|
Cichlidae posted:Money, NIMBY, political tie-ups, endless red tape, incompetent contractors or consultants, and sometimes just too many engineers working in different directions. Good ideas are a good start, but there's always something that will hold them back if you let it. You drew new roads through wetlands in one of the mock-ups. Shocking!
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 14:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
smackfu posted:You drew new roads through wetlands in one of the mock-ups. Shocking! Heh, we just ( a year or so ago) blew a major freeway/highway through a state park and a major wetlands. The solution was to build thoroughfares for the furrie cuties under the road base in culverts. Really good system, but requires complete animal proofing of the road reserve plus animal proofing of the 'Quoll highways'. I'll dig up some photos... 50% of the succuss of this was to keep the construction on the lowdown until it was completed. No, seriously. If they can't see it they stay in their nice airconditioned suburban homes instead of driving their gas guzzlers down to protest. Sigh... Spelling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 14:45
|
|
|
Moonboot posted:If you have time I would like to show you some of the crazy stuff going on where I live, and get your opinion. Sure, I've got plenty of time. Thanks for the link to the Adelaide Busway; I'd looked at it before a year ago, but now that I'm actively working on our Busway, I find I'm paying a lot more attention to the O-Bahn's signing. smackfu posted:You drew new roads through wetlands in one of the mock-ups. Shocking! Yeah, my wife works with the DEP and would probably smack me. At least we can mitigate at 10:1 with all the land freed up, and build plenty of bridges to ensure fauna can come and go as they please. Moonbot posted:Heh, we just ( a year or so ago) blew a major freeway/highway through a state park and a major wetlands. The solution was to build thoroughfares for the furrie cuties under the road base in culverts. The freeway I built in France had the same sort of thing: about 100 bridges/culverts for various animals, including two buried sections going through a national forest and three hyperbola-shaped overpasses built specifically for deer. As to keeping construction on the lowdown, we really can't do that here. The public has to be informed at every step. A lot of the bad reputation the DOT has comes from when we used to just build with no public outreach. I think people would be more suspicious if we just tried to slip something past than they would be if we held a public information meeting (mostly only the elderly come to those, and they generally don't care much about the environment outside of their backyards).
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 21:54
|
|
|
What are the chances of any of these projects ever getting done? Or which is most/least likely to get done? I'm pretty sure you don't deal with policy making or budgets or any of that crap, but I'd be interested to know your opinion. (I like how they didn't even try to get a specific estimate of the I-95/I-84 expansions and just wrote "billions". Ha ha Connecticut is broke   Link to the whole PDF: http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/misc/Final-Highway__Transit_Capital_Program_Overview_1-20-10_Format.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 11:33
|
|
|
porkfriedrice posted:What are the chances of any of these projects ever getting done? Or which is most/least likely to get done? I'm pretty sure you don't deal with policy making or budgets or any of that crap, but I'd be interested to know your opinion. (I like how they didn't even try to get a specific estimate of the I-95/I-84 expansions and just wrote "billions". Ha ha Connecticut is broke Finishing Route 11: Probably within my lifetime, 20 years out or so, when we have billions to throw around. Definitely not any time soon. 8/84 Interchange: Within the next 10 years. It's costing us more in maintenance and congestion to leave it alone than it would to replace. Widening 84 NY - Danbury: Not a big priority. There could be some operational improvements along the interchanges throughout Danbury in the next 10-15 years, but probably nothing more. Widening 95 Branford - RI: The stretch between Branford and Old Saybrook is quickly becoming one of the most congested. I note the list only shows Old Lyme - RI, so maybe this is broken out and funded. Still, don't expect to see it within 10 years unless we get our hands on some major cash. Putnam Bridge Replacement: This has to be done sooner or later. I get the feeling we'll end up spending twice as much on repairs over the next 15 years as we would if we just replaced it now. Doubling Route 2A over the Thames River: This almost entirely depends on the Casinos. They got the Route 2 Bypass built very quickly, and if they decide to go lobbying, the 2A freeway will be extended to 2 in just a couple years. Aetna Viaduct Replacement: The bridge deck looks like Swiss cheese. Have a look next time you drive over it. The Viaduct HAS to be replaced, and soon. We'll probably end up sacrificing other projects around 2020, and the Hartford area will be a mess for 5 years while we do it. Aetna Viaduct Rehab: The whole structure is in awful shape. Replacement will still be necessary. Ok for short-term (3-5 year) only. 9/66/17 Modifications: This has been important to us for 30 years, but again, money and Middletown stand in our way. Despite a massive accident problem, the road's still in decent physical shape, so don't expect to see this one done, maybe not even in our lifetimes. Bridge 00032 and Operational Lanes: I'm not familiar with this project, but since it's a bridge, I'd say it'll be done 10-15 years out. Stamford 95 Bridge over New Haven Line: See above. Basically, we have a dichotomy. Some projects would be excellent to have and would vastly improve our network, but we can't afford them. Other projects will just maintain the status quo, and without them the roads will crumble into dust. We can't afford those, either, but we'll find a way when the time comes (or have another Mianus River Bridge).
