|
So do you and your work buddies love this traffic flash game or what?: http://www.kongregate.com/games/ArmorGames/i-love-traffic Also, I've always really wanted to know how people make road signs, especially the ones like the yellow curve warnings that are sometimes quite specific to the road in question. Is there just a press in the back room or what? Lastly, what does it mean when something is a DOT paint testing area? When I was young I imagined they were coming up with all sorts of new ways to direct traffic and warn drivers, which was why that road had such a bad accident rate. When I got older I realized it was probably more about how well the paint holds up to traffic. But on a recent trip I saw a testing area out in the middle of nowhere (Eastern Oregon high desert to be exact). What's up?
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2009 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
Awesome! I've been wondering about all that for years!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2009 03:22
|
|
|
You've mentioned several times that you think that American driver education should be improved and the requirements should be raised. What are some of the new standards that you would implement if you had a chance? What kind of new tests and requirements would you see mandated?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2009 23:21
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Charging a toll for driving on an interstate freeway seems to me like a terrible sin. Don't those things get federal money? As a taxpayer I should be able to go anywhere on the interstate freeway network without having to stop the car and dig for change every eight miles. Usually if there is state or federal money involved the story usually goes like this: "Hey public, let's build a toll road to get around all that nasty traffic, and we'll take the toll booths away once it pays for itself - promise promise" 20 years later... "Yeah, we'd love to take away the toll booths but then again why would we want to? Tell you what, let's see what the sub-committee of the profitable status quo says about it."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2009 18:22
|
|
|
Lobstaman posted:Why not put a barrier toll on the wee bit of I-684 that passes through Greenwich, where there are no on or off ramps for CT drivers. Haha, that reminds me of a tiny little town here in Oregon called Coburg. (edit: Excuse me while I get all 'Cops on the Beat' here) Now Coburg is just to the NW of Eugene, and the interstate passes by it just a couple miles away. However, there is no direct access to the interstate by the city, you have to drive around for a good 10 minutes to get onto the freeway. But the good old boys in the Coburg PD were frustrated at hearing all that traffic go by but not having anything to do with their brand new Chargers, so they decided to just drive out of their jurisdiction and then back onto the part of the freeway near their town. Low and behold, it was a ticket-topia. Tons of cops with nothing to do but bring back loads of money for their town. Motorcycle patrols brought home up to half the municipal budget (yes, 50 percent, normally it's around 4 percent here in Oregon). The little town of 1,000 managed to have the highest per capita police presence in the state, with eight officers providing round the clock coverage and two traffic cops tasked solely with patrolling the freeway. Now eventually Eugene and the surrounding community got a bit miffed about this whole highway robbery situation that was killing tourism a wee bit, so they complained and the state Congress put together a "Coburg Bill" that made it so that tickets issued outside city limits would be paid in county courts (thus drying up income). So the boys in Coburg sat down and thought about it for a little while, and they came up with the bright idea of simply annexing a strip of I-5 that they then could patrol. Now, this story doesn't really end. They've cut back a little bit, mostly because they spent too much money on shiny cars and ran out of funding during the recession. They've had to fire three officers as well as Mike Hudson, the guy who was spearheading this whole operation. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004103025_weborspeedtrap01m.html http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Coburg+patrolman+nabs+drivers+speeding+at+freeway+interchange.-a083720230 http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=20050518&id=c1oUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gPADAAAAIBAJ&pg=3333,4106977 Here's the interchange that they were 'patrolling'. Apparently they were worried about traffic past their city hall, but I find that hard to believe seeing as it's 10 minutes off the freeway: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&c...=title&resnum=1 Kaal fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Aug 22, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2009 01:52
|
|
Cash windfall for CT
|
Cichlidae posted:So how were they issuing tickets outside their city limits, anyway? I thought police couldn't work outside their jurisdiction. "Well you see Judge Friendly McLocal, these arrests are within our jurisdiction, because we patrol on both sides of that freeway. And while we might have to travel outside the borders of our incorporated town to do so because there is absolutely nothing to police on the east side of that interstate, we just love freedom so much that we do it anyways." "Well officer, that all sounds quite legal to me. I'll allow it. We're all just so proud of you folks here in Coburg. Keep up the good work of funding our town and administering peace and justice to those Godless heathens down in Eugene." dexter posted:If Oregon is like California then any peace officer can issue citations/make arrests anywhere in the state. Fortunately this is not the case. Kaal fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Aug 22, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2009 19:15
