[USA] United States Interstate Highways [Archive] - Page 22

J N Winkler

February 13th, 2010, 07:37 PM

I don't know, I find it interesting, the geography, cities, freeways, toll roads. For some reason some states appeal more to me than others (in a non-touristic sense).

I wondered. I grew up next door, and I like to visit Oklahoma from time to time. But its freeway network looks better on paper than it does in real life, the two-lane highways are tricky (especially in the eastern part of the state), and it has a rather strange political landscape (think James Inhofe, "Alfalfa Bill" Murray, . . .). It was an early-rising giant in the oil industry (during the 1920's about 10% of world oil production was controlled by the Marland Oil Company, headquartered in Ponca City), so a lot of very large fortunes were made very fast and that has left behind a sort of nouveau-riche sensibility evident in eyeblink Versailleses like the Phillips mansion in Tulsa (now home to a major art museum) and the Marland mansion in Ponca City.

That's why I'm asking again about any pictures or information about interstates and other highways in Dakotas, Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota.

There is pretty good coverage of Nebraska and the Dakotas--I can't remember offhand if AARoads.com has in-depth Interstate coverage for these states, but Chris Geelhart has had websites on roads in the Dakotas for years and I think they are still accessible through a Google search.

My own pictures are here:

Nebraska:

http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/c596060.html

http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/c596056.html

http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/c596056.html

South Dakota:

http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/c596067.html

North Dakota:

http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/c596246.html

There is not a whole lot of point to visiting the Dakotas without also seeing part of Wyoming. I have Wyoming pictures here:

http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/c596088.html

http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/c596256.html

How about quality of roads in above states? I have driven on both coasts and all the I-10 from Atlantic to Pacific but I've never been in Midwest.

Interstates are built to the same standards nationwide and since Nebraska, Dakota, and much of eastern Wyoming are all flat terrain, a 70 MPH design speed is used in rural areas. (The posted speed limit in these areas is 75 MPH except in North Dakota, where it is 70 MPH.) But actually the Interstates make for very boring driving. Two-lane roads are generally quite good, with full hard shoulders and 65 MPH limits in flat rural areas (generally 60 MPH in Nebraska). There are some exceptions, though--the Needles Highway (a big tourist thing in Custer State Park in South Dakota) is narrow and tortuous. Most of the state highways have long lengths in the Black Hills which are narrow, tortuous, or both.

I do highly recommend a visit to the Dakotas, but remember two things: (1) bison have priority in traffic; and (2) it becomes very hard to drive during the week of the motorcycle rally in Sturgis (typically held in early August) because there are literally thousands of Harleys on the roads. Be sure to see Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota and try to time your visit Badlands National Park in South Dakota for sunset.

mgk920

February 13th, 2010, 08:18 PM

Remember that '75 mph' = about 120 km/h. Any car that you rent will likely show both scales on the speedometer or can be easily switched to show either way.

Much of the Dakotas are high-prairie and plains, getting hillier as you go westward from the Missouri River - very desolate, REMOTE and starkly beautiful. It is one of the most sparsely populated sections of North America - a great place to get away from everything and just wander while not being too far from civilization.

Road quality is generally very good, although a large percentage of non-state highway side roads are gravel-surfaced, especially in the more remote areas. 'State' highway route markers in North Dakota use the outline of a profile of an Indian Chief's head while South Dakota uses an outline of the state's border.

Besides the other places, by all means check out the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota. The well-known Mount Rushmore sculpture is there, a bit south of Rapid City, SD (Sturgis, SD is about 50 km northwest of RC on I-90). Check out the ongoing 100% privately-financed work at the nearby Crazy Horse Memorial sculpture, too.

The interiors of both states are in a steady, long-term economic decline with interesting to explore small, dusty farming ghost towns scattered all over while the larger cities are growing - it adds to my wonder and intrigue of that area. The Missouri River valley and its dam flowage lakes are a must-visit, too.

The second-tallest ground-supported man-made structure in the World is in North Dakota - the KVLY-TV transmitter tower, supplanted by Burj Dubai (or whatever it is now called) as the tallest a couple of years ago, is just off of I-29 between Fargo and Grand Forks, ND. (No, it doesn't have an observation deck. :no: :lol: )

Climate, summers can be hot, with high temps getting into the 35-40 range on many days. 30-35 is more normal. Spring thunderstorms are the stuff of legend while winters are cold (night time lows can get down into the -30 to -40 range and colder, -10 to -20 is normal) with occasional life-threatening snowstorms/blizzards. Bring a supply of water with you when driving around in the more remote parts.

The Dakotas have extensive Google-Earth Streetview coverage, so by all means spend some time poking around there for ideas of the scenery and local cultures.

Enjoy visiting this out of the way part of the USA - an unimaginably vast and varied nation!

:cheers1:

Mike

Tom 958

February 13th, 2010, 10:20 PM

J N Winkler

February 13th, 2010, 10:56 PM

I rather wish more was. I can remember the summer of 2003 when NCDOT had so many big contracts to let (including parts of the Painter Blvd. outer beltway for Greensboro and I-73/I-74) that two lettings had to be held in the month of July. That was a long time ago and since then NCDOT has gone through about four years of funding crisis.

FM 2258

February 14th, 2010, 04:06 AM

Oklahoma is OK OMG! (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=36.162924,-95.79443&spn=0,359.995199&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=36.162749,-95.794433&panoid=xj3thJ3pzplQcJWpkvv7MA&cbp=12,187.7,,0,-9.38) :ohno:

To me, North Carolina is the most interesting state, mainly because when it comes to new roads getting built, anything can happen there. :)

Lol...I beg to differ. Texas is where it's at when it comes to roads....Texas is the best. :)

Probably no surprise that I would say something like that. ;)

Nexis

February 14th, 2010, 08:14 AM

Lol...I beg to differ. Texas is where it's at when it comes to roads....Texas is the best. :)

Probably no surprise that I would say something like that. ;)

hmmmmm. in what category, best for congestion or show-off type? You guys win both , and no i'm not jealous , i have more in the NE to crush you guys in a Contest so ha!:) I like Washington state or the New England states, 5x better then Texas.

J N Winkler

February 14th, 2010, 12:07 PM

I would say Texas is a winner in terms of state DOT transparency. I haven't had any difficulty getting information I have requested from TxDOT: they answer promptly without any get-out clauses. PA and NJ are paranoia central (see Winkler v. Turnpike Commission (http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site515/2009/0206/20090206_030812_Winkler_PA%20Turnpike%20Commission.pdf) for an example). NY should do E-plans, but doesn't. For a high level of transparency you have to go to MA and ME.

WSDOT is probably the national champion in the transparency sweepstakes though.

geogregor

February 14th, 2010, 03:56 PM

J N Winkler

February 14th, 2010, 05:31 PM

There are campgrounds in both Badlands NP and Theodore Roosevelt NP. If you get up really early at the latter, say six AM, you are rising with the bison since the campground is on the way to their watering spot. Unfortunately there are no hot showers, though there are RV parks nearby with tent sites and hot showers.

Motels and campgrounds are pretty thin on the ground through the Sand Hills portion of Neb. 2. However, there is plenty of cheap lodging in Alliance (on the west end of the Sand Hills stretch) and in Broken Bow (just before you get into the Sand Hills proper). I think there may be a truck stop with overnight accommodation in Thedford, but I'm not sure--it's been a long time since I was down that way.

I wouldn't recommend driving 5-10 MPH above the speed limit except when passing--the speed limits are now pretty close to the 85th percentile and also to the natural limits imposed by geometric design. I would also suggest a less Interstate-focused itinerary because long drives on Interstates are highly monotonous in this part of the country, while the two-lane state highways are generally uncongested and highly rewarding in terms of scenery.

mgk920

February 14th, 2010, 10:19 PM

@ mgk920 & J N Winkler

Thanks for all the suggestions. I completely forgot about AAroads.com
I looked at some of the pictures there and on Google Earth, and it seems that quality of pavement on some parts of the I-94 is quite bad.

My plans are more or less as follows:
Flying to Minneapolis then long drive to Theodore Roosevelt NP, then south to the Black Hills region and Badlands NP. Few days there and then to Nebraska where I want to drive Sandhills Scenic Byway (Nebraska Hwy 2) to Grand Island. From there my plan is to drive I-80 all the way to Mississippi River and then follow Great River Road back to Minneapolis.
I drove in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho or eastern Oregon so I'm familiar with long open highways. I love them actually ;)
I hope to encounter some spectacular thunderstorms too.

How about speed enforcement in Dakotas or Nebraska? I always drive 5-10 mph over the limit. I was once stopped in Wyoming for doing 75-80 in 65 zone but as a tourist I only got a warning. It was bloody middle of nowhere, somewhere on US-189.
I also wonder how about accommodation in some of the more remote parts of Dakotas or Nebraska. During my travels I usually stay in roadside motels listed in discount coupons booklets which I collect stopping at state welcome centers. But most of them are alongside interstates. Nebraska Hwy 2 for example seems pretty remote. Sometimes I camp, usually when I'm in National Parks.

I'm really looking forward to this trip.
The roadway surfaces of some of the interstates in the high plains can look a bit threadbare, but they apparently still give a very smooth ride. The weather there can be very rugged (thus the 'threadbare' look), however traffic is light enough that the surface doesn't get bashed to hell like it can in other places. Same with the non-interstate two-laners.

For accommodations, check several of the discount motel chains, there are usually one or two of these motels in all but the smallest of cities. Super 8, Days Inn, Motel 6 and other similar places are well represented in that region and are decent. Rates are usually in the $35-50/night range.

At Grand Island, NE and on westward along US 30 is the World's busiest freight railroad. Union Pacific's mainline carries 120-150 BIG trains/day (15-20 minute headways in both directions) from a junction about 50 km to the west of Grand Island (Gibbon, NE) and on westward most of the way across Nebraska. There is a new public observation platform by their largest in the World yard at North Platte, NE. NE 2 closely follows BNSF's access to the Wyoming coalfields and their railroad there is also quite busy, but not to UP's extent. Their mainlines cross in Grand Island.

When traveling northward between the Quad Cities to MStP, by all means cross over to Wisconsin at Dubuque, IA and follow the eastern Great River Road (most of it is WI 35, but it uses several different numbered routes between Dubuque and Prairie du Chein, WI) along the river to US 10 at Prescott, WI, crossing the river into Minnesota there - STUNNING scenery!

Also, consider following US 30 across Iowa, it goes through many of those neat little towns and you can then follow US 67 and 52 from Clinton, IA to Dubuque, IA.

July and August are a bit late in the year for the really wild plains thunderstorm season.

If you are in the MStP area when the Twins are home (American League baseball), you might want to go to a game to check out their new downtown Minneapolis stadium, opening this year.

Enjoy!

Mike

ChrisZwolle

February 14th, 2010, 11:17 PM

^^

Bailey Yard is the world’s largest railroad classification yard. Owned and operated by the Union Pacific Railroad, Bailey Yard is located in North Platte, Nebraska. The yard is named after former Union Pacific President Ed H. Bailey.

The gigantic Bailey Yard covers a total expanse of 2,850 acres (12 km²) and is over 8 miles (13 km) in length and 2 miles wide (3.2 km). The yard is made up of some 315 miles (507 km) of track, including 18 receiving and 16 departure tracks.

Bailey Yard handles over 10,000 railroad cars every day. Approximately 3,000 cars are sorted daily in the yard’s two humps and 114 bowl tracks. Because of the enormous amount of products that pass through Bailey Yard, Union Pacific describes the yard as an “economic barometer of America.”

pwalker

February 15th, 2010, 05:50 AM

The roadway surfaces of some of the interstates in the high plains can look a bit threadbare, but they apparently still give a very smooth ride. The weather there can be very rugged (thus the 'threadbare' look), however traffic is light enough that the surface doesn't get bashed to hell like it can in other places. Same with the non-interstate two-laners.

For accommodations, check several of the discount motel chains, there are usually one or two of these motels in all but the smallest of cities. Super 8, Days Inn, Motel 6 and other similar places are well represented in that region and are decent. Rates are usually in the $35-50/night range.

At Grand Island, NE and on westward along US 30 is the World's busiest freight railroad. Union Pacific's mainline carries 120-150 BIG trains/day (15-20 minute headways in both directions) from a junction about 50 km to the west of Grand Island (Gibbon, NE) and on westward most of the way across Nebraska. There is a new public observation platform by their largest in the World yard at North Platte, NE. NE 2 closely follows BNSF's access to the Wyoming coalfields and their railroad there is also quite busy, but not to UP's extent. Their mainlines cross in Grand Island.

When traveling northward between the Quad Cities to MStP, by all means cross over to Wisconsin at Dubuque, IA and follow the eastern Great River Road (most of it is WI 35, but it uses several different numbered routes between Dubuque and Prairie du Chein, WI) along the river to US 10 at Prescott, WI, crossing the river into Minnesota there - STUNNING scenery!

Also, consider following US 30 across Iowa, it goes through many of those neat little towns and you can then follow US 67 and 52 from Clinton, IA to Dubuque, IA.

July and August are a bit late in the year for the really wild plains thunderstorm season.

If you are in the MStP area when the Twins are home (American League baseball), you might want to go to a game to check out their new downtown Minneapolis stadium, opening this year.

Enjoy!

Mike

The middle of the U.S. can be a great tourist destination. Yes, for fun thunderstorms, visit in late May and June. Just be aware that some of this "fun" can suddenly become serious with tornadoes.

Beyond the weather, visit Mt. Rushmore, Roosevelt Park in ND, the badlands of SD, and if that isn't enough, there are plenty of casino locations around the region.

poshbakerloo

February 15th, 2010, 01:08 PM

Some of the freeways in LA County are pretty wrecked! They go to pretty much everywhere, but the surfaces are pretty rough!

desertpunk

February 15th, 2010, 04:32 PM

Lol...I beg to differ. Texas is where it's at when it comes to roads....Texas is the best. :)

Probably no surprise that I would say something like that. ;)

You ain't kidding! I always know when I've crossed into Texas because the roadways are suddenly smooth and awesome. Texas is like the Michaelangelo of highways!

Tom 958

February 15th, 2010, 06:58 PM

New design could ease Gwinnett bottlenecks
http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/new-design-could-ease-304470.html

A revolutionary highway interchange design could cut delays at two notorious Gwinnett sites by as much as half.

Plans are under way to reconfigure interchanges along I-85 at Jimmy Carter Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road to relieve the mile-long backups drivers face twice daily. The new design, called a diverging diamond, provides a freer flow of traffic by favoring left turns from the overpass onto the interstate.

If approved for construction, the interchanges would become among the first in the United States with the diamond design

"It's working great," said Don Saiko, project manager for the Missouri DOT, which completed the nation's first diverging diamond last June in Springfield. "The commuters say it has totally reduced their time."

Another diverging diamond is expected to be completed this year in Idaho.

The Federal Highway Administration estimates the Missouri interchange accommodates 600 left turns onto the freeway per hour per lane, twice that of those with the regular design.

The diverging diamond does carry a slight "freak-out factor," according to Mike Rushing, engineer with Kimley-Horn and Associates, which has completed a study for the Jimmy Carter project.

The design allows right turns onto an on-ramp well before the overpass, but the remainder of the traffic then diverts into the left lanes at a signal light at the overpass entrance. By driving on the "wrong side" of the overpass, drivers can make an unimpeded left turn onto the freeway ramp. After vehicles cross the overpass, another signal light allows them to cross back over to the right lanes.

Pedestrians would cross the interchange in a center island.

Rushing said the design is an inexpensive fix to a chronic problem. The community improvement districts leading the drive for the projects say both interchanges could be modified without widening the bridges. Both CIDs are running parallel in the planning stages.

The projects are estimated to cost between $2 million and $3 million and could be funded with local SPLOST money, saving the time and expense of most federal and state regulations. However, Rushing said, because both Jimmy Carter Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road are state routes, and I-85 is a federal highway, some portions of the project will have to be coordinated with federal and state authorities.

The latest traffic studies put daily traffic at about 55,000 on both roads.

Brian Allen, Gwinnett County transportation director, said the county supports anything to help relieve congestion, especially if it can be accomplished at low cost. Neither bridge is structurally deficient, he said, so the small investment now could buy another eight to 10 years of use out of the current structures.

"We want to see these move forward as quickly as possible," said Joe Allen, executive director for the Gwinnett Place CID, which includes Pleasant Hill Road. "We see this as an interim step. This is not a cure to the long-rage challenges we face with that chokepoint."

ChrisZwolle

February 15th, 2010, 07:10 PM

Barciur

February 15th, 2010, 11:37 PM

Nexis

February 16th, 2010, 12:03 AM

Do you guys think there is a chance that those interstates on the east coast would have speed limits raised from 55/65? I sure do think some of those 3 laners could go faster than 65.. 75 speed limit would be good..

