 19:10
|
|
|
OK, I give up, there are definitely no embedded reflectors on my commute. I still remember not only them being there on the Parkway, but asking my dad about them years ago, did they maybe try them 10 or 15 years ago and not replace them when they repaved?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 19:35
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:I know there's a particularly bad one of these in PA, where the highway drops onto a surface street for a few blocks, and the town won't let them build a direct connector because they need the traffic. I can't find it now on Wikipedia, unfortunately. I'm betting it's Breezewood, Pennsylvania. Smallest control city in the whole country. GWBBQ posted:OK, I give up, there are definitely no embedded reflectors on my commute. I still remember not only them being there on the Parkway, but asking my dad about them years ago, did they maybe try them 10 or 15 years ago and not replace them when they repaved? Not that I know of, but I haven't been here that long. We may have tried them out in the past, probably for just a few miles of road. Honestly, I don't know how New Hampshire keeps theirs intact. Their plows are brutal, and scrape right up against the beam rail. There's no way they wouldn't rip out some plastic/metal chunks in the pavement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
If I remember right, they were like the one on the top, a shallow groove that got deeper until the part where the reflector was attached, but they didn't have the groove behind them. http://lh5.ggpht.com/_YUdY70I6ykk/RqVZgJs3_aI/AAAAAAAAAMw/9uKH8rRK3Qc/fourth+leg+-+reflector+test+1.JPG I guess they didn't do much good if I never noticed them missing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2010 01:27
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:If I remember right, they were like the one on the top, a shallow groove that got deeper until the part where the reflector was attached, but they didn't have the groove behind them. I just remembered, we have several samples from different manufacturers in the office, so presumably we've installed them somewhere in the state as a test. Your memory's probably right, and they didn't get replaced.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2010 04:09
|
|
|
porkfriedrice posted:There are actually a lot of them. Not sure of the bridge terminology, but there was a set on each side of the overhead bars at the ends of the arches. So I think it was three sets in each direction, one at each end and one in the middle. Two of the three sets had three signs, the other, which I posted, had two. Do you think drivers will freak out if it is actually for reversing lanes? How would this be implemented? Alright, I did some research, and here's the full story: The original plan was to put reversible lanes across the bridge. That turned out to be too expensive, but there's a big accident rate there anyway (narrow lanes), so Traffic Studies decided to put the overhead signs up anyway. The idea was that the police could flip them from a down arrow to an X if there was ever need to close a lane. The police, though, decided they didn't want to mess with that stuff. As a result, the existing signs can't be changed; they're either an arrow or an X. So, there's just one mystery left: why are some of them missing? The supplier didn't properly galvanize some of the brackets, so a bunch were removed and will be replaced at a later time. That solved the mystery! Now I spent the whole day in the field, so I'll get a nice post up as soon as I've picked through the photos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 21:55
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Alright, I did some research, and here's the full story: Hey thanks for looking that up!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 22:48
|
|
|
A while back I pointed out the annoying dead-end flyovers at the IH-35 and 71 interchange in Austin. It looks like they're finally getting around to connecting eastbound 71 with southbound 35, and I assume they'll be doing the others eventually. This is good news because that little group of stoplights under the existing flyovers can be a huge traffic problem almost any time of day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
NightGyr posted:I know there's a particularly bad one of these in PA, where the highway drops onto a surface street for a few blocks, and the town won't let them build a direct connector because they need the traffic. I can't find it now on Wikipedia, unfortunately. The connection between US 15 and PA 147 north of Selinsgrove is like that, three miles of surface streets, and at the southern end there's an unfinished freeway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 23:45
|
|