|
|
|
Wow, that's fascinating. For starters, what's concrete 'creep'? Is that like the slow movement of glass? And could you talk a little bit more about the tension cabling? I didn't quite understand how you could introduce the compression.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2009 06:57
|
|
|
Tool Maker posted:I've seen one of those before, in Lynn, near North Shore Community College. It never fails to baffle me. Yeah, you can find those in Portland and Seattle too. I wouldn't be surprised to see them in any major city. There's really nothing better than pulling up behind a car waiting for a light only to realize that A) There's no one in it, and B) Good luck getting anyone to let you in the remaining traffic lane.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2009 06:11
|
|
|
Hmm, weird. There's a bunch of them out here in the Northwest.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2009 03:43
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Of course, California is also anal enough to put an emergency telephone at every mile of every freeway. No wonder we're broke. Huh, I noticed that the last time I went down to San Francisco. Up here in Oregon I don't think that we have any at all. If you get stuck out in the middle of nowhere (much of Oregon), you're just hosed and good luck getting cell service. I kinda prefer it that way though. quote:One thing I hate is the stepped-down speed limits some states have. 65 -> 55, then less than a quarter mile later 55 -> 45. You can generally see the second (or sometimes third) sign before you even pass the first one. Just make it 45 already. I agree. I much prefer the "45 mph zone ahead" sign. The stepped signs are better than just jumping into a 35 mph speed trap on a highway, but they feel really restrictive and kind of clutter up the road.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2009 07:47
|
|
|
Zero One posted:Thought you guys would like this: It's amazing how those freeway interchanges look like they were already traffic clusterfucks 50 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
Something interesting to note: They greatly underestimated the growth of car manufacturing. That traffic engineer predicted an increase from 75 million cars to 100 million between 1958 and 1975 - it actually ended up being 133 million.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
We put a little roundabout in our small city of 50,000 or so. It reduced vehicular accidents to nearly nothing, but moderately increased the pedestrian and bicycle accident rate (because people felt safer about using that road to walk and bike). The community hated it though, and ended up voting to remove it in spite of every traffic safety commission and engineering council in the state. It was pretty depressing, since the town is otherwise pretty liberal and educated. But our conservative paper put out an all-hands-on-deck effort to kill the roundabout. http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/lo...1a4bcf887a.html http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/lo...19bb2963f4.html http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/lo...19bb2963f4.html Kaal fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Aug 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:The landscaping looks pretty good, except for those 'street trees.' In a few years, they'll be fixed objects, and the first person to ramp up the curb could end up dying. Trees are not breakaway. Won't those trees also serve to psychologically narrow the road, thus slowing traffic and improving safety?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
Haifisch posted:On a scale of 1 to 10, how terrified would you be to drive here? Add some high-speed trains and we can push it to 11!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Where do you think the data for the traffic layer on Google Maps comes from? That's exactly what they're doing (unless you opt out.) That's also how they get their travel estimates when giving out directions, and a number of other things.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:So does the FHWA policy mean that Portland, Oregon has to go and repaint all of its blue bike lanes green? That's what it looks like, as they clearly state, "Blue is not a colored pavement and is not to be used as such". It's unclear how these policy changes are expected to be implemented - whether they will grandfather in the existing projects or not. I'm sure that Cichlidae has an idea of how these memos are typically interpreted. Mandalay posted:The whole point is that the street prioritizes pedestrian experience over vehicular to an high level. Imagine driving through a busy parking lot or street market. Yeah the whole idea is that you create pedestrian-friendly areas as well as car-friendly areas. Think the interior of a college campus, where there is vehicular access but minimal through-traffic. I just read a good article on the idea the other day: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2013/02/nearly-car-free-areas.html Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Aug 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:It depends. If the limit is a hard enforce, what if you need to speed up for a short amount of time to overtake a truck, or even to prevent an accident? It would be horrible if the pedal just isn't responsive because you're driving at the limit. Emergency acceleration is a real concern, but it could be worked around. Some speed limiters are programmed to disengage if the pedal is pressed firmly, others merely decrease acceleration and power as you increase speed beyond the limit. Alternatively, the speed limiter could simply be set higher than the actual speed limit. It's certainly possible that a speed limiter could have a positive impact on road safety - mostly by causing all vehicles to travel at the same speed and therefore reducing passing. But the larger issues with speed variance on slower streets and highways would remain. Kaal fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Sep 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:It's not my district, but looks like a pretty standard intersection realignment with a bridge (culvert, really) thrown into the mix. Nice little project; should make everyone happy. Yeah you can see how they originally built Whittlesey Dr along the pre-existing gravel road, with the expectation that it could eventually be continued. But the land wasn't developed and so Walnut Dr was built instead to the north where it couldn't align correctly without impinging. The realignment is a good solution.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