Not really , but most of us go 75/80 , theres a highway code here , cars signal each other when a cop is nearby to , alert ppl to slow down.

geogregor

February 16th, 2010, 01:40 AM

I wouldn't recommend driving 5-10 MPH above the speed limit except when passing--the speed limits are now pretty close to the 85th percentile and also to the natural limits imposed by geometric design. I would also suggest a less Interstate-focused itinerary because long drives on Interstates are highly monotonous in this part of the country, while the two-lane state highways are generally uncongested and highly rewarding in terms of scenery.

What does it mean: "the speed limits are pretty close to 85th percentile"?

When traveling northward between the Quad Cities to MStP, by all means cross over to Wisconsin at Dubuque, IA and follow the eastern Great River Road (most of it is WI 35, but it uses several different numbered routes between Dubuque and Prairie du Chein, WI) along the river to US 10 at Prescott, WI, crossing the river into Minnesota there - STUNNING scenery!

I was wondering which side of the Mississippi River is more spectacular.

Anyway thanks for all the suggestions guys, I read about Bailey Yard on Wiki. I plan to go late June early July, should be there over 4th of July. Might get some thunderstorms.
Is it true that in case of tornado warning you should stop under overpass or bridge?

Nexis

February 16th, 2010, 03:43 AM

LtBk

February 16th, 2010, 03:46 AM

Hey Chris, when are you going to visit the US?

mgk920

February 16th, 2010, 04:56 AM

What does it mean: "the speed limits are pretty close to 85th percentile"?

I was wondering which side of the Mississippi River is more spectacular.

Anyway thanks for all the suggestions guys, I read about Bailey Yard on Wiki. I plan to go late June early July, should be there over 4th of July. Might get some thunderstorms.
Is it true that in case of tornado warning you should stop under overpass or bridge?
'85th percentile' means the speed that is faster than what about 85% of vehicles are going in clear traffic. Some states require speed limits be no slower than that - it helps to neutralize corrupt small-town police departments.

Small to mid-sized city parades, park carnivals and fireworks displays on or about 04-JUL are precious memories of pure Americana to take home with you - We USAians *LOVE* to celebrate our country and doing that in the midwest is extra special! By all means - FIND ONE and enjoy it to its fullest! Ask around, locals will not hesitate to direct you to the best ones.

:yes:

BTW, if you are driving along and a tornado warning is issued, TAKE IT SERIOUSLY! Civil defense/air raid sirens will be sounded as an alert. Tune your car's radio to a local station for information, keep an eye out and if it looks like things are getting a bit too much 'fun', stop, get out of the car and *hit the ditch* a few meters away from the car (*NO* hiding under highway overpasses)! Your life may depend on it.

Wind speeds can get into the 300-400 km/h range inside a tornado with very low air pressure.

Mike

Tom 958

February 16th, 2010, 05:20 AM

I would wait until that Springfield, Missouri diverging diamond has some test results... It's a fairly new concept, and I'm not sure if it is a smart idea to immediately implement it in a high-trafficked area like Gwinnett County. Due to all the development along I-85, Jimmy Carter Boulevard is one of the busiest arteries in greater Atlanta.

A much more expensive implementation would be to construct a fly-over from Jimmy Carter Blvd south to I-85 west, to avoid this busy left-turn. Or replace it with a cloverleaf alltogether.

The article said:

"It's working great," said Don Saiko, project manager for the Missouri DOT, which completed the nation's first diverging diamond last June in Springfield. "The commuters say it has totally reduced their time."

Gwinnett DOT is pretty conservative, and those two locations have been congested for decades. I think this means that results are in on the diverging diamond concept. :)

Xusein

February 16th, 2010, 05:41 AM

Do you guys think there is a chance that those interstates on the east coast would have speed limits raised from 55/65? I sure do think some of those 3 laners could go faster than 65.. 75 speed limit would be good..

If the government does that, they will lose a lot of speeding ticket money. :D

If you move with traffic or at least stay within 10 mph of the speed limit while keeping an eye for cops, you'll be fine. When driving on a 65 speed limit, I regularly drive around 75-80 and I've never been stopped. This is what most people, except for slow drivers and the elderly, do.

And usually there are plenty of people who drive much faster than me. :runaway:

pwalker

February 16th, 2010, 06:14 AM

If the government does that, they will lose a lot of speeding ticket money. :D

If you move with traffic or at least stay within 10 mph of the speed limit while keeping an eye for cops, you'll be fine. When driving on a 65 speed limit, I regularly drive around 75-80 and I've never been stopped. This is what most people, except for slow drivers and the elderly, do.

And usually there are plenty of people who drive much faster than me. :runaway:

The "elderly" don't all fit into one category. (i.e. slow drivers). I'm not in that age group, but I can tell you that not all elderly are slow drivers. Some, however, should be. At the same time, many elderly are good drivers with a lot of experience and shouldn't be lumped into a group of bad drivers.

ChrisZwolle

February 16th, 2010, 09:32 AM

Is it true that in case of tornado warning you should stop under overpass or bridge?

That is a bad idea....

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ddc/?n=over

Many people mistakenly think that a highway overpass provides safety from a tornado.
In reality, an overpass may be one of the worst places to seek shelter from a tornado.
Seeking shelter under an overpass puts you at greater risk of being killed or seriously
injured by flying debris from the powerful tornadic winds.

CptSchmidt

February 16th, 2010, 09:51 AM

Stuck in Bama

February 16th, 2010, 10:31 PM

I-20/59 Northbound at exit 118, in the western burbs of Birmingham. The next exit 119A was once named Richard Scrushy Parkway, it was renamed after his conviction.
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/132/101yt.jpg
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/5003/102wy.jpg
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/2812/103fd.jpg

He Named Thor

February 17th, 2010, 09:37 AM

Is it true that in case of tornado warning you should stop under overpass or bridge?

.

BTW, if you are driving along and a tornado warning is issued, TAKE IT SERIOUSLY! Civil defense/air raid sirens will be sounded as an alert. Tune your car's radio to a local station for information, keep an eye out and if it looks like things are getting a bit too much 'fun', stop, get out of the car and *hit the ditch* a few meters away from the car (*NO* hiding under highway overpasses)! Your life may depend on it.

Wind speeds can get into the 300-400 km/h range inside a tornado with very low air pressure.

Mike

^^^
What he said. Also, while on the subject, here is the standard television/radio warning for severe weather:

hvwEeaeOk9k

The youtube video is close visually to what you would see on television, but the banner will be red (usually on top of whatever program you were watching) and will be a standard font.

Unfortunately many people don't take these warnings seriously. However, a tornado is a deadly force of nature. While chances of being killed by one are somewhat slim, not taking warnings seriously is nothing short of idiotic.

By the way, you may hear of a "Tornado Watch" being issued. This means that while no tornado has been confirmed, conditions are favorable for one. You should be ready to seek shelter (chances are the weather will already be pretty bad), as weather can change very quickly.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled topic.

mgk920

February 17th, 2010, 04:36 PM

Stuck in Bama

February 17th, 2010, 10:05 PM

This is what usually happens on TV when a county in this area goes under a tornado warning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHj_5-Yz-20

pwalker

February 18th, 2010, 07:13 AM

The last two posts are quite accurate in what happens on US media during a tornado warning. The radio alert for Chicago is exactly how it sounds when the EAS (Emergency Alert System) kicks in.

The local tv coverage is also quite typical. Most stations will interupt regular programming to provide wall-to-wall coverage of impending tornados. While their coverage is there to protect people, the not-so-known aspect is that these stations want to "brand" themselves as the "weather leader", and that is another strong reason why they do this extensive coverage.

xzmattzx

February 18th, 2010, 07:29 AM

It turns the overpass into a concentrated wind tunnel. I think this video shot by a news screw is what fuelled the idea that an overpass is a good place to hide.

lHBZylcxIvw

They were very lucky to have survived. VERY lucky.

Yes, as stated by a few people already, overpasses are very bad places to take shelter. Tornados are systems of low pressure, and so the higher and deeper you get into a tornado, the higher the winds are. If you are out in the open when a tornado hits, you want to be as low on the ground/in elevation as possible, because the winds are lowest there. That is your best chance of not getting picked up by the winds.

mgk920

February 18th, 2010, 07:35 AM

And here is a recording of an actual tornado warning alert on TV - locations given are close-in west and northwest Chicago suburbs and neighborhoods across the city's north side and into the downtown area.

LON-ZLHUnRg

Mike
Meanwhile, that same tornado warning at Wrigley Field (it's in the Lakeview neighborhood, mentioned in the TV alert) during a Cubs game, complete with Chicago's sirens:

y8LYuwp5g-Y

followed by:

pBUfFKB7iFg

:eek:

NOW, back to the road!

:)

Mike

Stuck in Bama

February 18th, 2010, 08:25 AM

I-20/59/US 11/AL 5 inbound around mile marker 101 http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5662/063jf.jpg

Tom 958

February 19th, 2010, 03:06 AM

A good ladder and some green paint could make this sign really funny. :)

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33.275911,-87.099695&spn=0,359.990398&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.275963,-87.099616&panoid=mNXbHeYGKja0joh42BQmSQ&cbp=12,81.3,,0,2.49

Stuck in Bama

February 19th, 2010, 05:28 AM

I-65 South at I-20/59
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Birmingham,+Jefferson,+Alabama&ll=33.525051,-86.827438&spn=0,359.997358&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=33.52501,-86.827735&panoid=QRt0H_a1dTO9hmPbkELzAg&cbp=12,164.12,,0,-7.95

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Birmingham,+Jefferson,+Alabama&ll=33.525051,-86.827438&spn=0,359.997358&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=33.523383,-86.826793&panoid=Qc7ObkarE1kJYeV4v5uN8Q&cbp=12,164.12,,0,7.95

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Birmingham,+Jefferson,+Alabama&ll=33.525051,-86.827438&spn=0,359.997358&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=33.520582,-86.82586&panoid=tGSDDN1B2kK52QGgw9Sztg&cbp=12,164.12,,0,-7.95

Stuck in Bama

February 19th, 2010, 05:45 AM

Red Mountain Expressway
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Birmingham,+Jefferson,+Alabama&ll=33.505893,-86.790745&spn=0,359.997358&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=33.505843,-86.789742&panoid=B5Tq8b9IANnKaLBBDv06IA&cbp=12,180.82,,0,5

ChrisZwolle

February 19th, 2010, 09:36 AM

Landslide on the Kellogg Interchange in Pomona, CA (suburb of Los Angeles).
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef012877b5f4a2970c-pi

Not to mention the 3rd world pavement they have there. Good excuse to repave this one. I bet this is the original pavement from the 1960's, and if it's not, they did a crappy job.

J N Winkler

February 19th, 2010, 10:30 AM

"Third world pavement"? It looks beautiful! Look how meticulously the joints have been maintained. There is minimal slab cracking too.

Nexis

February 19th, 2010, 11:27 AM

I Doubt they will repave , that whole hillside needs to be restablized before anything else happens ,which can take days , weeks , or months ....and by that time there will be no money left to repave. And that road probably isn't that bad. We have roads like that here, there not that badly cracked or have potholes.

ChrisZwolle

February 19th, 2010, 11:32 AM

"Third world pavement"? It looks beautiful! Look how meticulously the joints have been maintained. There is minimal slab cracking too.

Really? This is proper concrete pavement imo:
http://www.zgorzelec-krzyzowa.pl/gallery/2009.08_05.JPG

Substructure

February 19th, 2010, 02:11 PM

^^ I didn't know we were still using concrete for new highways in the EU...
Why didn't they choose regular asphalt instead ?

ChrisZwolle

February 19th, 2010, 02:16 PM

Concrete is still widely used in highway construction. But only for freeways, not for main roads.

J N Winkler

February 19th, 2010, 03:40 PM

Really? This is proper concrete pavement IMO:

http://www.zgorzelec-krzyzowa.pl/gallery/2009.08_05.JPG

It is also much newer than the concrete pavement in Diamond Bar shown above. I can't see joints, so it looks like CRCP, which means it will be really ugly and rough when a harsh winter causes blowouts: give the weather gods time. Dowelled JRCP FTW.

ChrisZwolle

February 19th, 2010, 04:00 PM

I think it's CRCP as well (edit: I'm not sure if it's reinforced), but I like it more than those slabs with huge joints between them. Well, if I have to make a choice, I prefer asphalt. It needs more maintenance, but the acoustical and drainage characteristics are much better. Plus cracks can be repaved easier than concrete. Another political disadvantage of concrete is that it can easily be neglected because it detoriates very slowly. Road authorities are forced to replace an asphalt pavement much quicker.

J N Winkler

February 19th, 2010, 06:41 PM

If it is continuous, then it is reinforced--the reinforcement is necessary to resist thermal expansion.

Your perspective on the concrete versus asphalt question is clearly conditioned by European practice, some elements of which are not followed in the US. European asphalt designs are more resistant to rutting and deformation than American ones--we don't use HRA and barely use SMA, for example. European highway agencies are also far more likely than their American counterparts to schedule some form of asphalt pavement maintenance (such as renewal of the top course) before rutting develops. Standards for subgrade CBR are in general higher and this allows European asphalt pavements to hold their surface geometry better.

There are some bad aspects to European practice with regard to asphalt pavements, such as the persistent tendency in Britain to use proprietary thin surfacing courses which break up after a heavy rainstorm, but on the whole Europeans have less to fear from their asphalt pavements than Americans do from theirs.

In the US, asphalt pavement is typically bad news during a heavy rainstorm because rutting can and does cause hydroplaning. There is less scope for open-grade surfacings because freeze-thaw cycles make it problematic to rely on rainwater percolating below the top layer of aggregate. As a result, in the US the conservative design is one that relies on water draining off the top of the pavement, without penetrating below the top aggregate layer, and that in turn means using a rigid material--concrete--which will resist rutting and hold its engineered crossfall over time. A well-drained concrete pavement is also pretty forgiving of undermaintenance.

Noise is governed by many variables and I have driven on some recently constructed instances of dowelled JRCP which were pretty quiet--I couldn't feel the transitions from slab to slab. We probably do have more of a problem with road spray, but IMO fixing it is not worth the risk of more asphalt pavement susceptible to rutting.

Rail Claimore

February 20th, 2010, 01:06 AM

Really? This is proper concrete pavement imo:
http://www.zgorzelec-krzyzowa.pl/gallery/2009.08_05.JPG

And typical on all new and rebuilt concrete roadways in the US. Practically the entire Illinois Tollway system around Chicago has concrete like that now thanks to rebuilding over the past 3 years.

http://www.westofthei.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/tollway-bridge-1024x680.jpg

dl3000

February 20th, 2010, 01:19 AM

Thats cool. My guess is JRCP is better suited to earthquake prone regions as well, at least compared to CRCP. Plus the low maintenance benefits are why JRCP is Caltrans' pavement of choice. Only instances I see asphalt are where there are several hotels adjacent to the road or dense residential areas. Im surprised the freeze thaw cycles aren't a major issue in Europe with the CRCP. I guess the mix designs are air entrained and all that.

Cosmoboy

February 21st, 2010, 08:14 AM

Paddington

February 21st, 2010, 05:18 PM

You live in Holland where it rains and there's 50 degree weather all the time. In America, there are wide fluctuations in climate, and this leads to cracking of the roads. If the cracks are filled in properly then the road is very smooth to drive on even if it doesn't look pretty.

MAG

February 21st, 2010, 07:33 PM

... so it looks like CRCP, which means it will be really ugly and rough when a harsh winter causes blowouts: give the weather gods time. Dowelled JRCP FTW.

Looking at the scenery, I guess this is the A4 in Poland, which means that the road should be JRCP for most of its length, even though you can't see the cuts in the photo, probably due to inadequate resolution.

As far as I know, there is an experimental section on this stretch of the A4 made in CRCP technology, which everyone will watch with great interest because of the harsh winter we've had this year.

.

Tom 958

February 21st, 2010, 08:04 PM

The following is a video I took of I-85 in Charlotte, NC. I realize the quality isn't the best, but I'm hoping to upgrade to a Canon 7D soon. I, also, have other videos from NC on my YouTube account. Hope you enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuOdcXJTTFs

I like this one: http://www.youtube.com/user/CosmoPhotography#p/u/7/F22Vq4J5vcI

The common section of I-85 and I-40 in North Carolina was reconstructed to eight lanes in the late eighties, and is still one of the few 2x4 intercity links in the nation. I-40 between Greensboro and the newish I-40 bypass of Winston-Salem followed a few years later, though most of it is 2x3 with room for another lane in each direction. Between, what used to be I-40/85 still remains as it's been since the addition of two lanes and a jersey barrier median in (I think) the early seventies, since the new I-85 Greensboro bypass diverts a lot of traffic from it.