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 12:43
|
|
|
I'm looking at the report and I see construction on roads listed (Rt 9 has been getting some night workers, along with stretches of I-95 between Old Saybrook and New London). Is this construction work not tied to these "unfundable" projects?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 22:07
|
|
|
kimcicle posted:I'm looking at the report and I see construction on roads listed (Rt 9 has been getting some night workers, along with stretches of I-95 between Old Saybrook and New London). Is this construction work not tied to these "unfundable" projects? The quick answer is yes. If it's in construction, forcibly it's not unfunded. We have at least 100 jobs under construction at any given time. There are some small maintenance, resurfacing, restriping, and bridge repair jobs. Signing and bridge replacement jobs are more expensive and less frequent. Most of the jobs on the unfunded project list are major things, like adding extra capacity or rebuilding an interchange. There are a few exceptions, big jobs that we managed to fund: the Q Bridge, adding a couple short operational lanes on 95, the Route 72 relocation, and the recently completed Brookfield Bypass.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 22:37
|
|
|
I was driving on 84 into Hartford a few week ago when my Dad commented on the large route signs you guys painted onto the pavement. He thinks they're pretty much the greatest thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
Crackpipe posted:I was driving on 84 into Hartford a few week ago when my Dad commented on the large route signs you guys painted onto the pavement. He thinks they're pretty much the greatest thing ever. Sweet, it's good to get feedback on those! They're only temporary, but if we get enough people who call/email in to let us know they're helpful, we could probably install them permanently like New York has. The reason they're up, by the way, is that we're taking down and replacing the overhead sign at the exit to 44 and 91. The volumes there are so high that there's almost no time we can close a lane without producing backups. Consequently, it's going to take some time to build the foundations and replace the support. What's worse, while taking out the old sign, the crew found that there's a huge communications line lying buried right on top of the existing foundation. The cable wasn't in the survey, but a call to... AT&T, I think, revealed that it was a trunk line for regional communication. That's going to SIGNIFICANTLY complicate things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 23:19
|
|
|
They recently put a few of those here when they redesigned the one interchange; I really like them, too. They should be more common, especially when roads split or there are a lot of lanes and it isn't clear which is going where. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&i...bp=12,55.1,,0,5
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 01:31
|
|
|
I think I mentioned earlier in the thread how nice those were when I was traveling a while ago. I'm from NY, but I'd be happy to send an email to say I like them in your state. Locally, there is a big stink over the entrance to a shopping mall. It's the typical 4 approach intersection, where the people entering don't have a stop sign, all other approaches do. People seem to assume that the un-stopped approach does have a sign, and it causes accidents. They don't want to put a stop in, as it will cause backups into the main road. People are blaming it on stupid, but lack of omnipotence is not the same as stupidity. My thought is to just put the 4th stop sign in, but what would you say? Guy Axlerod fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Jul 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 01:47
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:I think I mentioned earlier in the thread how nice those were when I was traveling a while ago. If you say it will cause backups on the main road, there's no way you could put a stop sign there. Traffic on a real road is way more important than low speed traffic in a parking lot. I'm blaming it on stupid too. My quick fix would be install TRAFFIC FROM LEFT (RIGHT) DOES NOT STOP and ONCOMING TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP plaques under the stop signs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 02:44