kefkafloyd posted:It's worse in Connecticut. This ain't chalk; people are spraypainting actual overpasses and big green signs with this stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGLqnzSMc5g Yeah it's real-deal graffiti. It looks like there's a small crew of taggers that went off the truther reservation and are putting them up everywhere. There's some sweet art, but it should be going up on a graffiti wall not a freeway overpass. http://www.wfsb.com/story/22902255/dot-officials-trying-to-stop-911-graffiti-on-bridges-overpasses--------OK Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 02:51
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:As for the graffiti folks, I really wonder how they're doing it. Some of the sites are accessible, like the back of the overhead VMS (there is an access ladder and catwalk), but on some of those overpasses... it has to be someone with really good safety equipment, or someone REALLY stupid. Probably the latter, given their subject matter. There's footage of them doing a couple of the overpasses in the truther video I posted, they're just inching out along ledges at night while traffic roars underneath them. It's dangerous as hell and could easily get themselves and some poor driver killed, but it looks quite doable. If there isn't a ledge, they could simply be doing it by roping down. You can make a Swiss seat with rope and a carabiner, and it'd be safe enough for this sort of thing. If these guys were Greenpeace or ELF then I wouldn't have any doubt that they'd be doing it that way. But I don't think that truthers really have the coordination for a stunt like that. Kaal fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Apparently, Pittsburgh is planning on rerouting bus lines away from the Golden Triangle. This definitely seems like an unwise decision on the city's part, since it would make their downtown much more difficult to get to via public transportation, but there are probably other reasons that escape me at the moment. It sounds like the bus lines are awkwardly routed, with the main turnaround being inefficient. So it's possible that this could be a net positive. But trying to fix congestion by discouraging public transportation usage seems like a pretty bad idea. And the business owners seem a lot more interested in driving away "those people at the bus stations" than anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I don't know how they should have implemented the bike lanes. I think there needs to be a physical separation, a curb or some k-barriers or something. When you just toss some white lines on what has always been a travel lane people just ignore it. The problem is they can't put a barrier because there's still parking along some of the road. Useless parking in front of apartments and condos that all have off-street parking. It sounds like a perfect opportunity for exchanging the street parking with the bike lane, and then separating the lanes. That way cars can access their parking spots, and establish a protected zone for bicyclists. Here's a picture of New York's approach to the same issue of converting a three-lane speedway to a slower two-lane with bicycling facilities: http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/01/20/with-the-facts-in-dot-plans-more-improvements-for-prospect-park-west/ 
Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Oct 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:It was much needed, though. That section of road saw 3,000+ cyclists per day, and about as many motorists. Apparently rush hour was a complete shitshow. I'll see if I can take a photo when I pass through there today or tomorrow. One of the cool things about this style of bike facility is that it actually increases the throughput of the road. It slows down vehicular speeds, but it is more than made up for with increased bicycle traffic and reduced vehicular congestion.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Raise taxes, civilization costs money. Pretty much this. Also, this problem is pretty much part and parcel with the problems of sprawl - so establish commercial districts and urban growth boundaries and halt annexations. Alternatively, start testifying at manslaughter trials that the business' refusal to install necessary traffic improvements constitutes partial negligence. Kaal fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Oct 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
Oh, alternatively your department could try optioning a municipal levy to voters, with a full-court press media workup saying that this levy is for cost-saving system upgrades that will save the public tens of millions of dollars over the next 20 years. This kind of targeted fundraising can often be more effective than attempting to increase departmental budgets wholesale.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Honestly they should probably just barricade it off to through traffic or something. I don't think it's really that essential to have that crossing right there and if they really need extra capacity they should make a level crossing further up the road from the level crossing thats a block away. I was going to say the same thing. If your bridge is totalling a truck once a month and you can't afford to fix it, close the road. And I can't believe that they don't have an overhead clearance bar. There's a similar bridge in my area - but it's no big deal because they set up a clearance bar ahead of the detour. That thing is a deathtrap in comparison. It's all fun and games when a rental truck hits the bridge and strips the roof off, but eventually it'll be someone carrying hazardous materials and ends up dead. Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Oct 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