All of these freeways were built either early in the Interstate era or possibly before-- if anyone knows exactly when, I'd like to know. None of them remain in their original state, and to me it's interesting to contemplate how they got to be the way they are now.

Stuck in Bama

February 22nd, 2010, 02:24 AM

Randon Pics of I-20/59
The Jefferson County/Tuscaloosa County line around mile 100
http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5595/062n.jpg
Lawsontown Rd Overpass mile marker 103. This section of interstate was deemed the most dangerous in the country before the widening and median barrier installation
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7979/066ac.jpg
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8389/069ez.jpg
Where is Montgomery??
http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/2871/073q.jpg
I-20/59/US 11/AL 5 after the I-459 interchange. This section of the interstate from MM 106 to MM 118 was yet to be widen to 6 lanes.
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/6553/078hu.jpg
Powder Plant Rd Overpass. From MM 97 to MM 108 was originally built in the mid 1950's before interstate designation. Hence the very narrow median.
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/7898/082xp.jpg
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/8986/083qe.jpg
This use to mark the end of the interstate for years. From this point to MM 115 wasnt opened until 1979-80, finally completing the interstate from Tuscaloosa to Birmingham.
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/4914/084hn.jpg
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/1577/085iq.jpg
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2527/086rd.jpg

Nexis

February 22nd, 2010, 05:04 AM

You drive and take photos at the same time? ^^ Thats dangerous and illegal , you should find a friend to do that.

While i was on my Rail adventures today i snapped a few pictures of the NJ TPK

Going under the Western Spur while on the PATH

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4067/4376500535_8bb9edcb3d.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/4376500791_08b08c3b78_b.jpg

Exit 15X Ramps viewed form the Pascack Valley line

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2696/4377258834_22b2bb043e_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2748/4376511807_ce406f9174.jpg

While @ Secaucus JCT i snapped this of the Eastern Spur near NJ 3

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4004/4376512175_2198a1cd7f_b.jpg

NJ TPK Eastern Spur Hackensack River Bridge form the PATH

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4032/4377249300_038a617e6d_b.jpg

~Corey

I-275westcoastfl

February 22nd, 2010, 05:19 AM

Do you have any idea how many members here take pics while driving?

Nexis

February 22nd, 2010, 05:35 AM

Do you have any idea how many members here take pics while driving?

Alot probably , i don't. At least mount it on the dashboard, so you don't have to take ur hands , or eyes off the road.

FM 2258

February 22nd, 2010, 07:08 AM

Nexis

February 22nd, 2010, 07:39 AM

I think with a point and shoot camera it's no more dangerous than using a cell phone. Just take one hand, point it out the front window and press the button. If you've had your camera for a while you don't need to take the time to orient the camera.

LOL, cell phones and driving have been proven to be very dangerous, its disreacting. Luckily for me and few of my friends we have people to drive us or take pictures while were driving. I take my eye off the road for max of 6secs and a min of 4sec to get the clear shots. But i wouldn't do that driving, becuz i could easily end up in wreck. It doesn't matter have thick the traffic is, or where it is.

snowman159

February 22nd, 2010, 01:41 PM

With a cell phone it's the dialling and the conversation itself that's distracting. I don't even have to mention texting.
When you take pictures with a P&S cam I don't take my eyes off the road at all or no more than for 1sec. I don't take my hands off the steering wheel, just one hand. It's no more dangerous than changing radio stations and I'm sure less dangerous than changing CDs and a lot of other stuff people regularly do while driving. Even an intense conversation with your passenger can be more way more distracting.
Of course, if you do have someone to drive you around and can concentrate 100% on taking pictures, maybe even using a DSLR instead of a point&shoot, that's even better. Just don't blow things out of proportion. :)

Stuck in Bama

February 22nd, 2010, 02:12 PM

pwalker

February 22nd, 2010, 06:13 PM

The use of cell phones while driving is NOT illegal in Alabama, and why should it be?, its no bigger distraction than eating, playing with the radio, etc, etc. Just because some cant walk and chew gum at the same time, should we also ban chewing gum?.

I personally have own a cell phone since 1999 so talking and driving is no big deal to me, and I have yet to have an accident because of it.

With all due respect, I do not agree with you on this.

Study after study has proven that cell use and/or texting is MORE dangerous than almost any driving activity, including believe it or not, driving while drunk.

As to your argument that just because you have never had an accident, that makes no sense. It doesn't mean you won't, and it doesn't factor in another driver hitting or killing you because they are distracted.

Stuck in Bama

February 22nd, 2010, 06:30 PM

With all due respect, you are completely wrong.

Study after study has proven that cell use and/or texting is MORE dangerous than almost any driving activity, including believe it or not, driving while drunk.

As to your argument that just because you have never had an accident, that makes no sense. It doesn't mean you won't, and it doesn't factor in another driving hitting or killing you because they are distracted.

Texting is an distraction while driving than I can agree on, but just talking on the cell phone is no way more dangerous than driving drunk. You cant have impaired vision or slow reflexes by talking on the cell phone. Listening to the radio is just as big a distraction as using a cell phone.

I think we are trending more toward over-regulation in the name of "safety" on the highways.

ChrisZwolle

February 22nd, 2010, 06:35 PM

Danielk2

February 22nd, 2010, 07:08 PM

the big mac thing is easy: Ban drive-thru's

Nexis

February 22nd, 2010, 08:01 PM

pwalker

February 22nd, 2010, 08:23 PM

Holding a cell phone is not dangerous. But the distracting conversation or texting is. I do agree with the others saying having a deep conversation, changing CD's, configure your GPS or having a Big Mac while driving is equally if not more dangerous. But then again, such laws are almost impossible to enforce.

I know that there have been times in the past when I have been talking on a cell phone and after hanging up not have any memory of where I just drove. Once I realized that, I stopped. It's almost like I was in a trance. Perhaps not everyone has that experience, but why would I want to put myself at risk of being hit by someone like me? This is not a victimless crime. IMO, handheld cellphone use while driving should be banned, as it currently is in 15 states, including California and New York. Even more states ban texting.

http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/audio/articles/131236/article.html

ChrisZwolle

February 22nd, 2010, 09:00 PM

I know that there have been times in the past when I have been talking on a cell phone and after hanging up not have any memory of where I just drove. Once I realized that, I stopped. It's almost like I was in a trance.

I think every driver has had that experience, and not necessarily with being on the phone. Sometimes I'm driving, and suddenly I think "man, I do not remember the last few minutes exactly, what situations did I enter?"

It's called subconscious driving. But it's not necessarily a hazard to traffic safety.

Stuck in Bama

February 22nd, 2010, 09:06 PM

This is one time i agree with , the laws are very hard to enforce. But we should have them anyway.

No if a traffic law is deemed "too hard to enforce" than maybe it shouldnt be a law in the first place.

Barciur

February 22nd, 2010, 10:36 PM

Driving across the GWB during the day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0xwaD7YoBo

And coming back at night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HrwMuDJFjo

xzmattzx

February 23rd, 2010, 04:19 AM

pwalker

February 23rd, 2010, 05:56 AM

Delaware has so far thankfully resisted the urge to ban talking on a phone while driving, citing inattentiveness itself as the cause. Our state assembly has discussed it a few times and rejected it. Two municipalities banned it, though, so we might be creeping towards where nanny states like New York are.

An interesting discussion, no doubt, but I'm not sure what this all has to do with Interstates in particular...

Agreed, this isn't particularly about Interstates, but nontheless an important part of Interstate safety, which is important.

I predict we will see studies on how many motorists die due to "distracted driving", and how cell technology whether it be traditional handheld cellphone use, texting, or something else, will most likely be part of the statistics. I am just as much against government interference with human rights as anyone, EXCEPT, when this interference can save lives. The "technology" restrictions probably will go down similarly to the seat belt laws of the 60's and 70's. But with one important difference...seat belt laws protect individuals, the new tech laws will protect other innocent drivers.

xzmattzx

February 23rd, 2010, 04:34 PM

Agreed, not particularly about Interstates, but nontheless an important part of Interstate safety, which is always important.

I predict we will soon see studies on how many motorists die due to "distracted driving", and unfortunately, cell technology whether it be traditional handheld cellphone use, texting, or something else, will most likely be part of the statistics. I am just as much against government interference with human rights as anyone, EXCEPT, when this interference can save lives. The "technology" restrictions probably will go down similarly to the seat belt laws of the 60's and 70's. But with one important difference...seat belt laws protected individuals, the new tech laws will protect other innocent drivers. Those who object to that probably don't care about anyone else but themselves. That is what is so disconcerting about those against cell technology restrictions. I just don't get it.

The arguement, though, is how you can justify banning talking on a hand-held cell phone but not ban talking to a passenger, changing the radio station, shaving your beard, eating an apple, etc. What is the issue? Holding somehting while driving? Should we ban holding food then? Should driving with two hands at all times be mandated? Is talking while driving the problem? Research indicates that the actual talking is the issue (link 1 (http://www.starbulletin.com/editorials/20090723_Hands-free_cell_phones_still_risky.html), link 2 (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Technology/story?id=1073150&page=1)), and so holding the phone up to your head isn't the problem. Further research shows that crashes won't go down hwen hands-free devices are used (http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2010/01/study_handsfree_cell_phone_law.html). So should talking in a car be banned?

I like the approach that Delaware currently takes. You are free to talk on the phone, eat, talk to a passenger, look out the side window, or do whatever you want while driving. If it is determined that you do one of these things and get into an accident, then you can be held liable for inattentive driving (possibly even if the accident is the fault of another person).

Nexis

February 23rd, 2010, 05:41 PM

The arguement, though, is how you can justify banning talking on a hand-held cell phone but not ban talking to a passenger, changing the radio station, shaving your beard, eating an apple, etc. What is the issue? Holding somehting while driving? Should we ban holding food then? Should driving with two hands at all times be mandated? Is talking while driving the problem? Research indicates that the actual talking is the issue (link 1 (http://www.starbulletin.com/editorials/20090723_Hands-free_cell_phones_still_risky.html), link 2 (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Technology/story?id=1073150&page=1)), and so holding the phone up to your head isn't the problem. Further research shows that crashes won't go down hwen hands-free devices are used (http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2010/01/study_handsfree_cell_phone_law.html). So should talking in a car be banned?

I like the approach that Delaware currently takes. You are free to talk on the phone, eat, talk to a passenger, look out the side window, or do whatever you want while driving. If it is determined that you do one of these things and get into an accident, then you can be held liable for inattentive driving (possibly even if the accident is the fault of another person).

Eating Food is already , against the law in sum states and is a fine in most unless you have a passenger. Alot states and Countries are considering banning chatting and texting on a Cell Phone. If i found out the person who crashed into me , was on his phone , i would sue him , intill he had nothing. :)

I-275westcoastfl

February 23rd, 2010, 08:11 PM

I know that there have been times in the past when I have been talking on a cell phone and after hanging up not have any memory of where I just drove. Once I realized that, I stopped. It's almost like I was in a trance. Perhaps not everyone has that experience, but why would I want to put myself at risk of being hit by someone like me? This is not a victimless crime. IMO, handheld cellphone use while driving should be banned, as it currently is in 15 states, including California and New York. Even more states ban texting.

http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/audio/articles/131236/article.html
That all depends on the person driving see with me I'm so focused on driving I won't hear parts of the conversation sometimes. In fact I've gotten out of a slide on a wet road before while holding a cell phone(combination of speed and car needed new tires). Every driver is different just like taking pics while driving you just feel if the camera is level and take the pic, don't even have to look. Sure that means blurry or pics that aren't perfect but it works usually. Texting while driving is a different story.. Nobody can text while driving without being a danger especially with touch screen phones. I only text while at the many traffic lights we have around here since they are mostly long I have plenty of time to read and text before its green. They should ban texting while driving people drive bad enough without looking in their phones. If you want to ban talking on the cell phone you might as well ban passengers too.

geogregor

February 24th, 2010, 12:58 AM

I can imagine technology in the future which will automatically block phone reception inside the cars. If governments decide to regulate (maybe prompted by some bad accident, let say someone will kill small girl while texting) it is quite possible ;)

I-275westcoastfl

February 24th, 2010, 01:25 AM

Not likely because then a situation would happen where somebody would die trapped in a car for whatever reason and couldn't call for help.

Barciur

February 24th, 2010, 01:40 AM

Nexis

February 24th, 2010, 01:54 AM

Not really , i don't mean to be pushy but if you you take Amtrak you might have a better bet of arriving there on time or close to it , but you have to book now becuz add an extra 20-40$ if you book the same day of your travel and , this one looks long and bad for inland and coastal. 7-13inches expected over 2 days.

Barciur

February 24th, 2010, 02:08 AM

So driving along the coast shouldn't be too bad? I don't care about the time, I'd rather not spend 15 hours on the road but it's just a casual trip to visit family for the weekend though planned month in advance. Thanks.

ChrisZwolle

February 24th, 2010, 11:16 AM

Maybe a little bit off topic, but I'm planning a trip to Boston from Philadelphia on Thursday afternoon/evening and now I see there are huge storm/blizzard warnings? Do you guys think this is gonna be as dramatic as they're predicting and I should hold off on that trip or will I be ok?

According to the National Weather Service (http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/okx/) most snow will remain north of I-84. South of that it will mix with rain with little accumulation. It's expected to be all snow closer to Philadelphia. There is also some wind which allows for snow drifts to develop, though the snow accumulations are not that much (4 - 6 inches), so I think winter services ought to keep the main highways clear.

Nexis

February 24th, 2010, 11:29 AM

According to the National Weather Service (http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/okx/) most snow will remain north of I-84. South of that it will mix with rain with little accumulation. It's expected to be all snow closer to Philadelphia. There is also some wind which allows for snow drifts to develop, though the snow accumulations are not that much (4 - 6 inches), so I think winter services ought to keep the main highways clear.

I still wouldn't drive , your not supposed to , it makes it harder to plow and what if you have an Accident , this is a Large Northeaster. One thing you learn in life is to never drive in a Northeaster , becuz it might be your last.

desertpunk

February 24th, 2010, 05:23 PM

The use of cell phones while driving is NOT illegal in Alabama, and why should it be?, its no bigger distraction than eating, playing with the radio, etc, etc. Just because some cant walk and chew gum at the same time, should we also ban chewing gum?.

I personally have own a cell phone since 1999 so talking and driving is no big deal to me, and I have yet to have an accident because of it.

I wouldn't bet on that lasting much longer. Like seat belt laws, the federal government can enact rules that bar federal highway dollars from going to states that do not have a cell phone ban in place. Guess what happens next? Alabama bans cells while driving.

ir desi

February 25th, 2010, 01:35 AM

Texting is an distraction while driving than I can agree on, but just talking on the cell phone is no way more dangerous than driving drunk. You cant have impaired vision or slow reflexes by talking on the cell phone. Listening to the radio is just as big a distraction as using a cell phone.

I think we are trending more toward over-regulation in the name of "safety" on the highways.

--

The use of cell phones while driving is NOT illegal in Alabama, and why should it be?, its no bigger distraction than eating, playing with the radio, etc, etc. Just because some cant walk and chew gum at the same time, should we also ban chewing gum?.

I personally have own a cell phone since 1999 so talking and driving is no big deal to me, and I have yet to have an accident because of it.

Don't take it too personally, but it seems you are not acknowledging the impairment you cause yourself by using a cell phone while driving, and this is the most dangerous error of all. Just like a drunk driver, you think your judgment is fine when it is severely impaired. You don't recognize you create as much danger to yourself as others, and this is why we have safety regulation - not to protect people from themselves, but to protect people from irresponsible others.

ir desi

February 25th, 2010, 01:45 AM

Nexis

February 25th, 2010, 01:51 AM

You should be fine if you use your New England wisdom and keep it below 45.

Actually now it looks worse , for a majority of his trip , 5-12 in PA and NJ and 1-6 along the coast of CT to Boston and the storm will hover for 2 days, so i wouldn't travel at all unless it was an Emergency like a death in the family. The Roads need to stay clear , for the plows. In fact you can get a ticket if your caught driving in the storm in some states, since a Winter Storm Warning is in affect for the whole New York state , Eastern PA and parts of New England , it would be idiotic to drive. Sorry if that sounded harsh, but i'm tired of drivers , driving in the storms and holding up the plows.