|
|
|
grover posted:They recently put a few of those here when they redesigned the one interchange; I really like them, too. They should be more common, especially when roads split or there are a lot of lanes and it isn't clear which is going where. Now that the MUTCD supports them, I hope to see painted route markers in more places. They really are brilliant, and eventually, we might get painted speed limits as well, which I found quite useful when I was in Europe. Guy Axelrod posted:My thought is to just put the 4th stop sign in, but what would you say? I'd say redesign the parking lot to increase the throat depth (haha) in order to handle the maximum queue. A parking lot queue spilling back onto the road is really the worst case; removing a few parking spaces, at worst, is preferable to some pretty severe right-angle accidents on the main road. Barring that, as Bumming noted, you could stick some plaques on the signs. I wouldn't recommend it, though. It's too much information to expect someone to pay attention to. I'd consider removing the stop sign across from the entrance, so it becomes a two-way stop, which is much more in line with driver expectations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 03:07
|
|
|
I need to get a picture of it but the signmakers here screwed up hilariously. It's one of those boilerplate ARRA signs that says "thanks for your patience" but where an I-83 interstate shield should be is a Maryland square with "I-83" (dash and all) printed in it. Obviously someone at the sign shop had to have made the mistake but once it left would someone have had the chance to say "this ain't right" and send it back, or is it just one of those things where it's not worth the cost/time to send it back?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 07:06
|
|
|
Roflex posted:I need to get a picture of it but the signmakers here screwed up hilariously. It's one of those boilerplate ARRA signs that says "thanks for your patience" but where an I-83 interstate shield should be is a Maryland square with "I-83" (dash and all) printed in it. I've seen plenty of route signs with the wrong type of shield. They stand out like a sore thumb to me, but most other people I show, including other traffic engineers, don't notice anything wrong. Once the sign is out there, unless someone complains or an engineer notices while inspecting the project, it's going to stay. Especially one of those ARRA signs, they're huge and temporary and it'd cost thousands to replace and waste dozens of man-hours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 23:33
|
|
|
I was just in Darien yesterday and the (new?) entrance to I-95 near the whole foods is pretty ridiculous. The Google Street view unfortunately has an awful sun glare, but you can kind of see the Do Not Enter sign directly behind the Stop sign. In real life, there's also another Do Not Enter on the right, and a couple more Wrong Way behind them. All you see is a sea of red. Is this considered an acceptable design? Why not just use a traffic light with a left turn lane?   http://maps.google.com/maps?q=darie...=12,213.95,,0,5
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 16:53
|
|
|
smackfu posted:I was just in Darien yesterday and the (new?) entrance to I-95 near the whole foods is pretty ridiculous. "No amount of signs can make up for bad geometrics." The ramps have been in the same configuration for decades. Back in the 1950s, when I-95 was built, high-type design made traffic engineers cream their collective trousers. Built for speed and maximum throughput, designs like this make some pretty big safety sacrifices. Having roads meet at acute angles leads to problems like this one, where it's ambiguous who's supposed to obey the DNE sign. Since we can't put louvers on signs, the only good answer is to redo the whole interchange, probably with a pair of hook ramps. Thanks a bunch, 1950s engineers!
