|
I-83 in southern PA is like that too. It's been like that as long as I can remember and that's at least 15 years. It's hard to read but that little placard says "Old Exit 1": http://maps.google.com/?ll=39.75763...,19.11,,1,-3.49
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
Roflex posted:I-83 in southern PA is like that too. It's been like that as long as I can remember and that's at least 15 years. I don't think it's quite 15 years; Pennsylvania was still using sequential numbering when I had to make that drive to and from college in 1997. (I-70 east to I-76 east to I-83 south, then back to get back to college.) I'm pretty sure it was '98 or '99 when they changed over to mile-based numbering, because it was while I was in college the first time, and I took an extended leave in the spring of 2000. I'm reasonably certain that those get left up simply because it's less expensive to do so. There's no practical reason to take them down, and if the state wants to remove them they have to pay workers to go out and do it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 15:37
|
|
|
Sequential numbering had to be one of the poorest decisions in highway planning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 17:07
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:I'm reasonably certain that those get left up simply because it's less expensive to do so. There's no practical reason to take them down, and if the state wants to remove them they have to pay workers to go out and do it. This is it exactly. People whine enough about us wasting money; better to just leave them there until the sign is replaced. At best, it might help someone out if they're using an old map.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
Millstone posted:Sequential numbering had to be one of the poorest decisions in highway planning. Leave them (and the non-MUTCD guide signs) on the New Jersey Turnpike, get rid of them everywhere else. It seems like pretty much everywhere outside of the Northeast and New England has already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 01:54
|
|
|
Speaking of signs that have been left up a while this is my absolute favorite near my house: http://maps.google.com/?ll=49.30836...,310.7,,2,-9.97 It's still there today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 02:41
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:Leave them (and the non-MUTCD guide signs) on the New Jersey Turnpike, get rid of them everywhere else. It seems like pretty much everywhere outside of the Northeast and New England has already. It really becomes a pain in the rear end if you do it on a long Interstate, or 400-series highway here, where population buildup is likely and additional interchanges will have to be added, thus loving everything else up. We had to do a mass-renumbering of all exits in the metric changeover in 1977.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 03:42
|
|
|
Millstone posted:It really becomes a pain in the rear end if you do it on a long Interstate, or 400-series highway here, where population buildup is likely and additional interchanges will have to be added, thus loving everything else up. The whole area around Disney World was a mess for this before Florida renumbered the exits in 2001-2002. So many A/B/C/D/E exits in a 15 mile stretch between what used to be exits 24 through 27. Now it's a lot less confusing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 04:55
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:The whole area around Disney World was a mess for this before Florida renumbered the exits in 2001-2002. So many A/B/C/D/E exits in a 15 mile stretch between what used to be exits 24 through 27. Now it's a lot less confusing. Thing is, we're probably not adding any interchanges in CT. I still think we should be using kilometer-based numbering, not miles. If the FHWA's incentive for switching everyone to mile-based numbering was some truckers from Mexico and Canada crashing, why the heck would we use miles?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 16:24
|
|
|
I think that would only make sense if we posted everything in kilometers. As much as I'd like to see full metrication, I'd rather have exit numbers line up with existing posted distances if we're not going to get that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 17:39
|
|
|
I just realized this thread is two years old! Quite impressive.  Anyway, for some content. I was just thinking about transit. There's been a huge to-do about the Busway around here (personally I prefer trains but whatever), and it got me thinking. What's the Next Big Thing? Back at the turn of the last century, trains were The Thing. There were trains everywhere. Then air travel and the car came along, and suddenly trains got shafted. Now it's the 21st century and I think we're coming full circle. Air travel and automobiles require one very important thing to remain viable: cheap oil. That's not happening anymore. Take air travel for example. It's AWFUL. Every time I have to fly, I dread it. It's just not a pleasant experience all around and it's getting so freaking expensive. At least with cars, there's a chance that electric and hydrogen vehicles will take off. I think we're starting to see a paradigm shift in that regard. But for long distances? Planes are all we've got. We can't keep going on like this. I think air travel is hitting a brick wall. What do we do? Bring back Zeppelins? They were basically like flying trains... Sure they were slow, but they were comfortable. Or, what about something a bit different? I was suddenly reminded the other day of a special I saw on Discovery back in... oh heck, it might have been 2003? 2004? Anyway, it was awesome. It was about building a transatlantic tunnel. New York to Paris in an hour and a half?! poo poo man, 'dats fast. The program focuses more on how expensive it would be and what an engineering nightmare it would be to actually build the thing. It doesn't mention probably the biggest stumbling block: can you imagine the conniption the airline and oil industries would have if we even thought of building such a thing? They'd throw a poo poo-fit! Such a thing has the potential to make airlines obsolete. Connect it with a high speed train network, and what do you need planes for anymore? Anyway, those are just my thoughts. As an insider in the industry, Cichlidae, what do you think?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 18:17