Stuck in Bama

February 25th, 2010, 05:16 PM

Driving from the burbs on the westside to the central city

This portion has to be repair often because of the sinkhole issues we tend to have here.
http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/8448/010tp.jpg
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/2460/011nu.jpg
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/8623/012qp.jpg
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/9384/013jm.jpg
http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/3030/014zw.jpg
Button copy sign
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/3230/015xf.jpg
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6694/016uwz.jpg
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2435/019sh.jpg
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/2772/021qwr.jpg
Another Button copy signage
http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/7893/022tf.jpg
If you are trying to get to Corridor X (I-22) you would need to exit here
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1582/024wjo.jpg
Malfuction Junction (I-20/59 @ I-65) Completed in 1970
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/3594/027zx.jpg
http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/7420/028w.jpg
Downtown Birmingham
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4903/029sd.jpg
I-65
http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/2319/030p.jpg
http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/7880/040q.jpg
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/3081/042ex.jpg
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/5913/043jl.jpg
http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/8968/044cc.jpg
I-65 NB overpass, Malfuction Junction
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/6600/046pv.jpg

dl3000

February 25th, 2010, 06:29 PM

I wouldn't bet on that lasting much longer. Like seat belt laws, the federal government can enact rules that bar federal highway dollars from going to states that do not have a cell phone ban in place. Guess what happens next? Alabama bans cells while driving.

Thats how they got the drinking age to 21.

ir desi

February 25th, 2010, 08:20 PM

Actually now it looks worse , for a majority of his trip , 5-12 in PA and NJ and 1-6 along the coast of CT to Boston and the storm will hover for 2 days, so i wouldn't travel at all unless it was an Emergency like a death in the family. The Roads need to stay clear , for the plows. In fact you can get a ticket if your caught driving in the storm in some states, since a Winter Storm Warning is in affect for the whole New York state , Eastern PA and parts of New England , it would be idiotic to drive. Sorry if that sounded harsh, but i'm tired of drivers , driving in the storms and holding up the plows.

I agree with you on the importance of giving plows the space they need and with keeping safety in mind. However, places of business are still open and transportation services are still running - people need to get where they are going despite the weather circumstances. My father is catching a trans-Atlantic flight this afternoon from JFK and his flight from BOS to JFK was cancelled, so he had to drive despite the storm. In my mind at least, trips to see family fall into the "justified" category. The largest imperative is to drive cautiously and defensively. In the end, it's up to Baricur.

Nexis

February 25th, 2010, 11:10 PM

I agree with you on the importance of giving plows the space they need and with keeping safety in mind. However, places of business are still open and transportation services are still running - people need to get where they are going despite the weather circumstances. My father is catching a trans-Atlantic flight this afternoon from JFK and his flight from BOS to JFK was cancelled, so he had to drive despite the storm. In my mind at least, trips to see family fall into the "justified" category. The largest imperative is to drive cautiously and defensively. In the end, it's up to Baricur.

No , he should get a hotel , in fact now theres a Travel ban in affect for some highways in New York state , Northwest Jersey , Eastern PA, and if you choose to drive and they catch you , you get a fine and points on your license.

Barciur

February 27th, 2010, 05:58 AM

Hi guys, just wanted to follow up, I woke up in the morning and seeing the forecasts I booked AMTRAK and am here up in Boston and safe, where they haven't seen snow at all (just couple of inches last week) in the past few weeks.. As I was going through NJ and NYC, it was snowing quite hard, so I figured thank god I can just kick back and relax in the quiet car of AMTRAK rather than worrying about driving in this mess.. all in all, I'm here and I'm glad, thanks for the advise about AMTRAK, it was really smart and I didn't even think of it. :)

Nexis

February 27th, 2010, 06:25 AM

Barciur

February 27th, 2010, 09:05 PM

ChrisZwolle

February 27th, 2010, 10:49 PM

Worst was Northeastern Pennsylvania where over 2 feet fell.

Nexis

February 27th, 2010, 10:54 PM

No, all Acela trains to Boston were cancelled :O made me nervous that my AMTRAK Regional will get cancelled but it didn't.. but let me tell you, I got on the train and it was so packed I got to business class without noticing and got kicked out :lol: So I went one car back and realized it's a quiet car.. never meant to really go there just happened to be there. And now it's snowing up here.. do you guys have a list of roads/interstates that were closed yesterday/thursday? Would be curious to know what happened.

Alot were closed , Interstates ,Roads , streets, but now there open. Although some are still hazardous , falling Ice , and wet snow are causing accidents on back roads and some major roads. Even in NYC there are and were accidents due to this. Power is out in alot of rural areas and semi suburban and they expect everything to be back normal by Tuesday. The Rails are all ok , except the Port Jervis line which shut down , due to many trees that need clearing. Alot of damaged homes due to trees and wind brought down some signs alot the highway. Another storm is coming on Wedensday , which might be bigger or smaller. I'm a little shocked that Acela got canceled , becuz my friend filmed a few , the day of the storm in Linden,NJ. I'm not surprised Northeast Regional was packed , it always is , Unfortnatly all there classes look the same , except for a few differences. Did you snap some photos while you bounced along @ 90-130mph? Any of I-95?

Gaeus

February 27th, 2010, 10:58 PM

Alot were closed , Interstates ,Roads , streets, but now there open. Although some are still hazardous , falling Ice , and wet snow are causing accidents on back roads and some major roads. Even in NYC there are and were accidents due to this. Power is out in alot of rural areas and semi suburban and they expect everything to be back normal by Tuesday. The Rails are all ok , except the Port Jervis line which shut down , due to many trees that need clearing. Alot of damaged homes due to trees and wind brought down some signs alot the highway. Another storm is coming on Wedensday , which might be bigger or smaller. I'm a little shocked that Acela got canceled , becuz my friend filmed a few , the day of the storm in Linden,NJ. I'm not surprised Northeast Regional was packed , it always is , Unfortnatly all there classes look the same , except for a few differences. Did you snap some photos while you bounced along @ 90-130mph? Any of I-95?

You should see how Washington DC Area got devastated last month with more than 24 inches of snow. I went to 5 different stores/groceries and found no milk, no eggs, no butter and of course, no rock/salts to treat the road/walkway.

Nexis

February 27th, 2010, 11:00 PM

You should see how Washington DC Area got devastated last month with more than 24 inches of snow. I went to 5 different stores/groceries and found no milk, no eggs, no butter and of course, no rock/salts to treat the road/walkway.

You ran out of salt , we haven't yet , so the roads and highways here are good now , its just the fallen trees and branches here.

Stuck in Bama

February 28th, 2010, 03:49 AM

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3796/010rr.jpg
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/3156/011tuf.jpg
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/248/012dy.jpg
I-459 South. This also is where the western end of the Northern Beltline is proposed
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/2152/013wnd.jpg
First public meeting on this bypass was in 1966. It was opened to traffic in 1985.
http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/5564/014aad.jpg
I-65 is 15 miles from this point
http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/8876/016az.jpg
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/3843/019px.jpg
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/7061/020xf.jpg

Rail Claimore

February 28th, 2010, 07:33 PM

^^ I remember taking that route at least twice a week when I lived in Tuscaloosa, usually for road trips to Atlanta.

Bart_LCY

March 1st, 2010, 01:45 AM

Some interesting videos regarding Alaskan Way Viaduct:

Earthquake simulation:

hos_uIKwC-c

Bored tunnel video:

rgtOTMJt-AI

Waterfront boulevard video:

k3VmKcWCH-4

JohnFlint1985

March 1st, 2010, 03:27 AM

Driving from the burbs on the westside to the central city

these roads seem like in a perfect condition. In NJ we shall have to fix so many potholes after this winter that I am not sure if all this can be done in a timely fashion. roads are not that good as they used to anymore. :ohno:

I-275westcoastfl

March 1st, 2010, 06:13 AM

Those were very nice animations!! They really need to start on that project!

ChrisZwolle

March 1st, 2010, 10:20 AM

The crazy I-95 / Henry Hudson Parkway interchange in New York City.
http://i47.************/wk0mdx.jpg

Stuck in Bama

March 1st, 2010, 02:27 PM

^^Interesting design

Stuck in Bama

March 1st, 2010, 02:49 PM

these roads seem like in a perfect condition. In NJ we shall have to fix so many potholes after this winter that I am not sure if all this can be done in a timely fashion. roads are not that good as they used to anymore. :ohno:

ALDOT over the last ten years have been repairing the older concrete surfaces, then laying asphalt on 20/59 from MM 116 to MM 128.

We have our share of potholes also, especially with this weather we've been having lately.

jchernin

March 1st, 2010, 10:59 PM

^^Increasing capacity simply increases unnecessary traffic.

I found this quote from a siegel article on ssp:

"Manhattan's West Side Highway, an elevated freeway along the Hudson River, collapsed and was closed in 1973. When it was closed, 53 percent of the traffic that had used this freeway simply disappeared. The political establishment took it for granted that they had to replace it with a bigger and better freeway, but citizen resistance delayed the replacement for two decades, and finally even the politicians saw that the city was getting along quite well without any freeway here. Instead of replacing the freeway, the city simply added new medians, a waterfront park, and a bicycle path to the surface street here."

It's a phenomenon called "disappearing traffic" when freeways are torn down. EVERYBODY expects crazy traffic jams, but in reality the opposite happens. Why? Because people's driving habits change. Everybody assumes that driving habits will remain the same before and after the viaduct.

We're not going to have a viaduct for 10 years anyway while we tear it down/rebuild it; people are going to realize that the city's doing just fine without one as people adjust to the new environment. Just tear it down for pete's sake!!

I would never want to drive on this viaduct. It was designed in the same fashion as the Embarcadero freeway and the Cypress Structure. I'm surprised that it survived Nisqually, but I don't think it'll withstand another earthquake. They need to hurry up and put something else there. It might also be good for Seattle to open up the waterfront.

when san francisco tore down the embarcadero elevated freeway following the loma prieta earthquake, they expected massive traffic jams. however, the current boulevard and streetcar line handle the traffic adequately, while creating a popular walking and running destination with stunning views of downtown san francisco, oakland, and the bay bridge. the ferry building, once obscured by freeway onramps, has become its own destination famous for its food market.

same thing with the central freeway, which was torn down and replaced with octavia boulevard:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sfcityscape/sets/72157607043225086/

(note, these are not my pictures, but sfcityscapes)

in fact, san francisco was to be criss-crossed with freeways:

http://www.sfcityscape.com/maps/more/freeway_revolt.jpg

contrary to popular belief, u dont 'need' freeways (at least within city centers)

ChrisZwolle

March 1st, 2010, 11:10 PM

I-275westcoastfl

March 1st, 2010, 11:10 PM

when san francisco tore down the embarcadero elevated freeway following the loma prieta earthquake, they expected massive traffic jams. however, the current boulevard and streetcar line handle the traffic adequately, while creating a popular walking and running destination with stunning views of downtown san francisco, oakland, and the bay bridge. the ferry building, once obscured by freeway onramps, has become its own destination famous for its food market.

same thing with the central freeway, which was torn down and replaced with octavia boulevard:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sfcityscape/sets/72157607043225086/

(note, these are not my pictures, but sfcityscapes)

in fact, san francisco was to be criss-crossed with freeways:

http://www.sfcityscape.com/maps/more/freeway_revolt.jpg

contrary to popular belief, u dont 'need' freeways (at least within city centers)
San Fransisco has horrible traffic too while tearing down that freeway was a good choice it also adds traffic to other routes in the city. Traffic never disappears but commuting patterns do change. They need to just build a tunnel it is the best solution in this case.

Nexis

March 1st, 2010, 11:44 PM

^^Interesting design

Its always bottlenecked and it needs an overhaul. Also the Concrete and steel are rotting away.:ohno:

jchernin

March 2nd, 2010, 05:10 AM

The Embarcadero Freeway only carried 40,000 - 70,000 AADT. A grid pattern street system like San Francisco has is capable of absorbing that kind of traffic. It's quite different when it is a through route, imagine demolishing I-80 in Oakland or US 101 south of San Francisco for example.

The Alaskan Way viaduct carries 74,000 AADT. That's also not very much, a six lane boulevard with signals would be capable of carrying that kind of traffic. But the question is if it's desirable to have that kind of traffic on city streets.

ur definitely right. the embarcadero, as is alaskan way, are (were) stub freeways. the situation changes when refering major connecting routes - heck what about US 101 north of sf (my hood)? in marin county no alternatives exist other than the freeway. demolishing that would be ludicrous. stub freeways that cover PRIME real estate (like waterfront property), different story.

if the automobiles are kept far enough away from pedestrians then its ok to have that kind of traffic. on octavia blvd they created 'local lanes' for peds, bike and cars accessing buildings on that block and two through lanes for faster traffic. that gives people the feeling of safety since cars are kept far away.

San Fransisco has horrible traffic too while tearing down that freeway was a good choice it also adds traffic to other routes in the city. Traffic never disappears but commuting patterns do change. They need to just build a tunnel it is the best solution in this case.

thats right, sf has a transit first policy. that means creating DISINCENTIVES for driving and incentives for transit. if you make driving easy, then people will drive, period.

mgk920

March 2nd, 2010, 05:19 AM

The Embarcadero Freeway only carried 40,000 - 70,000 AADT. A grid pattern street system like San Francisco has is capable of absorbing that kind of traffic. It's quite different when it is a through route, imagine demolishing I-80 in Oakland or US 101 south of San Francisco for example.

The Alaskan Way viaduct carries 74,000 AADT. That's also not very much, a six lane boulevard with signals would be capable of carrying that kind of traffic. But the question is if it's desirable to have that kind of traffic on city streets.
The problem with Alaska Way is that there really isn't a lot of space to put a surface street that is capable of handling that amount of traffic. Paralleling I-5 is heavily congested, too, so anything able to carry less traffic on Alaska Way is not an option. And yes, it would also very effectively cut the waterfront off from Seattle's downtown area.

Originally, Alaska Way also carried a mainline railroad with 'street' running, but the former Great Northern Railway (now BNSF) eliminated that over 100 years ago with a deep-bored tunnel under downtown Seattle. Its portals are by the (now Amtrak) King Street Station and near the north end of the current viaduct.

Mike

mgk920

March 2nd, 2010, 05:27 AM

thats right, sf has a transit first policy. that means creating DISINCENTIVES for driving and incentives for transit. if you make driving easy, then people will drive, period.
San Francisco will still ultimately have to do SOMETHING to get all of that through traffic off of the 19th Ave/Park Presidio BD corridor (it connects I-280 south of the city to the Golden Gate Bridge). That is one place where 'Transit First' will simply not work - a large percentage of that traffic is simply transiting the city with no real good alternate routes. The only long-term solution that I can see there is to tunnel under it all with few, if any, intermediate access points.

Mike

ChrisZwolle

March 2nd, 2010, 07:53 AM

Tearing down the Alaskan Way viaduct all together without a new route would probably worsen I-5 conditions significantly. It's saturated already.

Nexis

March 2nd, 2010, 08:01 AM

Tearing down the Alaskan Way viaduct all together without a new route would probably worsen I-5 conditions significantly. It's saturated already.

Well they should tear this thing down weather theres a plan or not. Has WSDOT considered the deaths that this thing will cause when the Big one hits Seattle? I guess not , safety comes first with a structure like this. Since its been weaken by the last earthquake , the next one won't need to be big. A Tunnel would be the best solution , but this needs to go right now , and the Majority of the city supports it , although the new mayor doesn't.

J N Winkler

March 2nd, 2010, 10:21 AM

It is being replaced in kind, with a major contract (advertised late last year) having a bid opening date of April 14, 2010:

http://www.bxwa.com/bxwa_toc/pub/1573/toc.html

WSDOT is pressing ahead with the replacement while the advocates of the surface boulevard and tunnel options shout into the wind.

Stuck in Bama

March 2nd, 2010, 02:28 PM

Its always bottlenecked and it needs an overhaul. Also the Concrete and steel are rotting away.:ohno:

If you plans were made to replace the interchange, then you guys might as well overhaul/or out right replace the GWB. With the limited land space what kind of interchange could be placed there??.

ChrisZwolle

March 2nd, 2010, 02:41 PM

It's over 70 years old. But I don't see them replacing the iconic George Washington Bridge.

Nexis

March 2nd, 2010, 07:20 PM

If you plans were made to replace the interchange, then you guys might as well overhaul/or out right replace the GWB. With the limited land space what kind of interchange could be placed there??.

New Ramps , and repaving are needed. And seismic protect , so of the beams have cracks in them. They Can replace the interchange , but that would require alot of money and a very tight design. I do see that happening in 10 years as the wear and tear and congested takes its toll.

It's over 70 years old. But I don't see them replacing the iconic George Washington Bridge.

I highly doubt they would , when they announced they were going to tear down the Pulaski Skyway a few years ago Public Outcry was so much they changed there minds. Now the Skyway will get overhauled and only the Jersey City skyway part replaced.

Xusein

March 3rd, 2010, 04:47 AM

Stuck in Bama

March 3rd, 2010, 05:28 AM

The interchange between I-95 and I-87 just a bit further in the Bronx is impressive too. I think that it too needs an overhaul, but the congestion created by the potential construction would be massive. That highway gives me a headache when I drive it occasionally.

I wonder if transportation officials in NY would consider using tolls to pay for an overhaul of the freeway system?.