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
Drove up to Rome, NY yesterday and although the Taconic State Parkway is terrifying at night without lights and assorted wildlife running out in front of cars and intersections between local roads and something with a 55 speed limit that claims to be a parkway, I really liked the fact that their many of their exit signs, stop signs, and yield signs have reflectorized poles color coded to the sign. Is this a new standard thing or did the guys in the NY State DOT all got high and say "Hey man, you know what would be awesome, if the poles on signs were shiny, too?" Also, driving out to Michigan a few weeks ago, Ohio has a shitload of signs that should be on breakaway posts just nailed to 4x4s stuck into the ground, what kind of bullshit is that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 19:23
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Drove up to Rome, NY yesterday and although the Taconic State Parkway is terrifying at night without lights and assorted wildlife running out in front of cars and intersections between local roads and something with a 55 speed limit that claims to be a parkway, I really liked the fact that their many of their exit signs, stop signs, and yield signs have reflectorized poles color coded to the sign. Is this a new standard thing or did the guys in the NY State DOT all got high and say "Hey man, you know what would be awesome, if the poles on signs were shiny, too?" Perfectly fine, according to the MUTCD, as long as the color of the ribbon matches the color of the sign background. We've put a few red ones on stop signs and yellow ones on chevrons here. quote:Also, driving out to Michigan a few weeks ago, Ohio has a shitload of signs that should be on breakaway posts just nailed to 4x4s stuck into the ground, what kind of bullshit is that? Rhode Island does the same thing. Sometimes, they drill a transverse hole in the base of the post, which is a step in the right direction but not nearly as nice as a breakaway steel pole.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2010 21:43
|
|
|
Not sure if this is relevant to traffic engineering specifically, but while driving on I-77 in Ohio I noticed that all of the rest areas are now closed.  It seems like it's more for budget reasons than anything else. I didn't see renovations happening or any construction. They were simply closed. Not good when you're between major cities without any place to stop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 02:15
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Perfectly fine, according to the MUTCD, as long as the color of the ribbon matches the color of the sign background. We've put a few red ones on stop signs and yellow ones on chevrons here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 02:34
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:OK, please start doing this in CT. There are some on Route 740 in Branford if you feel like driving that far. I think we put them in at some railroad grade crossings with stop signs, as well. I'll probably be installing more in future projects, especially in hazardous locations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 03:51
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:There are some on Route 740 in Branford if you feel like driving that far. I think we put them in at some railroad grade crossings with stop signs, as well. I'll probably be installing more in future projects, especially in hazardous locations. some towns have done this too. I've seen it in Vernon at some of the bike trail crossings. Also, I love the road shields on 84. this would be great on 291 when it splits into 84EB and 84WB/384. It seems like every other time I drive that I almost get sideswiped by some chucklehead darting across the exit realizing they're going the wrong way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 14:25
|
|
|
Texas' on ramp system is so hilariously dangerous. Last night I pulled into a truck stop and the onramp goes INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC. Like, you have to cross a double yellow to merge into the access road. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 23:27
|
|
|
ijustam posted:Texas' on ramp system is so hilariously dangerous. Last night I pulled into a truck stop and the onramp goes INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC. Like, you have to cross a double yellow to merge into the access road. That's nuts! Do you have an aerial photo link so I can print it out and laugh about it with my coworkers on Monday?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 23:45
|
|
|
This is going to sound a bit random, but is there anything in the traffic engineering literature about large tunnels encouraging folks to speed as they pass through? Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time keeping the speed down, and it just seems way too much fun when there is little traffic. Am I just nuts here?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 03:01
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:This is going to sound a bit random, but is there anything in the traffic engineering literature about large tunnels encouraging folks to speed as they pass through? Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time keeping the speed down, and it just seems way too much fun when there is little traffic. A wider tunnel would have a higher free-flow speed, but other than that, it's not something we really consider. I know it's fun to rev the engine in a tunnel and listen to the reverb, but I don't think there's an appreciable increase in speed for most drivers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 03:13