|
|
|
Silver Falcon posted:What do we do? Bring back Zeppelins? They were basically like flying trains... Sure they were slow, but they were comfortable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:We are running out of Helium faster than we are running out of gas. If Zeppelins are going to make a comeback they are going to use hydrogen. That might be a marketing challenge. I'd travel in a hydrogen blimp. Considering the Hindenburg burned in a fashion that is wholly unlike burning hydrogen, I believe the most common theory today is that more than 90% of the hydrogen simply escaped from the blimp completely harmlessly and that it was the thermite-like surface coating that mostly contributed to the fire. But you're right that it'll be one mother of a marketing challenge to convince people of that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:This is actually the preferred arrangement for lane drops. Rather than forcing people to leave the freeway if they're in the lane, causing them to make erratic maneuvers at the last minute, this lets them change their mind and re-join freeway traffic with less disturbance. I always liked Austin's compromise (that is, of course, only used in areas where it isn't a problem: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=austi...psrc=6&t=k&z=21 (street view) The lane is Exit only and marked as such, but there's a short distance after the exit lane branches off that's dashed off like a lane just in case someone decides to ignore the big yellow EXIT ONLY signs and panics at the last second, giving them time to merge instead of them slamming on the brakes and jerking over into 65mph traffic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
Silver Falcon posted:Anyway, for some content. I was just thinking about transit. There's been a huge to-do about the Busway around here (personally I prefer trains but whatever), and it got me thinking. What's the Next Big Thing? Silver Falcon posted:At least with cars, there's a chance that electric and hydrogen vehicles will take off. I think we're starting to see a paradigm shift in that regard. Even with all their cons, airplanes are pretty amazing. Fast, flexible (no roads, rails or rivers limiting you in the sky) and able to haul a ton of people. Flying will just probably become a bit more expensive as oil becomes more scarce. Silver Falcon posted:Or, what about something a bit different? I was suddenly reminded the other day of a special I saw on Discovery back in... oh heck, it might have been 2003? 2004? Anyway, it was awesome. It was about building a transatlantic tunnel. Sure, it's physically possible, even with today's technology. Kind of like it's physically possible to build toasters that toast bread with laser beams. It just won't be economically topical before we've run out of real problems to fix.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
tl;dr version: We'll probably have cheap flights to the moon before we get cheap trains to France.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 00:09
|
|
|
We've had some drama in the VA Beach area between cars and bicyclists, to the point of some road-raging imbecile going around, tossing thumbtacks into various intersections to deter bicyclists. (The tacks were long enough to puncture bike tires, but not the thicker rubber of car tires.) The root of the problem is that the roads in this area of VA Beach are rural with high speed limits (45 & 55mph), lack bicycle lanes or any type of shoulder, and fall off immediately into deep ditches, yet are somehow popular with bicyclists. Car drivers resent having to brake and swerve and get stuck behind bicycles, but bicyclists assert their right to the road and I'm sure aren't thrilled with cars blazing inches from them at highway speeds. It's always struck me as extremely unsafe, and I value my life too much to even consider riding a bike on those roads; to be sure, there have been a number of injuries, but no fatalities that I'm aware of. Here is a typical stretch of road in the area What can be done about this? Bicycle lanes would seem to be the perfect solution, but there's no way the city would ever fund something like that for the relatively small number of bikers that use these roads. What else could be done to accommodate bikes & cars on the same narrow roads, short of lowering speed limits to unreasonably low speeds, or banning bikes from roads with greater than 35mph speed limit? Is the latter even legally an option? If it came to a referendum vote of lowering speed limits, banning bikes from problem roads, or raising taxes, I'm pretty sure the majority would vote for banning bikes. grover fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Aug 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 00:58
|
|
|
grover posted:We've had some drama in the VA Beach area between cars and bicyclists, to the point of some road-raging imbecile going around, tossing thumbtacks into various intersections to deter bicyclists. "They're not thumbtacks. They're drywall nails." Seriously, though: I wouldn't bicycle on that road or any road like it. That's a recipe for disaster, and honestly I would be a little worried for the mental health of any cyclist who insisted on occupying right-of-way on that road. I'm not sure of the relative costs, but less expensive than adding bike lanes might be adding a bike trail that follows that road, thereby removing cyclists from the equation entirely (and being actually, from a public-opinion standpoint, more bike-friendly than bike lanes).