dupersaurus posted:Speaking as someone that drives under this very bridge at least once a week, yeah, no. It's north-bound partner (also one-way) has a level crossing, but this road it a bit lower, and since everything around it is built at that level you can't lift it, and you can't close it because it's a not-insignificant road and there's no place to route around it. It looks to me like it'd be pretty doable to close the road at Peabody and then extend Wilkerson to Buchanon. But at the very least they should be hanging chains and a clearance bar in the block ahead of the bridge. Not doing that is a negligent waste of taxpayer dollars. The chains don't damage the trucks, and it looks like the supply trucks would be perfectly capable of avoiding them anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:Why not add a sensor that scans for truck height, and flashes "WARNING YOU ARE GREATER THAN 11 FOOT 8 TURN AT NEXT STREET!" At a nearby low intersection in Newport News, they have a similar function to prevent trucks from slamming into the highway overpass. It sounds like they have one of those, but it doesn't sound like it's adequate. You really need to put something there for the driver to run into, because otherwise it's easy to be confused about whether the lights apply to you.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Entropist posted:Is that really a source of conflict? Cyclists are flexible, when you see that a car has their right turning signal on, you can go wait on the left side instead to avoid getting in the way. That's how people do it in the Netherlands anyway. That street is probably part of a designated municipal bike route, which means that it's a secondary road intended to act as a magnet for cyclists in order to deconflict alternate routes. And so it's common to divert vehicular thru-traffic toward main streets in order to make the bike routes safer for cyclists. Eugene, OR has a bunch of intersections that are just like that. Local residents can still drive to and from their homes via alternate routes, but it cuts down on folks who are trying to save time on a commute.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:That's the thing, though, we can't make it safer for everyone. The project budget is about $1.5M. We'll need a third of that to build the signal, a third for traffic control, and then we're left with $500k for a half mile of widening a bit past the ROW lines. Anything we can do will improve the existing condition out there, but we can't go nearly as far as we'd like. There are very few bikes out there today, as I said; it's a 45 mph 4-lane road with no shoulders and no sidewalk (no room for them, either). Even if we cut the road down to 2 lanes for half a mile (which would back up onto a freeway, by the way), you have a little stretch of acceptable biking road with nothing on either side. Now if the bike lobby complains that we're not adding bike facilities, the project dies and we won't even be able to save the ~.5 lives per year that we could by putting in left turn lanes. There's just no good way to do this. All things being equal, I'd tend to support fundamental cyclist facilities over a mere expansion of vehicular infrastructure. The societal health and economic effects alone make for a compelling case. But that expressway certainly doesn't sound like it'd be a good candidate for being a bike route. It's certainly possible, but you'd need to segregate it - probably with a concrete barrier. A better solution would be to identify and develop an alternate bike route system that would parallel that road.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Sidewalks are not intended for bicycle usage, and therefore are often not flat, straight or unimpeded, and do not have the visual clearance necessary to bike safely. A more practical idea would be to improve sidewalks along expressways and convert them into segregated multi-use paths - which remain very dangerous to cyclists.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I think most of this could be fixed by not barreling along flat-out. Sidewalks are fundamentally unsafe for bicycles at any speed. It's the equivalent of asking cars to drive along grassfields instead of roads because it's cheaper - yes they're technically capable of it, but that doesn't make it safe to do. edit: And it should go without saying that banning bicycles from the roads and installing urban expressways everywhere is terrible and outdated public policy. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:No, like the sidewalks here. Some sidewalks(I assume the newer ones, newer being relative) slope down to the street, making it okay for something with wheels. Others don't, some are like a bulkhead against the street 8 inches high. I can't go over that with my bike(if I had mountain bike tires it'd probably be doable), I'd just go flying off it. Also sometimes slabs of cement pop up at awful angles if tree roots have done a number under a portion of sidewalk. Right. There's also the ever-present dangers of telephone poles, decorative patches of grass or rocks, misaligned access ramps, poor quality concrete, unpatched potholes, temporary obstructions like parked cars or garbage bins, semi-permanent obstructions like bushes or signs, hidden alleyways and doorways, overly steep sections, heavily twisting sections, graveled areas, sudden ends, inadequate lighting, lack of vehicular protection, insufficient breadth ... I mean hell, there's areas of sidewalk in my town where I can't even go running safely, much less try to bicycle.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Finished signs! That's all there is to see. Any questions? I see that you have stacks of block School Crossing signs. Do you also keep stacks of pre-printed common signs, or do you only print them on-demand?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 10:15