Nexis

March 3rd, 2010, 08:10 AM

I wonder if transportation officials in NY would consider using tolls to pay for an overhaul of the freeway system?.

NY state is currently in an unstable political state and i don't think that will change for the next year.

HAWC1506

March 3rd, 2010, 08:13 AM

NY state is currently in an unstable political state and i don't think that will change for the next year.

I think that can be said for the rest of the country as well :ohno:

Nexis

March 3rd, 2010, 08:30 AM

I think that can be said for the rest of the country as well :ohno:

Unfortnatly yes , our Country is becoming stuck in the past while the rest of the world blasts full speed ahead. But it varies state to state.

ChrisZwolle

March 3rd, 2010, 11:30 AM

I wonder if transportation officials in NY would consider using tolls to pay for an overhaul of the freeway system?.

There are already numerous tolls in the NYC area, but that goes to MTA, which mainly uses it to fund mass transit. (MTA has a budget deficit of 1.5 billion $, or over 10%, if you thought Greece was bad)

Highwaycrazy

March 3rd, 2010, 03:18 PM

Unfortnatly yes , our Country is becoming stuck in the past while the rest of the world blasts full speed ahead. But it varies state to state.

I think not. I have yet to see a country overtake America with 10 lane Highways as widespread in the USA.

ChrisZwolle

March 3rd, 2010, 03:31 PM

Nah, 10-lane freeways are only in a few metro areas on large scales... It's really the stereotype that American freeways are always 10, 12, 14 lanes.

10-lane freeways are very common in a few metro areas like Los Angeles, Phoenix, Houston and Atlanta, but there are only a few of them in most other metropolitan areas. For example, Chicago has only one really wide freeway, the rest is 6 or 8-laned. Same for New York City, Dallas, Denver, Miami, Minneapolis, Detroit, Philadelphia, Boston, etcetera where there is usually one big freeway, and the rest are 4 to 8 lanes.

geogregor

March 3rd, 2010, 05:20 PM

I think not. I have yet to see a country overtake America with 10 lane Highways as widespread in the USA.

Maybe, but surface on many of them looks like surface of the moon comparing with many European countries. Also if you check quality or traffic management, lighting, signage many of these 10 lane freeways looks pretty bad. Just check out LA.:ohno:

Nexis

March 3rd, 2010, 06:27 PM

There are already numerous tolls in the NYC area, but that goes to MTA, which mainly uses it to fund mass transit. (MTA has a budget deficit of 1.5 billion $, or over 10%, if you thought Greece was bad)

MTA is a roller coaster , but tolls don't fund it , only Mass Transit projects.

I think not. I have yet to see a country overtake America with 10 lane Highways as widespread in the USA.

I'm tired of all the 10 lane freeways there starting to destory this country, and for what purpose they fill up faster. We need more Mass Transit.

Nah, 10-lane freeways are only in a few metro areas on large scales... It's really the stereotype that American freeways are always 10, 12, 14 lanes.

10-lane freeways are very common in a few metro areas like Los Angeles, Phoenix, Houston and Atlanta, but there are only a few of them in most other metropolitan areas. For example, Chicago has only one really wide freeway, the rest is 6 or 8-laned. Same for New York City, Dallas, Denver, Miami, Minneapolis, Detroit, Philadelphia, Boston, etcetera where there is usually one big freeway, and the rest are 4 to 8 lanes.

It varies by the region , here its 2x3 or 2x2 in Urban areas , due to the highways being old.

Maybe, but surface on many of them looks like surface of the moon comparing with many European countries. Also if you check quality or traffic management, lighting, signage many of these 10 lane freeways looks pretty bad. Just check out LA.:ohno:

Signage works just fine , you Europeans seem to want us to be like you, in some aspects yes. But Freeways is are dept.

poshbakerloo

March 3rd, 2010, 11:04 PM

Maybe, but surface on many of them looks like surface of the moon comparing with many European countries. Also if you check quality or traffic management, lighting, signage many of these 10 lane freeways looks pretty bad. Just check out LA.:ohno:

Big highways were good back in their day, but the main issue is that their function and purpose has aged badly i.e. gas prices being high and carbon emission etc. But back in the 1950-60s it wasn't like that. In LA they are used very intensively.

poshbakerloo

March 3rd, 2010, 11:06 PM

I think not. I have yet to see a country overtake America with 10 lane Highways as widespread in the USA.

The point I'm guess he meant was that 10 lane highways are so 60s, but back in the day but not fitting with current transport needs

I-275westcoastfl

March 4th, 2010, 03:32 AM

Wrong many cities in the US need a few more 10 lane highways the problem obviously is lack of mass transit but some cities lack highways.

HAWC1506

March 4th, 2010, 04:42 AM

Signage works just fine , you Europeans seem to want us to be like you, in some aspects yes. But Freeways is are dept.

There's nothing really bad about the current FHWA signage, but I do prefer blue backgrounds. It's much more legible.

Sea-Tac airport has white-on-blue signs with clearview font and it is extremely easy to read. The green blends in too much with local surrounding trees and greenery.

Here're a few pictures:

White-on-blue at Sea-Tac airport

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h122/HAWC1506/Highway%20Pictures/DSC01394.jpg

Standard FHWA white-on-green next to Sea-Tac airport white-on-blue

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h122/HAWC1506/Highway%20Pictures/DSC01399.jpg

Nexis

March 4th, 2010, 05:27 AM

There's nothing really bad about the current FHWA signage, but I do prefer blue backgrounds. It's much more legible.

No , thats not what i mean't some European on this forum complain about our highway standards, there just fine if you ask me. But then again Europeans complain about everything we do , apparently 160,000 people on one Subway line isn't enough they want at least 300,000 or more. Or our highways are too narrow or wide so we should fellow there standards and some Europeans on this forum don't want our country to have Balanced Rail and Transit networks , they want us to pave over neighborhoods.

I'm done ranting for now ....ugh.........:ohno:

Paddington

March 4th, 2010, 05:36 AM

Now that's a a real man's interchange:

AGhgL04G-6c

:yes:

HAWC1506

March 4th, 2010, 05:52 AM

No , thats not what i mean't some European on this forum complain about our highway standards, there just fine if you ask me. But then again Europeans complain about everything we do , apparently 160,000 people on one Subway line isn't enough they want at least 300,000 or more. Or our highways are too narrow or wide so we should fellow there standards and some Europeans on this forum don't want our country to have Balanced Rail and Transit networks , they want us to pave over neighborhoods.

I'm done ranting for now ....ugh.........:ohno:

Oh I get what you're saying. Although I would appreciate distance markings, like on the Autobahn that counts down how many meters left until an exit. I also like the posts every 50m. Otherwise, American signange is very clear, although a bit text-heavy.

In many ways, I would say European highways are superior. There is more consistent grading, more consistent superelevation, more detailed signage, and much more efficient use of space. But I'll also say that most U.S. highways are old and undermaintained. The attention to detail and the expectation for quality just hasn't caught up.

But until the American people start raising their expectations for quality pavement, routine maintenance, and precise roadway geometry, we'll always be stuck with the moon-craters we see today.

And I'm a huge transit advocate. I would prefer to take as many people off the roads to relieve the strain on our roads.

I-275westcoastfl

March 4th, 2010, 08:42 AM

Well it depends of course the older highways are not great because they are OLD. Older infrastructure is never better than newer infrastructure. The highways I've driven on that were newly built or re-built were all of excellent quality basically all the things you wrote up on the European highway "better list".

geogregor

March 4th, 2010, 08:58 AM

No , thats not what i mean't some European on this forum complain about our highway standards, there just fine if you ask me. But then again Europeans complain about everything we do , apparently 160,000 people on one Subway line isn't enough they want at least 300,000 or more. Or our highways are too narrow or wide so we should fellow there standards and some Europeans on this forum don't want our country to have Balanced Rail and Transit networks , they want us to pave over neighborhoods.

I'm done ranting for now ....ugh.........:ohno:

I was complaining mostly about maintenance. I love design of your highways with wide median and long straights but they are seriously under-maintained especially in big metropolitan areas like LA or NYC. I drove in both of them an pavement on some stretches of highways looked more like in Ukraine. Cracked concrete which wasn't replaced for something like 50 years. It really looks and feels bad.
On the other hand I really enjoyed driving in rural Utah or Wyoming.

When I wrote about signage I meant use of variable signs. I hardly ever see them in US. Don't you trust them? Why is it not used more often? Like variable speed limits. I don't get why you have permanently low speed limits in many urban areas (as low as 50-55mph). In UK they use variable speed limits so when traffic is heavy limit is lower but during middle of the night you can still go 70mph. Example of that you can see on M25.

I'm also concerned about US bridges after what happened in Minneapolis. And when you look at some of the bridges and viaducts in your country they really look half rotten.

But as I said, all my points are mostly about maintenance not design. You really need higher gas tax to maintain such wast road network. Many parts are reaching their technological life end. Unfortunately it seems that most people in US don't get it. They want ludicrously cheap fuel to be able to drive over sized SUVs and don't give a damn about roads.

J N Winkler

March 4th, 2010, 06:15 PM

When I wrote about signage I meant use of variable signs. I hardly ever see them in US. Don't you trust them? Why is it not used more often?

VMS are actually used fairly extensively in some states.

Like variable speed limits. I don't get why you have permanently low speed limits in many urban areas (as low as 50-55mph).

In order to improve access to central business districts, we typically routed Interstates through cities when we were building the network. As a result, these lengths of urban Interstate tend to have fairly low design speeds and thus typically receive lower speed limits. This has not been done to nearly the same extent in Europe but when motorways do enter densely built-up areas, they too receive lower speed limits (the M4 in central London has a 50 limit and 50 limits are very common on British urban motorways built as what is called "principal road motorway"--i.e. maintained by a local authority rather than a trunk roads agency).

In UK they use variable speed limits so when traffic is heavy limit is lower but during middle of the night you can still go 70mph. Example of that you can see on M25.

The M25 is safe for a 70 rural limit when not congested, because it was built to rural motorway standards.

I'm also concerned about US bridges after what happened in Minneapolis. And when you look at some of the bridges and viaducts in your country they really look half rotten.

Yes, this is a problem which needs attention and is being addressed as funds become available. The US has tended to go for deck truss bridges for long valley crossings, rather than the prestressed concrete segmental bridges which were preferred in Europe from an earlier date. Quite a few deck truss bridges are being replaced by precast concrete segmental bridges and no new ones are being built, so progress is being made.

But as I said, all my points are mostly about maintenance not design. You really need higher gas tax to maintain such wast road network. Many parts are reaching their technological life end. Unfortunately it seems that most people in US don't get it. They want ludicrously cheap fuel to be able to drive over sized SUVs and don't give a damn about roads.

I agree the gas tax is too low. I have suggested in a number of forums that it should be tripled in order to meet outstanding needs for rehabilitation and reconstruction and to finance a comprehensive, and ongoing, program of capital improvement to accommodate traffic growth. However, American politicians tend to regard the gas tax as a "third rail" and so increases in the gas tax tend to be very spotty.

Stuck in Bama

March 4th, 2010, 09:08 PM

Corridor X (Future I-22) heading west. This portion is opened to local traffic only.
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2295/083fa.jpg
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4681/084mh.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/9641/085k.jpg
http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/5614/087l.jpg
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/9880/088k.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/769/089nt.jpg
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9332/090iw.jpg
http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/9167/091ms.jpg
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/4067/093l.jpg
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/8109/095j.jpg
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/5774/096ym.jpg
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/8734/097ra.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2534/099p.jpg
The proposed interchange with I-65 would be about 1 mile beyond that overpass
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1262/100gw.jpg
Downtown Birmingham is about 7-10 miles from here
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/3821/101e.jpg

ChrisZwolle

March 4th, 2010, 09:22 PM

HAWC1506

March 4th, 2010, 09:40 PM

I was complaining mostly about maintenance. I love design of your highways with wide median and long straights but they are seriously under-maintained especially in big metropolitan areas like LA or NYC. I drove in both of them an pavement on some stretches of highways looked more like in Ukraine. Cracked concrete which wasn't replaced for something like 50 years. It really looks and feels bad.
On the other hand I really enjoyed driving in rural Utah or Wyoming.

When I wrote about signage I meant use of variable signs. I hardly ever see them in US. Don't you trust them? Why is it not used more often? Like variable speed limits. I don't get why you have permanently low speed limits in many urban areas (as low as 50-55mph). In UK they use variable speed limits so when traffic is heavy limit is lower but during middle of the night you can still go 70mph. Example of that you can see on M25.

I'm also concerned about US bridges after what happened in Minneapolis. And when you look at some of the bridges and viaducts in your country they really look half rotten.

But as I said, all my points are mostly about maintenance not design. You really need higher gas tax to maintain such wast road network. Many parts are reaching their technological life end. Unfortunately it seems that most people in US don't get it. They want ludicrously cheap fuel to be able to drive over sized SUVs and don't give a damn about roads.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/2CB8FDCA-3B27-493C-9AC1-463F48FCA185/65467/POW022510ATMlanecontrolp1.jpg

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/24C51143-7ADA-4FCA-873B-DBE1E8192558/0/Managed_Reg_Thumb.jpg

It's coming! http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/smarterhighways/

The pavement is still crap, but at least the technology's improving. That section of I-5 is around 40 years old. Reconstruction won't happen until 2017.

ChrisZwolle

March 4th, 2010, 09:41 PM

Washington State seems to be leading with traffic management.

FM 2258

March 4th, 2010, 11:06 PM

Speed limit 75mph in urban areas, 85 in rural areas....that's what I call traffic management. :cheers:

geogregor

March 5th, 2010, 02:02 AM

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/2CB8FDCA-3B27-493C-9AC1-463F48FCA185/65467/POW022510ATMlanecontrolp1.jpg

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/24C51143-7ADA-4FCA-873B-DBE1E8192558/0/Managed_Reg_Thumb.jpg

It's coming! http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/smarterhighways/

The pavement is still crap, but at least the technology's improving. That section of I-5 is around 40 years old. Reconstruction won't happen until 2017.

Good to know that technology is coming. Still, I hope it will be used much more widely. It is probably one of the easiest way of improving capacity and safety.
Pavement has 40 years, so it means that by the time of reconstruction it will have about 50. Wow that quite a lot. Such old pavements in Europe you can see probably only in eastern Europe (in Poland we had 80 years old pavement for a while;) but even there we modernize road network quite rapidly.
I think US did great job building interstate highways system but then sort of left it alone hoping it will last forever without spending money on it.
It is shame because I love driving it, so I hope it will be properly maintained ;)

poshbakerloo

March 5th, 2010, 04:58 PM

Wrong many cities in the US need a few more 10 lane highways the problem obviously is lack of mass transit but some cities lack highways.

No city in the world needs them. London doesn't have any highways running thru the middle, just the M25 around it and a few 2x2 A roads in the middle. Inner-city 10 lane highways are equivalent to commuter railways. Just take out the cars and the asphalt, and replace it with rails and 4 trains per hour, you get the same type of thing, just better for the environment.

I'm not saying huge highways are bad, but in a lot of cases they are not needed. They were just built instead of mass-transit.

ChrisZwolle

March 5th, 2010, 05:17 PM

Just take out the cars and the asphalt, and replace it with rails and 4 trains per hour, you get the same type of thing, just better for the environment.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Those cars are still there, but they use other roads, often residential roads, or other streets that were not intended or designed for that kind of usage.

Freeways drain large areas. If you remove the freeway, or don't build them, traffic will use the existing streets, not one street, but many streets. 7 or 8 main roads with one lane each way can carry as much traffic as 8 lane freeways. Only you have a lowered traffic safety and increased emissions because such streets carry traffic at a much lower level of service and fuel efficiency than freeways. So it's not better for the environment at all.

I really don't get why people like it so much to force people into mass transit. If you build two networks inside one city, a mass transit one and a freeway one, which one would be overloaded by it's own success? The freeway. Because personal transport offers a flexibility, efficiency, comfort and personal space mass transit will never offer.

Do you know which cities in the US tops the list of commute times? Not Los Angeles or Houston, but mass transit cities New York, Philadelphia and Chicago. Mass transit is efficient in a collective point of view, but not for the individual traveler which makes up the transit ridership.

poshbakerloo

March 5th, 2010, 06:18 PM

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Those cars are still there, but they use other roads, often residential roads, or other streets that were not intended or designed for that kind of usage.

If you remove the freeway, or don't build them, traffic will use the existing streets, not one street

I really don't get why people like it so much to force people into mass transit. If you build two networks inside one city, a mass transit one and a freeway one, which one would be overloaded by it's own success? .

The cars are only there as there isn't any other way to travel. It cities such as New York loads of people don't even own cars. In London its much better to do with out a car. I have friends that live in central London and I never take a car there, and most of them don't even own a car, but just rent when they leave the city!