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 01:06
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:I'm not sure of the relative costs, but less expensive than adding bike lanes might be adding a bike trail that follows that road, thereby removing cyclists from the equation entirely (and being actually, from a public-opinion standpoint, more bike-friendly than bike lanes). Apart from the issue of vegetation, that sounds like the best thing to me too. Actually, just make a combined bike/pedestrian dirt trail, that would probably be fine. If the bike traffic is as low as you describe, directional separation shouldn't be needed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 01:27
|
|
|
At least in Florida, roads like that tend to get four-foot paved shoulders added during resurfacing projects, but it looks like there's not even right-of-way for that with the utility poles and vegetation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 01:36
|
|
|
Adding new pavement is the only logical option here. Whether it's on the road, or adjacent to it, it would help out in a huge way. Build out the side of the road away from the utility poles (which really shouldn't be that close to the curbline anyway). Biggest problem I can see would be if there's wetlands. That's something a dedicated bike path could skirt pretty easily. Realistically, though, it's going to take a fatality (or two or three) before anyone gets off his rear end and gets to work on this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 01:55
|
|
|
Silver Falcon posted:The program focuses more on how expensive it would be and what an engineering nightmare it would be to actually build the thing. It doesn't mention probably the biggest stumbling block: can you imagine the conniption the airline and oil industries would have if we even thought of building such a thing? They'd throw a poo poo-fit! Such a thing has the potential to make airlines obsolete. Connect it with a high speed train network, and what do you need planes for anymore?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 02:53
|
|
|
Has anybody heard of an Offset Single Point Interchange? It's basically a diamond/SPUI jammed onto one side of the freeway. Minnesota's getting its first, but I've never seen one anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 07:24
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Adding new pavement is the only logical option here. Whether it's on the road, or adjacent to it, it would help out in a huge way. Build out the side of the road away from the utility poles (which really shouldn't be that close to the curbline anyway). Biggest problem I can see would be if there's wetlands. That's something a dedicated bike path could skirt pretty easily. Is banning bikes from public roads a legal option? grover fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Aug 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 14:27
|
|
|
grover posted:Is banning bikes from public roads a legal option? We have limited-access highways here where only cars, trucks and motorcycles are allowed. Other traffic is allowed to cross the highway at intersections. They are pretty much like highways in that they usually have one lane in each direction, at-grade intersections and so on, but no driveways etc. directly onto the road. Like on freeways, you aren't allowed to stop, reverse, park or turn around and larger intersections are built with on/off-ramps and bridges. I presume you have similar limited-access highways in the US, could that be an option?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 14:57
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I presume you have similar limited-access highways in the US, could that be an option? My thought was to recognize the serious safety concern, and make it illegal to bicycle on a road with a posted speed limit of greater than 35mph. grover fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Aug 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 15:09
|
|
|
grover posted:My thought was to recognize the serious safety concern, and make it illegal to bicycle on a road with a posted speed limit of greater than 35mph. You would be cutting off a lot of bicyclists from going a lot of places. You'd basically kill long-distance bicycle trips.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 15:51
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:You would be cutting off a lot of bicyclists from going a lot of places. You'd basically kill long-distance bicycle trips. http://www.mapmyride.com/s/routes/view/bike-ride-map/virginia/virginia-beach/29466396 That's why I was wondering what legal options were available- bikes and pedestrians may be incredibly unsafe on these roads, but is it violating any state or federal laws of the city council decides to ban then from city roads? * Except those who lose their licenses for DUI or whatever, and gently caress them, right? grover fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Aug 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 15:54
|
|
|
grover posted:Yes, limited access freeways generally ban bicycles, pedestrians, and farm equipment, and have minimum speeds that must be maintained. But these are rural roads with unlimited access and lots of driveways, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 16:16
|
|
|