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm also worried that someone making a left turn would go too close to the tram tracks and hit them parallel and wipe out. It's a pretty legitimate concern. The last major bike crash I was in was because of an embedded railway just like this one that was turning right. The more gentle the slope, the more likely that a bike tire will get caught in the groove.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Capacity is the big thing, though trams are also more energy efficient. Trams can also be routed in ways that a bus cannot - for instance going into building depots, skyways or underground tunnels that would be too dangerous to build as a public road, as well as existing railways. Electric trams are also zero-emissions (though of course the power plants are not), which improves city air quality (a consistent problem for densely populated areas) and noise quality. There's also an argument that they are cheaper than buses in the long-run because they reduce the operator costs as compared to running buses (i.e. two articulated buses as compared to a single tram). And then there are the more subjective benefits like the improved aesthetic of a tram, or the smoother ride of a tram. Here's a corporate advocacy paper about it: http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/The-Modern-Tram-in-Europe.pdf
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I'd assume that given that they get their own dedicated right-of-way, they're going to be much less impacted by traffic than a bus would be. True and that helps reduce vehicular congestion, but you can also use bus-only expressways to achieve the same effect. Eugene has started building them along the major traffic corridors, and they work very well as a stopgap solution for a small city that is pushing the limits of bus transit during peak usage but can't support a full tram system. The roads are distinctive to discourage public usage (they're actually grass expressways with asphalt tracks for the bus wheels) and ensure that public transit remains efficient and ontime regardless of vehicular congestion. They incidentally will also maintain the city's right-of-way if Eugne ends up wanting to install a full tram-system in 30 years. Hedera Helix posted:There's a lot less friction for a vehicle using steel flanges on a rail, compared to one using rubber tires, yes? Yes, and also because the vehicles are electric-powered and can transport more people per vehicle. Kaal fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Nov 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
grover posted:Twice the size and twice the weight will take twice the energy to speed up/slow down. Unless you're constantly coupling/decoupling cars throughout the day, you're going to end up with massive trams running virtually empty during off-peak hours, which actually really hurts the overall energy efficiency of the system, and ends up being less efficient than if those passengers had driven hybrid-electric passenger cars (really). I'd think the streetcar would be no better or worse in terms of energy efficiency because it doesn't scale as well. And worse from a rider perspective- I'd rather have more smaller cars coming more often than a single giant tram only showing up every 30 or 60 minutes. The inherent efficiency of all-electric vehicles and passenger scaling ensures that trams are more energy efficient than both personal cars and buses. Note that both forms of public transit are significantly more efficient than taxis, which are a closer comparison to the kind of high-volume stop-and-go driving that exists in the inner city (i.e. taxis are cars that can't take advantage of the energy efficiency of highway travel). When the comparison is limited to intracity driving, trams use 1/5 the energy of a personal car (as per the industry white paper I posted previously). The US Transportation Energy Data Book states the following figures for passenger transportation in 2009: code:
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
Amused to Death posted:My personal local favorite is when they were building a small tunnel for the MUP.(it crosses a busy street at surface level which meant people on it usually had to hit the crosswalk button, a situation that made neither motorists or MUP users happy, so they decided to just go under it) The comment sections of local papers was the usual "great, urban thugs gonna come up and ruin the town" as if the crosswalk provided a huge barrier, and if these criminal masterminds about to steal all their stuff never noticed the 4-5 lane avenue running parallel to the MUP with sidewalks and buses running along it. Washington State threw away $1.2 billion in federal funding recently when they decided to halt the replacement of a critical interstate bridge because it would connect Vancouver with Portland's fantastic light rail system. And they featured the exact same kind of inane fearmongering. Oregon legislatures thought it was so crazy to summarily shut down a 10-year project and throw away all that federal transit funding that we're coming up with a plan to fund the entire project by ourselves. http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2013/06/columbia_river_crossing_implos.html http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/oct/06/oregon-taking-up-i-5-columbia-river-crossing/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2013 20:20
|
|