The car traffic will only remain there if driving is the only good way to go. Outside the big North Eastern cities in the US driving is the easiest way to get around, this is because rather than building mass transit lines, they built expressways etc, this was ok at the time, but now that concept is getting dated with gas prices going up and co2 emotions and the only way to increase capacity is to make the roads bigger and bigger.

ChrisZwolle

March 5th, 2010, 07:15 PM

CO2 emissions are close to irrelevant in urban mobility policies. CO2 emissions by traffic are, at best, between 3 and 10% of the urban CO2 emissions. For example, the city of Rotterdam, which has freeways between 100,000 to 250,000 AADT around the city, has a road traffic CO2 emission of 3.8% of the overall urban CO2 emissions. Building or widening a freeway, and generate somewhat more road traffic has such a small increase in CO2 emissions it's not even worth mentioning.

Of course, traffic emit more than just CO2, but pollutants of PM10 and NOx are guarded by strict regulations. However, the road traffic share in those concentrations are also not very relevant, for example road traffic in the Netherlands adds 4% of total PM10 (particle) concentrations. Limits are only exceeded on a few spots, and is mainly caused by non-local background concentrations.

mgk920

March 5th, 2010, 07:56 PM

No city in the world needs them. London doesn't have any highways running thru the middle, just the M25 around it and a few 2x2 A roads in the middle. Inner-city 10 lane highways are equivalent to commuter railways. Just take out the cars and the asphalt, and replace it with rails and 4 trains per hour, you get the same type of thing, just better for the environment.

I'm not saying huge highways are bad, but in a lot of cases they are not needed. They were just built instead of mass-transit.
Well, then you will have Moscow.

:cheers1:

Moscow (as in 'Russia') is a reeeeeally big city (as big as or bigger than all of Chicagoland in population) with oodles and oodles of cars - and only the barest of road and street networks to carry them all - this in addition to their World-class subway system. I challenge you to check some of the Google earth images of Moscow and see the unGodly-wide streets with mind-blowing intersections that carry that traffic. I'll betcha that MANY Muscovites would very much like for a cohesive network of eight and ten-lane freeways to be developed in their city!

Mike

poshbakerloo

March 5th, 2010, 08:11 PM

Well, then you will have Moscow.

:cheers1:

Moscow (as in 'Russia') is a reeeeeally big city (as big as or bigger than all of Chicagoland in population) with oodles and oodles of cars - and only the barest of road and street networks to carry them all - this in addition to their World-class subway system. I challenge you to check some of the Google earth images of Moscow and see the unGodly-wide streets with mind-blowing intersections that carry that traffic. I'll betcha that MANY Muscovites would very much like for a cohesive network of eight and ten-lane freeways to be developed in their city!

Mike

I know that as I used to live in Moscow. The like I said before, the cars are there because the roads are there. It is a pretty exceptional example tho. Driving in Moscow was never very easy due to the traffic, which is why I used to take the metro to most places. But the thing is with Moscow is that the roads weren't built because they were needed. Some of the roads such as I think its the Nov. Arbat where built as easy access to the country side. And others, like in Paris for ceremonial reasons etc, they just filled with cars later...This is the main difference with the US's freeways which were built specially for all the cars used in suburban areas...

dl3000

March 6th, 2010, 01:49 AM

I know that as I used to live in Moscow. The like I said before, the cars are there because the roads are there. It is a pretty exceptional example tho. Driving in Moscow was never very easy due to the traffic, which is why I used to take the metro to most places. But the thing is with Moscow is that the roads weren't built because they were needed. Some of the roads such as I think its the Nov. Arbat where built as easy access to the country side. And others, like in Paris for ceremonial reasons etc, they just filled with cars later...This is the main difference with the US's freeways which were built specially for all the cars used in suburban areas...

What you are referring to is induced demand "build it and they will come." The interstates were originally devised under the pretense that they would be a defense and missile delivery and transport system. The military determined which roads were strategically necessary first and then the rest of the system followed. The US had an extensive and efficient streetcar system everywhere, but regulation detached the streetcar companies from their utilities and real estate subsidiaries along with a fixed fare that eventually killed the systems. It's a matter of right place at the right time. LA has several freeways that are only 6 lanes and are quite old.

Bottom line, its all a matter of land use. Cities with a dense core can handle transit. LA is one of the densest cities in the world, but the density is spread evenly on a large area.

ChrisZwolle

March 6th, 2010, 10:52 AM

I never realized how big this interchange was... Because you have no point of reference, until I measured it.

http://i46.************/t728sw.jpg

Stuck in Bama

March 6th, 2010, 01:12 PM

^^Wow talk about being in the middle of nowhere, but I would guess that this part of West Texas is very scenic as well.

H123Laci

March 6th, 2010, 04:23 PM

Awesome video from Freewayjim of I-20 through Birmingham, Alabama. Better watch it on full res on the Youtube site.

oBrew9HDmI0

why do not americans keep right? isnt it obligatory?

many driver slowpoke in the inner (or middle) lane so many other driver have to overtake on the right...

this is total chaos... :bash:

ChrisZwolle

March 6th, 2010, 04:45 PM

The best way is to allow passing on the right. Europeans also tend to drive in the middle lane for no reason on 3+ lane-each-way-roads. You can get all worked up and blame "all those stupid drivers", but that just doesn't work. The police has better things to do than enforcing keep-right-unless-to-pass on a large scale.

I-275westcoastfl

March 7th, 2010, 12:03 AM

I always drive in the middle lane because I swear half the drivers on the road don't know the rule of keep right. In Florida it is the law to keep right and move out of the left lane for a faster car its just not enforced.

pwalker

March 7th, 2010, 03:03 AM

why do not americans keep right? isnt it obligatory?

many driver slowpoke in the inner (or middle) lane so many other driver have to overtake on the right...

this is total chaos... :bash:

I didn't see any real bad driving in this video. For the most part, everyone seemed courteous and alert. Add in left-exits, which are more common than most would believe, and this is quite normal.

As for middle-lane driving, yes I am guilty too. Only because that is the kind of driver I am...not slow, not a speeder, so the middle works for me. Perhaps that is the mentality of the average driver.

pwalker

March 7th, 2010, 03:06 AM

Awesome video from Freewayjim of I-20 through Birmingham, Alabama. Better watch it on full res on the Youtube site.

oBrew9HDmI0

Freewayjim surely offers one of the best in road movies on Youtube. If you like them, be sure to also check out the videos of FreewayBrent (http://www.youtube.com/user/FreewayBrent) (all over North America) and ScrewdUPClickV2 (http://www.youtube.com/user/ScrewdUPClickV2) (mainly Texas).

I didn't see any real bad driving in this video. Everyone seems quite courteous and alert. Plus, with some left-exits, which is more common than one would expect.

As for middle-lane driving, I am guilty as well. I am not a slow driver, but I'm not a speed-junkie either, so the middle is just fine. I think most drivers fit into this category.

Mr. Pollo

March 7th, 2010, 09:58 PM

I never realized how big this interchange was... Because you have no point of reference, until I measured it.

Is this where I-20 starts? Near Kent, TX ?

ChrisZwolle

March 7th, 2010, 10:06 PM

That's right Mr. Pollo :)

Tom 958

March 8th, 2010, 03:19 AM

I'd never looked at the I-10-I-20 interchange before, but it uses an extremely economical layout requiring only one bridge for one roadway but also requiring a left exit, a left entrance, and weaving. This layout was used for a few very early interchanges and even as an at-grade layout, but surely this is the only place it's used on the Interstate System.
http://i46.************/t728sw.jpg

ChrisZwolle

March 8th, 2010, 04:24 PM

Interstate 70 is closed in the Glenwood Canyon in Colorado after a major rockslide. The detour is 200 miles.

edit: picture by Denver Post
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2010/0308/20100308__help~p1.jpg

Stuck in Bama

March 8th, 2010, 09:12 PM

^^Yikes

FM 2258

March 9th, 2010, 08:28 AM

^^^

Wow, now we have Interstate 40 and Interstate 70 closed do to rock slides in this country.

snowman159

March 9th, 2010, 01:53 PM

And it's not the first time this has happened. That section of I-70 is very prone to rock slides.

If you look at the Denver Post article you can see another picture of a giant hole in the middle of driving lanes. Thank god no one was around when it happened.

Nexis

March 9th, 2010, 03:49 PM

Thats happens alot on Mountainous highways , it usually doesn't make the news Unless the highway will be closed for days or weeks. But Mother Nature is trying to tell us to get off her back. This should serve as a warning not to build any more infastrature in these types of areas , unless there Power lines.

dl3000

March 9th, 2010, 07:02 PM

Time to TUNNEL!!! lol. Only joking. On CA-1 near Pacifica, CA there is a section called Devil's Slide, its taken years of slides to prompt them to tunnel the area because it is a major route to SF from the coastal peninsula.

That appears to be a really pretty road.

ChrisZwolle

March 9th, 2010, 07:34 PM

But Mother Nature is trying to tell us to get off her back. This should serve as a warning not to build any more infastrature in these types of areas , unless there Power lines.

lol, if a country is bisected by mountains, they shouldn't connect both sides of a country? What a nonsense....

snowman159

March 9th, 2010, 07:56 PM

There are ways to protect roads from falling rocks. Whether or not that would be feasible in Glenwood Canyon, I don't know.

http://www.gps-bau.com/ls/gps-alpin/noesslach_r364.jpg

http://www.gps-bau.com/ls/gps-alpin/oebb_poeham_r276.jpg

http://www.dywidag-systems.at/fileadmin/resources/images/references/slope_stabilization/DSI_Expressway_Bruck_Graz_Austria.jpg

http://www.dywidag-systems.at/fileadmin/resources/images/references/slope_stabilization/DSI_Rockface_Marseille_France.jpg

dl3000

March 10th, 2010, 01:32 AM

Dont forget shotcrete but probably not strong enough. Is the last one rock bolts? Those could work.

poshbakerloo

March 10th, 2010, 11:38 AM

There a highway (I forget which one) somewhere in south western Utah which I travelled on in 2008 that is pretty much running along the bottom of a very narrow canyon. And then at some point on a cliff face!

ChrisZwolle

March 10th, 2010, 11:41 AM

^^ San Rafael Swell. One of the coolest Interstate sections in the United States.

Freewaybrent made an awesome video:

-bKfi-Ms6F8

dl3000

March 10th, 2010, 05:24 PM

There is a cool part on the 15 north of Vegas in Arizona where the road goes straight toward some steep mountains and then at the last minute does a quick curve and tucks neatly between them. It was pretty interesting.

nerdly_dood

March 10th, 2010, 05:42 PM

i saw that pic of rocks on the highway in my local newspaper yesterday... i'd hate to have to drive through that.

geogregor

March 11th, 2010, 02:01 AM

^^ San Rafael Swell. One of the coolest Interstate sections in the United States.

Freewaybrent made an awesome video:

It is cool video indeed. But I have to say I-15 north of Las Vegas is equally or even more spectacular. Or how about I-84 in Columbia River Gorge in Oregon.
By the way last year I drove UT 24 from Hanksville to I-70 and then US 6 to Salt Lake City. All these roads are spectacular.
On UT 24 first time in my life I reached just about 100mph :shifty:
It is two lane highway but dead straight, you could drive 150mph with no problem. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depends from the point of view) my rental car just couldn't do more as it was slightly uphill ;)
Honestly I don't see the point of 75mph speed limit on I-70 (or on most of the rural interstates in that matter). Just put warning signs ahead of the curves and let people drive as they wish.

dl3000

March 11th, 2010, 03:19 AM

i saw that pic of rocks on the highway in my local newspaper yesterday... i'd hate to have to drive through that.

You don't drive through it, there are rocks in the way ;)

dl3000

March 11th, 2010, 03:35 AM

Here is that section of I 15 I was referring to. Just tucks right into that canyon. Virgin River Gorge in Arizona.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/atzeZu-OQYA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/atzeZu-OQYA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

pwalker

March 11th, 2010, 06:53 AM

GOUST

March 11th, 2010, 08:58 AM

Virgin River This is a highway?
winding and it is impossible to develop a 150 km / h -200 km / h

Some idiot is designed, it should make up the tunnel to be rode straight.
Other roads have nice;)

geogregor

March 11th, 2010, 10:37 AM

Nice video from I-70 and I-15.

The I-15 stretch north of Vegas only crosses Arizona for about 30 miles, but it is spectacular.

The I-70 stretch in Utah is amazing, too. And I agree, with little traffic, speed limits there are not needed, except for curves. But that becomes a political debate. Some areas of Texas and Utah currently have 80 mph limits in limited areas.

Even 80 mph is still incredible low on straight rural interstates, look at highways in Kansas, Wyoming, Idaho.
The only problem might be poor line discipline among US drivers. But it could be connected as some sort of campaign, promoting keeping to the right as part of introducing higher speed limits. It could work if well done.

Virgin River This is a highway?
winding and it is impossible to develop a 150 km / h -200 km / h[QUOTE]

It is great road, I drove there last year as well, no probles. Of course you have to slow down but what a spectacular drive it is. I prefer it from another boring tunnel. You can drive half of the Italian Alps and almost not see mountains. Comparing with that, US interstates are very refreshing.
In places like that speed limit makes perfect sense but there are oly relatively short winding stretches on interstetes west of Mississippi.

[QUOTE]Some idiot is designed, it should make up the tunnel to be rode straight.
Other roads have nice
Some idiot would design tunnel where it is not needed at all.

KIWIKAAS

March 11th, 2010, 12:25 PM

^^ San Rafael Swell. One of the coolest Interstate sections in the United States.

Freewaybrent made an awesome video:

-bKfi-Ms6F8

Wow! What a beautiful route

Stuck in Bama

March 11th, 2010, 03:39 PM

It is cool video indeed. But I have to say I-15 north of Las Vegas is equally or even more spectacular. Or how about I-84 in Columbia River Gorge in Oregon.
By the way last year I drove UT 24 from Hanksville to I-70 and then US 6 to Salt Lake City. All these roads are spectacular.
On UT 24 first time in my life I reached just about 100mph :shifty:
It is two lane highway but dead straight, you could drive 150mph with no problem. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depends from the point of view) my rental car just couldn't do more as it was slightly uphill ;)
Honestly I don't see the point of 75mph speed limit on I-70 (or on most of the rural interstates in that matter). Just put warning signs ahead of the curves and let people drive as they wish.

Because the "safety nuts" would come out the wood work with their usual cry about how dangerous something like that would be. I wouldnt mind seeing no speed limits on rural interstates, or seeing some kind of electronic system that could determine the proper speed limit according to weather conditions and/or traffic volume. I thought the purpose of having limited access interstates was to get a person from point A to point B as quickly as possible.

ChrisZwolle

March 11th, 2010, 03:43 PM

It's way too expensive to install electronic signs on every mile of rural interstate that carries 30,000 AADT or less. I'd say a 75 - 80 mph speed limit is quite fair. I've read Illinois is finally considering raising their speed limits. Only from 65 to 70 mph, but it's a start.

J N Winkler

March 11th, 2010, 04:04 PM

I agree with GOUST--the length of I-70 shown in FreewayBrent's clip is in many respects a textbook example of how not to design a freeway. With bright sunlight over the driver's (and videographer's) shoulder, the cuts and fills look rather impressive, but the curves fail perspective evaluation. As a general rule, the alignment of a high-speed road should look like a string hanging naturally between your current position and the "vanishing point" (the furthest point on the highway that is visible to you). In contradistinction, the video clip shows several instances of the I-70 alignment slewing abruptly to one side, and then back to the other side, between the driver's eye position and the vanishing point. It would have been more expensive but would have given a much better service to motorists if viaducts had been constructed to bypass these sharp curves. I do not think an alignment optimized to pass perspective evaluation would have had to have tunnels, and the views of the landscape off to the sides would have been more or less the same. A less tortuous alignment would give drivers a fuller opportunity to enjoy the scenery.

I have actually driven this length of I-70 myself, but only at night. I would say that 60 MPH is a reasonable speed only by daylight in a car with grippy tires. At night, and with only the lane and shoulder striping to provide positive guidance, the curves are extremely punishing since they have high degree, high delta, and because I-70 is in an icing-prone part of Utah, low maximum superelevation. This means that the side friction demand is great and less of the retroreflective striping is visible in the car headlamps at night, which makes it difficult to tell when a curve ends and tangent begins. From memory, the recommended speed for truckers on this portion of I-70 (which is also called the Spotted Wolf Alignment) is either 35 or 45 MPH and I had to set my cruise control to 40 MPH to handle the curves safely in pitch-black dark.

dl3000

March 11th, 2010, 05:38 PM

Virgin River This is a highway?
winding and it is impossible to develop a 150 km / h -200 km / h

Some idiot is designed, it should make up the tunnel to be rode straight.
Other roads have nice;)

The speed limit is 88 km/h (55 mph) which used to be the speed limit on all urban highways so it is not too slow. Im thinking you can do 100 km/h and be fine. I think there is not enough traffic through the road to justify the investment in tunnels. There would be MANY to traverse the distance. The goal was just to put a higher capacity road through the area to allow connectivity, I don't think achieving modern roadway speed was an objective.

nerdly_dood

March 11th, 2010, 06:52 PM

You don't drive through it, there are rocks in the way ;)

no, i mean when they're falling... :storm:

dl3000

March 12th, 2010, 12:34 AM

I was joking. It rarely happens. I remember I had some friends from Jersey over and one was driving and the sign said caution falling rocks and he was all paranoid. When it does though, godspeed.