Silver95280 posted:Has anybody heard of an Offset Single Point Interchange? It's basically a diamond/SPUI jammed onto one side of the freeway. Minnesota's getting its first, but I've never seen one anywhere else. I haven't seen one implemented before, but it's a pretty straightforward design. You get the benefits of a narrower overpass and less right-of-way on one side of the freeway, at the expense of 2 extra bridges and some retaining walls. grover posted:Is banning bikes from public roads a legal option? It is an option, yes. Your best bet would be to ban them on a case-by-case basis, using the same signs used at freeway entrances. A blanket ban on high-speed roadways would be a very unpopular option and would almost immediately get shot down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 16:16
|
|
|
Yeah, I was referring specifically to problem roads, not a blanket ban. There are small numbers of bicyclists in other areas here, and poorer areas where there are small numbers of people biking as primary transportation, but it's never really been a problem outside of Pungo because areas with people biking/walking as primary transportation have sidewalks and shoulders and are generally more suited to them.Jasper Tin Neck posted:No, you can't ban bikes unless you have a reasonable alternate route to point them to. Doing so would essentially be a huge "gently caress you" to local teenagers and children. grover fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Aug 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 16:25
|
|
|
grover posted:Yeah, I was referring specifically to problem roads, not a blanket ban. There are small numbers of cicyclists in other areas here, and poorer areas where there are people biking as primary transportation, but it's never really been a problem outside of Pungo because areas with people biking/walking as primary transportation have sidewalks and shoulders and are generally more suited to them. I'm not saying there won't be a lot of opposition, either. Bicycle lobbies are more powerful than you'd think. I don't know whether they'd even stop using the road, anyway; the town/state would just be off the legal hook if they got creamed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 20:55
|
|
|
Bikes very rarely get rear ended in situations like that. The danger zones for bikes is road crossings. I've ridden on roads like that for thousands of miles and never had a real problem besides jackasses who pass too closely. Bike paths are always shot out as a solution, but parallel bike paths cause a lot of problems when there are cross streets or driveways. I rode cross county on roads like that. The only places I even got close to being hit were in urban areas by people making right turns right after (or during) passing me. I'm much, much more worried about being right hooked in a poorly thought out bike lane or path than being hit on a rural 55 mph road with no shoulder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
 This poo poo must happen an awful lot. Stop if you want to, maybe, if you feel like it. (from imgur)
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 03:56
|
|
|
Vanagoon posted:This poo poo must happen an awful lot. Another one; though this one may have been done on purpose. It still looks weird though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 05:16
|
|
|
Silver95280 posted:Another one; though this one may have been done on purpose. It still looks weird though. Edit: ah, looks like they blocked off the road that used to be straight through the T, but never replaced the light.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 10:36
|
|
|
We have one kind of hosed-up signal on CT 9 in Middletown. It's the first signal you hit after ~15 miles of freeway. You'll see this: http://www.google.com/maps?q=Middle...177.99,,0,-0.35 Green ball, green ball, red ball + green arrow. There's something very wrong with that signal. Someday I may find out what it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 12:26
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:We have one kind of hosed-up signal on CT 9 in Middletown. It's the first signal you hit after ~15 miles of freeway. You'll see this: Looks intentional to me. Someone got fed up with people going straight across the intersection from that left turn lane and thought a red light would fix the problem. A red ball + green arrow is okay and used a lot in situations where a cross street is in a left turn phase so you can't go straight but it's safe to make a right turn; this looks like a stupid attempt to repurpose that idea (only the red is permanently red). Also, I will take this opportunity to once again express my utter hatred for signal heads dangling from wires (though admittedly these aren't the worst example by far). 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
These lights are always green because Charmuth is no-left-turn. They got replaced recently but were basically on constantly for a couple decades (minus power outages and bulb changes) so the lenses had dark brown rings burned into them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Looks intentional to me. Someone got fed up with people going straight across the intersection from that left turn lane and thought a red light would fix the problem. A red ball + green arrow is okay and used a lot in situations where a cross street is in a left turn phase so you can't go straight but it's safe to make a right turn; this looks like a stupid attempt to repurpose that idea (only the red is permanently red). That's pretty much how 90% of the lights are around here in my neck of CT
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 23:10
|
|