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:A wider tunnel would have a higher free-flow speed, but other than that, it's not something we really consider. I know it's fun to rev the engine in a tunnel and listen to the reverb, but I don't think there's an appreciable increase in speed for most drivers. I'm just watching too much Top Gear then, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 06:32
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:"No amount of signs can make up for bad geometrics." The ramps have been in the same configuration for decades. Back in the 1950s, when I-95 was built, high-type design made traffic engineers cream their collective trousers. Built for speed and maximum throughput, designs like this make some pretty big safety sacrifices. Having roads meet at acute angles leads to problems like this one, where it's ambiguous who's supposed to obey the DNE sign. Since we can't put louvers on signs, the only good answer is to redo the whole interchange, probably with a pair of hook ramps. Thanks a bunch, 1950s engineers! Do you think louvers would work well in a situation like this? Why aren't they allowed?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 08:06
|
|
|
Opensourcepirate posted:Do you think louvers would work well in a situation like this? Why aren't they allowed? They work well enough on signal heads, where you just need to see one bit of the red light to recognize what you're looking at. For a Do Not Enter sign, though, every part of the sign needs to be visible. Louvers show vertical strips of the sign and break up its form, making it much harder to understand.  On top of that, it'd be a much heavier sign and could cause some serious injury in an accident and cost more to build and maintain. People run into signs all the time; a bent sign is still legible, but louvers would have to be bent back into shape right away or else the sign would be all but invisible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 16:46
|
|
|
I despise this connector. Its the EB 60 to the NB 91/215 in Riverside, CA. http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33.992913,-117.356805&spn=0.003589,0.007768&t=k&z=18 It just dumps traffic into the lane, no acceleration lane to get up to speed... and there's a NB to WB connector directly past the overpass using the same lane. I don't use it often, I'll avoid it if I ever have to go that way. I don't know what the configuration was before this, but I remember this interchange being under construction for years and I guess they decided this was good? Also, note they didn't put the guard rails directly before the beginning of curve... and note the tracks in the dirt tangent to the beginning of curve 
Longpig Bard fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Jul 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 07:09
|
|
|
Those loops have probably been there for years - it would of been the large overpasses under construction recently,replacing some loops on the other side of the carriageway to make a clover.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 09:37
|
|
|
Bumming Your Scene posted:I despise this connector. Its the EB 60 to the NB 91/215 in Riverside, CA. Noblergt is right: looking at the old aerial photos, the interchange used to be a full cloverleaf, but two of the loops were improved. You're using the two that weren't, which appear to be substandard even in the original design. It's something that really should have been fixed, but they probably couldn't afford to do it all, and the volumes on the two ramps you use are lower than on the two that were upgraded. Thanks for pointing out the tracks in the dirt. We have grass all over here, so the evidence of someone driving off the road disappears after a few weeks. They probably left out the guard rail in that area since there are no fixed objects within the clear zone that people could run into. Not putting in guard rail gives people a chance to recover and re-enter the roadway without denting up their cars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 12:39
|
|
|
So I just noticed that there are some new signs on the Rt. 17/66 Bridge. The big electronic kind. Me and my friends were wondering what they were going to be used for, since they don't even use the electronic lane arrows as it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 22:43
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:So I just noticed that there are some new signs on the Rt. 17/66 Bridge. The big electronic kind. Me and my friends were wondering what they were going to be used for, since they don't even use the electronic lane arrows as it is. I also noticed the signs this past weekend. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but was there only the one sign on the Middletown side of the bridge, going eastbound? If this is a traffic information sign, wouldn't it make sense to have a sign on the Portland side of the bridge going westbound, since they could give drivers warning about delays and such on Route 9 and also the downtown area?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 22:57
|
|
|
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&hq=&ll=42.458231,-83.218174&spn=0.016179,0.038581&t=h&z=15 Check out that interchange and think about it. You can't: Go from Eastbound to Northbound. Go from Westbound to Southbound. Go from Southbound to Westbound. Go from Northbound to Eastbound. Luckily I was always needing to drive in the directions that were available. The only reason I can figure they did that was a lack of space, but with all the curves and such it takes up a lot of space right now anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 00:28