HAWC1506

March 13th, 2010, 02:58 AM

U.S. highways (at least the old ones) don't exactly meet the standard of 80 mph design. There are certainly some parts where 70-80mph are possible, but there's always a curve or two in there that is unacceptable for the road.

I think crowned roadway is a factor too. Crowned roadways seem to make superelevation for high speeds difficult. I have yet to see a crowned highway where superelevation is completely smooth.

And there's also a restriction of how much a road can be superelevated due to icing conditions (they don't want cars sliding inwards during snow/ice situations).

Davodavo

March 13th, 2010, 09:09 AM

What's the speed limit in the USA when driving on motorways?

ChrisZwolle

March 13th, 2010, 09:33 AM

Usually 55 - 65 mph in urban areas and 65 - 75 mph in rural areas, depending on state. Some sections in Texas and Utah allow 80 mph.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/US_speed_limits.svg/800px-US_speed_limits.svg.png

H123Laci

March 13th, 2010, 09:40 AM

I didn't see any real bad driving in this video. For the most part, everyone seemed courteous and alert. Add in left-exits, which are more common than most would believe, and this is quite normal.

left-exit is unsafe and obsolete...

H123Laci

March 13th, 2010, 09:45 AM

Usually 55 - 65 mph in urban areas and 65 - 75 mph in rural areas, depending on state. Some sections in Texas and Utah allow 80 mph.

these are ridiculously low limits.

even the 80mph is low on low traffic sections, there should be 90 or 100mph...

ChrisZwolle

March 13th, 2010, 10:05 AM

I doubt if Interstate cross slope and curvature is designed for such speeds. Imo, 75 - 80 mph is a fine speed limit in rural areas if it's not enforced too strictly.

What I do like about the US is the higher truck speed limits. Even the lowest speeds limits for trucks (California: 55 mph) are among the highest in Europe. Some areas even allow trucks doing 70 mph. I'm not sure if American rigs are more stable due to their much longer tractor base.

J N Winkler

March 13th, 2010, 02:33 PM

I doubt if Interstate cross slope and curvature is designed for such speeds.

They aren't. The catalogue of available design speeds for Interstates maxes out at 70 MPH. Of course a state DOT or other highway agency can develop a compliant design which has enough "slack" to allow much higher speeds, but as a rule the driver can't count on more than 70 MPH in rural areas.

What I do like about the US is the higher truck speed limits. Even the lowest speeds limits for trucks (California: 55 mph) are among the highest in Europe. Some areas even allow trucks doing 70 mph. I'm not sure if American rigs are more stable due to their much longer tractor base.

They aren't and they may in fact be more susceptible to jackknifing because the greater wheelbase of the tractor unit means more of a lever arm. Differential speed limits are unpopular with the trucking industry (especially owner-operators), and car drivers in general have a mixed opinion of them, so in the absence of clear evidence of their safety benefits, many states don't have them. FHWA several years ago sponsored a study to evaluate the safety implications of differential speed limits and was not able to prove that there were any benefits to having them.

This said, I have been told that a number of major trucking firms (Schneider, e.g.) voluntarily govern their tractor-trailers to speeds which are higher than the EU-wide limit of 56 MPH but still slightly below the speed limit for cars in many states--e.g., 62 MPH.

FM 2258

March 13th, 2010, 09:19 PM

poshbakerloo

March 13th, 2010, 09:30 PM

these are ridiculously low limits.

even the 80mph is low on low traffic sections, there should be 90 or 100mph...

Its not that low. 100Mph is way too high for a lot of peoples cars. Its surprising how bad some cars drive over 70Mph

HAWC1506

March 13th, 2010, 10:35 PM

What I do like about the US is the higher truck speed limits. Even the lowest speeds limits for trucks (California: 55 mph) are among the highest in Europe. Some areas even allow trucks doing 70 mph. I'm not sure if American rigs are more stable due to their much longer tractor base.

That's one of the things I don't like about our highways. Trucks (at least in Washington) often go as fast, if not faster than normal speed limits. With trucks as large as those in the U.S., and tight curves on the highways, it's almost unnerving to drive next to them when they're driving as fast as you are.

It's a safety issue too, because the distance it takes to stop an 18-wheeler is significantly higher. They often cruise in the middle lane as well, which creates havoc in the immediate traffic flow behind them.

HAWC1506

March 13th, 2010, 10:39 PM

They aren't. The catalogue of available design speeds for Interstates maxes out at 70 MPH.

I do remember seeing 80 mph design criteria somewhere from WSDOT...I'll see if I can find it.

J N Winkler

March 13th, 2010, 11:24 PM

FAPG § 630(b) Supplement advises state DOTs (and other highway agencies performing federally funded construction) to put the important design criteria for a new-location highway, including the design speed, on the title page of the construction plans set. So if you find a title sheet that says 80 MPH, save it and show us--I can promise it will be very unusual.

sonysnob

March 13th, 2010, 11:53 PM

^ I work designing roads here in Canada (boring municipal ones though, not any interesting freeways or anything). The Canadian TAC manual has design criteria for design speeds up to 130km/h. In Canada, it is typical to design a road at 20km/h over what the posted speed limit will be once open to traffic. I would imagine design in the US has a similar factor of safety.

J N Winkler

March 14th, 2010, 12:14 AM

HAWC1506

March 14th, 2010, 01:10 AM

The impression I have is that, pre-NMSL, posting the speed limit below the design speed was more common east of the Mississippi and the difference between the design speed and the posted speed was rarely more than 5 to 10 MPH. In the western states agencies typically designed for 70 and posted 70 in rural areas (yes, even Oregon). With the advent of speed limits up to 75 or even 80 MPH, there is now significant mileage which is posted in excess of the design speed. Building to a design speed 5 to 10 MPH above the speed proposed for posting is, again, happening largely east of the Mississippi, but in many cases the speed limits are increased (up to design speed or even beyond) when motorists' groups lobby for observance of the 85th percentile rule.

I have seen curve superelevation tables for design speeds of up to 100 MPH and 160 km/h, but I know of no Interstate highway which has been built to a design speed greater than 70 MPH.

I've seen figures for 80 mph, but I have yet to see it be applied anywhere. So I guess the tables and such are there in many cases, but the application isn't.

For speed limits, the 85th percentile is used, so the speed at which 85 per cent of motorists are travelling will become the speed limit.

[Update]: found a diagram.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h122/HAWC1506/Superelevation.png

I'm too lazy to change it to the metric system. As someone who plans on studying civil engineering, the one thing I'm absolutely not looking forward to is using English system units. I can only hope that in the future, all of our roads will at least be designed in metric.

Maybe I'll move to Britain.

sonysnob

March 14th, 2010, 01:28 AM

HAWC1506

March 14th, 2010, 01:37 AM

In Washington, there's actually a law stating that the maximum speed you can travel at is 70 mph. Any speed above that would require a change in legislation, which is not likely to happen anytime soon.

It's very difficult to generalize the U.S. when it comes to these criteria. Every state has a different system.

J N Winkler

March 14th, 2010, 03:47 AM

This PDF comparing the WSDOT design manual to the 2004 AASHTO Green Book is also of interest:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/ProjectDev/ProjectSummary/Compare_AASHTO-06.pdf

It appears that AASHTO now has a headline 80 MPH design speed for Interstates. The wrinkle here, however, is that the 2004 Green Book now allows lower k-values for summit curves (unwinding the dead-dog theory), so where vertical alignment is concerned today's 80 MPH could very well be yesterday's 70 MPH. I don't have my copies of the 1984 Green Book or the 1965 Blue Book to hand, so I can't comment in detail on how 70 and 80 MPH design speeds have been treated in AASHTO guidance in the past.

In any case, design speed is a bit of a red herring because different jurisdictions attribute different geometric characteristics to the same design speed. There are some reasons, not encountered in Europe, why American agencies need to be careful about speed limits in relation to design speed. First, American design standards generally allow curves to be built with smaller radii than is the case for equivalent design speeds in most European countries. Second, AASHTO standards give designers the discretion of choosing a maximum superelevation based on icing, and this is not linked to curve radius, so a curve of given radius at a given design speed can have multiple levels of side friction demand depending on the designer's choice of maximum superelevation. Third, the American approach to relating superelevation to curve radius is different and results in higher side friction demand as curve radius contracts. These factors, combined with the historical bias in favor of long-tangent, short-curve alignments, means that Interstates typically have less "slack" where higher speeds are concerned than European motorways.

Hyperspace

March 14th, 2010, 04:06 AM

What's the speed limit in the USA when driving on motorways?

It varies, 70 mph is usually the standard. But it is acceptable to go 5 mph over the speed limit, so that would make 75 mph. But it depends where you are, some states allow you to go faster, paticulary in Texas and the southwest. In Texas you can go up to 85 mph on the Interstate.

Here is a full list by state.

http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/home/state-speed-limit-chart/

geogregor

March 14th, 2010, 04:30 AM

I'm surprised any transportation agency would permit a speed limit that is higher than the design speed of a given road. There are some pretty considerable legal ramifications posting a speed limit over the road design. If the speed limit is higher than the road design speed, the state would be liable for damages for virtually all traffic collisions.

There is always an issue of German motorways with no speed limit. You can't say they were designed for an infinite speed. They just relay on driver's common sense. You drive as fast as you feel confident, it all depends from quality of your car and your abilities as a driver.
Even if you post speed limit lower than designed speed, if someone drives old crap car will have to go even slower to stay safe. You can't use design speed as a safe speed limit.
Also in Poland roads designed for speed of 110 or 120kph have speed limit posted 130kph if I'm correct.
Speed limit of, let say, 100mph on rural interstate wouldn't mean that you can safely drive 100mph in any car in any condition. If you mess around you can still be prosecuted for dangerous driving as you can in Germany.
I just personally think that blanket speed limit is quite blunt tool to improve safety, especially considering poor enforcement of the other rules on American roads (like lane discipline, indicating etc.)
Speed limit has more to do with legal system than with road design.

dl3000

March 14th, 2010, 08:18 AM

these are ridiculously low limits.

even the 80mph is low on low traffic sections, there should be 90 or 100mph...

Virtually nobody follows these exactly. In addition, in urban areas, these speed limits are very reasonable in the densest areas. With so many interchanges in succession in LA I get nervous going 70 in some parts simply from all the merging and splitting. I'm sure the roads back east that only have 2 lanes in each direction on many of the interstates don't have a choice but to slow down from the traffic.

pwalker

March 14th, 2010, 08:40 AM

For what it's worth, the US Interstate system was designed for 70 mph speeds, which was the designated speed limit for Interstates in the late 50's, when the system came on line.

This does not include mountainous areas where speeds obviously need to be lowered.

Barciur

March 14th, 2010, 10:53 PM

It varies, 70 mph is usually the standard

The funny thing is, I live in the US for 4 years, and I haven't seen any speed limit signs higher than 65... the fact that I travel only on the east coast may have something to do with it ;)

ChrisZwolle

March 14th, 2010, 11:12 PM

^^ You bet. The closest state to you with a 70 mph speed limit is West Virginia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/US_speed_limits.svg/800px-US_speed_limits.svg.png

HAWC1506

March 14th, 2010, 11:50 PM

AASHTO standards give designers the discretion of choosing a maximum superelevation based on icing, and this is not linked to curve radius, so a curve of given radius at a given design speed can have multiple levels of side friction demand depending on the designer's choice of maximum superelevation.

There are also many other factors that can affect side friction, including pavement type and the vehicle itself.

I haven't seen tables that list the side friction factor in relation to pavement type. My guess would be that longitudinal grinding on PCC would have lower side friction demand than horizontal grinding, and that asphalt would generally have less side friction demand than concrete.

But is it safe to assume that the effects of side friction on pavement type is minimal and therefore disregarded for general roadway design?

geogregor

March 15th, 2010, 03:33 AM

^^ You bet. The closest state to you with a 70 mph speed limit is West Virginia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/US_speed_limits.svg/800px-US_speed_limits.svg.png

Good to see that North and South Dakota as well as Nebraska, all have 75mph speed limit. That's where I'm going to do bulk of my driving this summer. It means I can do at least 80mph ;)
Is limit on rural US highways the same as on the interstates? I can't remember.

I think many rural western counties could follow Texas example and rise limit at least to 80mph. Looking at the map above I can't see difference between counties in Texas wit 80 limit and many counties in let say Wyoming or Nevada.

pwalker

March 15th, 2010, 03:43 AM

Good to see that North and South Dakota as well as Nebraska, all have 75mph speed limit. That's where I'm going to do bulk of my driving this summer. It means I can do at least 80mph ;)
Is limit on rural US highways the same as on the interstates? I can't remember.

I think many rural western counties could follow Texas example and rise limit at least to 80mph. Looking at the map above I can't see difference between counties in Texas wit 80 limit and many counties in let say Wyoming or Nevada.

No, rural highways are almost always 55-65 mph limit. And for good reason, with many uncontrolled intersections. The exception would be long stretches of highway in the middle of nowhere, and some states make exceptions in these cases, such as Nevada.

dl3000

March 15th, 2010, 08:39 AM

Good to see that North and South Dakota as well as Nebraska, all have 75mph speed limit. That's where I'm going to do bulk of my driving this summer. It means I can do at least 80mph ;)
Is limit on rural US highways the same as on the interstates? I can't remember.

I think many rural western counties could follow Texas example and rise limit at least to 80mph. Looking at the map above I can't see difference between counties in Texas wit 80 limit and many counties in let say Wyoming or Nevada.

Remember this is the maximum posted, meaning only in a few places even in those states will you find 80 mph posted on a sign. That said people regularly do 80 everywhere on interstates in the west depending on the time of day but if the Dakotas appeal to you have at it. Many times my friends would accidentally reach 100 to 120 mph (160-190 km/h) on interstate 5 in central valley of california simply because people haul ass on that road and you lose track of your speed.

J N Winkler

March 15th, 2010, 12:19 PM

But is it safe to assume that the effects of side friction on pavement type is minimal and therefore disregarded for general roadway design?

It is--I have certainly never heard of it being taken into account in defining design standards. Most design catalogues aim to limit side friction demand to a certain maximum value which is typically encountered at the least forgiving combination of curve radius and superelevation. The maximum values I have seen are typically around 25%-35% of g (gravitational acceleration) whereas, depending on tire performance, most cars will not start skidding until side friction reaches values of 65% or higher of g.

The problem is that, if you allow small-radius curves, the difference between the design speed and the speed at which a vehicle starts skidding will be smaller. This is our situation in the US compared to Europe.

Davodavo

March 15th, 2010, 08:32 PM

edited

ChrisZwolle

March 15th, 2010, 08:40 PM

nerdly_dood

March 15th, 2010, 09:10 PM

the Virginia legislature just passed a measure increasing the state speed limit to 70. It probably has the new Governor McDonnell's approval.

...But that doesn't mean any highways will actually have their speed increased from 65...

nerdly_dood

March 15th, 2010, 09:13 PM

It is--I have certainly never heard of it being taken into account in defining design standards. Most design catalogues aim to limit side friction demand to a certain maximum value which is typically encountered at the least forgiving combination of curve radius and superelevation. The maximum values I have seen are typically around 25%-35% of g (gravitational acceleration) whereas, depending on tire performance, most cars will not start skidding until side friction reaches values of 65% or higher of g.

The problem is that, if you allow small-radius curves, the difference between the design speed and the speed at which a vehicle starts skidding will be smaller. This is our situation in the US compared to Europe.

There are numerous places in my city where there's a downhill road with a stoplight - in these places the pavement will become crumpled and shoved downhill and very wrinkly and bumpy with cars stopping. I've seen the paint of the stop-bar shoved as much as 6 inches downhill! (Or at least the place where the paint was... what with it being all worn off and all.)

This can even happen with pavement that's only a few years old...

J N Winkler

March 15th, 2010, 09:45 PM

Is there a correlation with wet and dry pavement? I was driving in pouring rain today and I can understand cars will skid faster when it's wet, although I think this is mostly limited to interchanges (such as connectors on cloverleafs), not the mainline lanes which are usually straight.