|
|
|
ijustam posted:Texas' on ramp system is so hilariously dangerous. Last night I pulled into a truck stop and the onramp goes INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC. Like, you have to cross a double yellow to merge into the access road. I hate those Texas on/off ramps. They're loving terrible. Cichlidae, what they often do there is have a frontage road on both sides of the freeway, and then rather than having on/off ramps at major cross streets/overpasses like most places do (at the beginning/end of the block, basically) they put the ramps in the middle of the goddamn block. This means if you're trying to get to the Target just off the left side of the freeway, you have to get off in the middle of the block, drive the rest of the way up to the next overpass/underpass, cross the freeway, then drive back toward the Target on the other frontage road (a lot of the time they at least have this weird signal-free turnaround system that lets you do that fairly efficiently). Most of the time it seems the frontage roads are one-way - they go the same direction as the freeway, so when you exit the freeway and merge into traffic (there are no signals or stop signs, it's just like a freeway onramp) at least you're all going in the same direction. But sometimes, like ijustam said, the frontage road is 2-way and people coming off the freeway just have to dart across the oncoming lane. Thankfully I don't live there (I just do a lot of road trips), but that means it's hard for me to find a really good (bad) example of what I'm talking about (on a two-way frontage road), but here is a more typical example. On another note, do you know why the NB and SB sides of I5 would switch sides here? It's at a point where the freeway is winding its way up/down the mountain. Choadmaster fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Jul 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 00:56
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:So I just noticed that there are some new signs on the Rt. 17/66 Bridge. The big electronic kind. Me and my friends were wondering what they were going to be used for, since they don't even use the electronic lane arrows as it is. It's probably part of the same project that put up the lane arrows. I'll ask around when I have time (training tomorrow, fieldwork in Portland, East Hampton, Colchester, Clinton, and Westbrook Wednesday). I've also got a streetscape job in Portland that was just bid, from the bridge to the intersection of 17A. That's going to remove the on-street parking and beautify the sidewalks somewhat. Zero One posted:Check out that interchange and think about it. That's common in older designs of freeways that meet at acute angles. Designers assumed that the volumes going between adjacent legs of the interchange would be so low that they could use surface streets instead. In this case, going NB to EB, for example, it would be just as fast to take 8 Mile Road between the freeways. These days, though, we tend to put ramps in all directions to avoid congestion on surface arterials.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 03:38
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:I hate those Texas on/off ramps. They're loving terrible. This design gives people coming off the ramps enough room to shift into whichever lane they like. Ideally, the on- and off-ramps would cross using an overpass, which eliminates weaving on the mainline. That's expensive, though. Sticking slip ramps in the middle of the block also simplifies the frontage road's signals quite a bit. quote:Most of the time it seems the frontage roads are one-way - they go the same direction as the freeway, so when you exit the freeway and merge into traffic (there are no signals or stop signs, it's just like a freeway onramp) at least you're all going in the same direction. But sometimes, like ijustam said, the frontage road is 2-way and people coming off the freeway just have to dart across the oncoming lane. Two-way frontage roads are pretty awful if you're using slip ramps. Stick buttonhook ramps in there instead, and they're not so bad, but it takes up a lot more room. What's especially bad is when one-way and two-way frontage roads are mixed, because driver expectancy gets blown out of the water and there's a huge potential for head-on collisions and wrong-way entry onto the freeway. quote:On another note, do you know why the NB and SB sides of I5 would switch sides here? It's at a point where the freeway is winding its way up/down the mountain. I'd guess that the two halves of the freeway were built at different times, and when the second half was built, the cheapest path was on the far side of the existing half. I could swear I'd seen something exactly like this from the air once, but I haven't been able to find it on any maps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 03:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
I recently moved from the suburbs to a city. There is always a little traffic shock with that, but I happen to have to traverse the most inane intersection. Click here for the full 1115x804 image. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...005981&t=h&z=18 left is out of the Boston and right is into Boston. This is right near alewife station, the outermost redline subway station. Going out of Boston should be smooth sailing, but it never is. It looks like a three-year old would have a problem designing a more congested interchange.. how would you even fix such a mess?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 03:54
|
|