The maximum side friction demand is supposed to be well below the level of side friction at which a car will begin skidding in the wet. In fact, if the pavement is well drained with no standing water and no spilled oil, there will not be much difference between wet and dry in the skidding coefficients.

There are basically three mechanisms for skidding in the wet.

* Too much side friction demand (taking curves too fast, etc.)--this will get you in the dry too, though perhaps at a slightly higher speed.

* Aquaplaning (hydroplaning) on poorly drained pavement--this is why crossfall is provided on tangent lengths, and is also why rutting in asphalt pavement is so dangerous (if the ruts get deep enough, the leeward sides will have enough slope to cancel the crossfall, and won't drain; and if the ruts get even deeper, they collect water).

* Oil on top of water at the beginning of a rainstorm--the oil lubricates the tires and reduces static friction, sometimes dangerously so. This is why drivers are urged to slow down and be cautious during the first ten minutes of a heavy rainstorm.

In the UK, design standards call for a 2.5% crossfall on tangent segments and as a consequence, UK motorway pavements drain very well in rainstorms. Crossfall standards in the US vary from state to state. As an example, Kansas is semi-arid and does not get too many heavy thunderstorms, so the crossfall is normally 1.6% for the traveled way and 4% for shoulders. On the other hand, North Carolina gets very heavy and long-lasting thunderstorms in the summer, so much of its Interstate mileage has been built with a steep crossfall (I think 2.5%). States also vary in where the high point is located within the typical cross-section. On freeways in Kansas, the high point for each carriageway normally coincides with the lane stripe between the left-hand and right-hand lane. On old Interstate freeways in NC, the high point is the left edge of the traveled way.

geogregor

March 16th, 2010, 01:54 AM

Remember this is the maximum posted, meaning only in a few places even in those states will you find 80 mph posted on a sign. That said people regularly do 80 everywhere on interstates in the west depending on the time of day but if the Dakotas appeal to you have at it. Many times my friends would accidentally reach 100 to 120 mph (160-190 km/h) on interstate 5 in central valley of california simply because people haul ass on that road and you lose track of your speed.

In my opinion California is the only state where people drive as fast and dynamic as in Europe. Everywhere else I had feeling that people are very relaxed about driving (maybe except NYC). No rush, no stress, slowly.
Once I was stopped by local sheriff in rural Wyoming on the way from Utah to Yellowstone and he told me I was his fifth speeding European that day. For us such low speed limit on such great, wide highways is just an invitation to brake the law ;) People drive much faster on the narrow Alpine roads in Italy or in the Pyrenees.

Anyway I only got a warning as deputy didn't want to spoil my holiday. Thanks. ;)

No rural highways are almost always 55-65 mph limit. And for good reason, with many uncontrolled intersections. The exception would be long stretches of highway in the middle of nowhere, and some states make exceptions in these cases, such as Nevada.

Long stretches of highways in the middle of nowhere, that's where I'm going to spend most of my holiday;). I like to escape crowded Europe once a year and enjoy open highways of the USA. :banana: Can't wait until June.

I love Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Oregon and of course California (even if people drive like crazy).

Jschmuck

March 17th, 2010, 02:29 AM

They aren't. The catalogue of available design speeds for Interstates maxes out at 70 MPH. Of course a state DOT or other highway agency can develop a compliant design which has enough "slack" to allow much higher speeds, but as a rule the driver can't count on more than 70 MPH in rural areas.

They aren't and they may in fact be more susceptible to jackknifing because the greater wheelbase of the tractor unit means more of a lever arm. Differential speed limits are unpopular with the trucking industry (especially owner-operators), and car drivers in general have a mixed opinion of them, so in the absence of clear evidence of their safety benefits, many states don't have them. FHWA several years ago sponsored a study to evaluate the safety implications of differential speed limits and was not able to prove that there were any benefits to having them.

This said, I have been told that a number of major trucking firms (Schneider, e.g.) voluntarily govern their tractor-trailers to speeds which are higher than the EU-wide limit of 56 MPH but still slightly below the speed limit for cars in many states--e.g., 62 MPH.

We are now governed at 60 MPH.

dl3000

March 17th, 2010, 08:48 AM

In my opinion California is the only state where people drive as fast and dynamic as in Europe. Everywhere else I had feeling that people are very relaxed about driving (maybe except NYC). No rush, no stress, slowly.
Once I was stopped by local sheriff in rural Wyoming on the way from Utah to Yellowstone and he told me I was his fifth speeding European that day. For us such low speed limit on such great, wide highways is just an invitation to brake the law ;) People drive much faster on the narrow Alpine roads in Italy or in the Pyrenees.

Anyway I only got a warning as deputy didn't want to spoil my holiday. Thanks. ;)

Long stretches of highways in the middle of nowhere, that's where I'm going to spend most of my holiday;). I like to escape crowded Europe once a year and enjoy open highways of the USA. :banana: Can't wait until June.

I love Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Oregon and of course California (even if people drive like crazy).

That is an interesting story. I do find that those from other states drive slower, and I have seen many in San Diego (beyond the ubiquitous Arizona plate). It also depends on the time of day as to how "crazy" people are driving. I favor the morning rush hour crowd because everybody tends to go to work within a 2 hour period and they all have a sense of urgency but with skill and the rest of the day is either too leisurely or full of crazy people speeding homeward. At least thats urban. I have gone pretty fast on rural roads outside of California, but I do see your point on the more leisurely pace taken in other states.

Gaeus

March 17th, 2010, 11:17 PM

http://s.wsj.net/img/wsj_print.gif (http://www.wsj.com)

Why 70 Miles Per Hour Is the New 55

Virginia Becomes the Latest State to Raise Its Speed Limit; Drivers in Mississippi Go Really Fast

By JOSEPH B. WHITE

Left to their own devices, American drivers confronted with an open stretch of interstate highway tend to drive at about 70 miles per hour—whatever the legal speed limit happens to be.

Virginia is the 34th state to raise its rural interstate speed limit to 70. WSJ's Joseph B. White says improved car safety was one reason behind the move, but skeptics worry the increase will lead to more fatalities and greater energy use.

That's the finding of an analysis of speed data gathered by TomTom Inc., a marketer of GPS navigation devices. This helps to explain why safety advocates and conservationists are losing the long-running debate over lowering freeway speed limits.

The Virginia legislature last week passed legislation raising the speed limit on rural interstate highways to 70 mph from 65 mph. The state's new Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, put boosting the legal speed limit high on his list of priorities, and got action less than three months after taking office.

Virginia will become the 34th state to boost interstate speed limits to 70 mph or higher. In big, empty states such as New Mexico, Idaho and Nevada, posted limits on rural interstates can be as high as 75 mph.

TomTom collected speed data from 45 states and the District of Columbia, under agreements with customers who agreed to allow the company to collect the information anonymously to improve the quality of its route guidance by directing customers away from congested roads at peak travel times.

http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/PJ-AU097A_EYESR_NS_20100316202452.gif

The TomTom data suggest that most drivers tend to stay within a few miles per hour of the speed limit on major roads.
In 31 out of the 46 jurisdictions, average freeway speeds ranged between 65 and 70.1 mph.

TomTom found the fastest drivers, on average, in Mississippi, where interstate drivers average 70.1 mph, or a hair over the maximum posted limit. The company doesn't have speed data from some sparsely populated states, including Montana, where drivers may be moving faster than those in Mississippi, says Nhai Cao, senior product manager for TomTom's SpeedProfiles database.

Virginia drivers clock in at a law-abiding 65 mph. The slowest drivers—drumroll, please—are in Washington, D.C. Freeway traffic in the nation's congested capital crawls at an average of 46.4 mph, according to TomTom's data. That may explain the eagerness of Virginia residents who work inside the Beltway for the freedom to go faster when they finally see some open road.

Hawaii is the slowest state, with highway drivers traveling at an average 52.7 mph.

Speed limits and enforcement have taken a symbolic significance that transcends vehicle mechanics or highway design.

The 55 mph national speed limit enacted in 1973 in response to the first Arab oil embargo was justified as a means of conserving fuel. In 1987, the law was changed to allow speeds up to 65 mph. But the Republican Congress elected in 1994 did few things more popular than repealing the limit altogether in 1995.

Driving speed has become a proxy for bigger questions about personal freedom versus government control.

The argument for raising speed limits is fundamentally an argument for letting drivers use their own judgment. The argument for stronger speed control is that too many people behave badly behind the wheel.

Insurers and other safety advocates, including groups such as the Governors Highway Safety Association, have consistently called for motorists to slow down, and for state and local authorities to get tougher on speeding enforcement.

"Higher speeds are bad on any road," says Anne McCartt, vice president of research for the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, a research arm of the insurance industry.

The Federal Highway Administration estimates that in 2008, about 31% of the total 37,261 highway fatalities were related to speeding over posted limits.

But advocates of relaxing speed limits point to federal statistics which show that both fatalities and fatality rates on U.S. highways are declining even as speed limits rise.

The U.S. Department of Transportation last week reported that its latest estimate of highway deaths in 2009 is 33,963—the lowest number since the government began keeping these grim records in 1954. The fatality rate is estimated at 1.16 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.

Modern cars and light trucks have an average of 225 horsepower under the hood and sophisticated safety systems such as traction control. They are designed to cruise comfortably, safely and efficiently at between 65 and 70 mph—if not faster, particularly in the case of the autobahn-burners German luxury brands sell.

If gas prices spike again this summer, as some predict, the idea of dropping speed limits again may get a new hearing. But Virginia's decision and the powerful cars consumers are buying suggest otherwise.

Write to Joseph B. White at joseph.white@wsj.com

Source (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704688604575125510326010610.html?mod=WSJ_hp_editorsPicks)

Stuck in Bama

March 18th, 2010, 12:06 AM

Alabama transportation officials to close section of I-65 north in Morgan County Thursday
By Ginny MacDonald -- The Birmingham News
March 17, 2010, 2:51PM

Alabama transportation officials will close a section of Interstate 65 north in Morgan County at milemarker 329 between Hartselle and Priceville Thursday for crews to repair a sinkhole.

Northbound traffic will be directed off I-65 north at exit 318 at Lacon onto U.S. 31, then north to Alabama 67 and back onto I-65 at exit 334 at Priceville.

Oversized loads traveling north will get off the interstate at exit 310 to Alabama 157, onto Alabama 24 to Moulton, and then to Alabama 20 and back to I-65 at exit 340 at the I-65/I-565 interchange.

ALDOT engineers will conduct repairs as quickly as possible, officials say.

Motorists are requested to consider using alternate routes, adjust arrival/departure times, slow down, observe signs and message boards, and use extreme caution in this area.

GOUST

March 18th, 2010, 10:16 PM

As far as I can:

In Poland, on the road in force 50 km / h
In Poland, on the roads outside the city in force 90 km / h
As a two-band and 100 km / h
Highway is 130 km / h.

But the application of the law is on our others. driving at speeds not catch you unless they really masters the bores.

In Poland, on the road in force 80 km / h
In Poland, on the roads outside the city spaces of 110 km / h
As a two-band and 130 km / h
Highway is 160 km / h.

geogregor

March 19th, 2010, 02:20 AM

^^
???????

ttownfeen

March 19th, 2010, 05:09 AM

Snowguy716

March 19th, 2010, 06:11 AM

That's a sad story. Yet another example of our crumbling infrastructure not being looked after properly.

This is the best way to remedy the situation, though. Lower the speed limits to a safe speed and heavily patrol it. Only then will people be willing to fork over the money necessary to keep our infrastructure up. (I don't mean to politicize her death, but this very political issue is becoming life or death!)

HAWC1506

March 19th, 2010, 09:33 AM

I think the best (long-term) solution would be to raise the gas tax and start maintaining our roads.

For pete's sake, can't Americans see what's going on with our infrastructure? Either the general public is too lazy to care or they just don't know how to look for problems.

It disappoints me to see such obliviousness in our society.

FM 2258

March 19th, 2010, 10:11 AM

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/03/alabama_lowering_speeds_on_int.html

Alabama lowering speeds on Interstate 20 near Georgia after rock from pothole fatally injures traveler
By The Birmingham News
March 18, 2010, 12:35PM

Alabama Transportation officials are lowering the speed limit on Interstate 20 from Oxford to the Georgia state line following a fatal accident Monday, the Anniston Star reports.

The speed limit will drop from 70 mph to 55 mph from mile marker 182 to the state line. Extra troopers will patrol the stretch, according to the newspaper. Jo Maureen Fisher of Goose Creek, S.C., died in a Birmingham hospital Tuesday, hours after a vehicle hit a pothole and threw a rock that passed through the windshield of the car Fisher was in and struck her in the head.

I think lowering the speed limit is a stupid idea. If this happened at 55mph would they lower the speed limit to 40?

Stuck in Bama

March 19th, 2010, 03:06 PM

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/03/alabama_lowering_speeds_on_int.html

Alabama lowering speeds on Interstate 20 near Georgia after rock from pothole fatally injures traveler
By The Birmingham News
March 18, 2010, 12:35PM

Alabama Transportation officials are lowering the speed limit on Interstate 20 from Oxford to the Georgia state line following a fatal accident Monday, the Anniston Star reports.

The speed limit will drop from 70 mph to 55 mph from mile marker 182 to the state line. Extra troopers will patrol the stretch, according to the newspaper. Jo Maureen Fisher of Goose Creek, S.C., died in a Birmingham hospital Tuesday, hours after a vehicle hit a pothole and threw a rock that passed through the windshield of the car Fisher was in and struck her in the head.

This is ALDOT's answer to every road maintance issue, lower the speed limit to a ridiculous speed (55mph) rather than fixing the road surface itself.

Stuck in Bama

March 19th, 2010, 03:08 PM

Alabama makes another top 10 list, ranked 9th for deadliest highways
By Ginny MacDonald -- The Birmingham News
March 17, 2010, 7:45AM

Alabama is No. 1 for highway fatalities caused by speeding. It is ranked No. 9 for road deaths in which alcohol was involved.

And it is ranked No. 9 among the 50 states for having overall the deadliest roads.

Montana is ranked as having the dead*liest roads in the country. Massachusetts is 50th on that list.

Alabama also ranks 28th for having the best roads in the country. The magazine tapped Kansas for having the best roads and Louisiana for the worst.

The ranking factors for deadliest roads incorporated drivers who drink, drive reck*lessly or shun seat belts and the fatalities per 100 million miles driven.

The rankings came as no surprise to Dor*ris Teague, spokeswoman for the Alabama Department of Public Safety, because of speeding and DUI, “factors that we com*monly see in fatal crashes. That’s the reason so much of our energy is aimed at these vio*lations in an effort to change driver behav*ior.”

Teague said it was obvious that a number of Alabamians shun seat belts. “In 63 per*cent of trooper-reported crashes last year, drivers were not buckled up.”

I-275westcoastfl

March 19th, 2010, 06:06 PM

Nexis

March 19th, 2010, 06:48 PM

I'm sorry but that is stupid, anyone who does highway driving knows every know and then a rock will hit your car. It might have been a freak accident that a larger rock killed somebody but to lower the speed limit instead of fixing the problem? Part of the problem in America is the government not using the gas tax funds to fix roads. I don't remember the percentage but only a certain percent goes towards fixing and improving roads. The government is lazy, ignorant, and stupid, they divert the money towards other usually less important things.

LOL , most of that money goes to building new Wide Freeways and not to improving old ones. This Country is crumbling due to that , we seem to have a huge problem of taking care of basic things. & Yet some of you want to raise the speed limit, that just causes the country to import more gas and possibly a few more wars. And the roads are already deadly enough , raising the speed limit will make them even worse. Although it depends on your state ,some states do a good job splitting up the gas tax for key things like new Transit , Rail and fixing up old roads. But most states do a terrible job with that , IE PA , that state is falling apart in every category yet expanding there Highways and Railways while not fixing up the old ones.

J N Winkler

March 19th, 2010, 08:37 PM

Part of the problem in America is the government not using the gas tax funds to fix roads. I don't remember the percentage but only a certain percent goes towards fixing and improving roads.

The percentage in question (total highway user revenues divided by total highway expenditures) is well over 90%. The gas tax is just too low in most states and, yes, there is a tendency--but significantly weaker than is usually thought--to prioritize capital improvements higher than upkeep.

ChrisZwolle

March 19th, 2010, 09:06 PM

^^ The Americans know how to spend their highway user revenues. In Europe, it is usually < 50%, for example, in the Netherlands it is only 18%.

Rail Claimore

March 19th, 2010, 11:02 PM

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/03/alabama_lowering_speeds_on_int.html

Alabama lowering speeds on Interstate 20 near Georgia after rock from pothole fatally injures traveler
By The Birmingham News
March 18, 2010, 12:35PM

Alabama Transportation officials are lowering the speed limit on Interstate 20 from Oxford to the Georgia state line following a fatal accident Monday, the Anniston Star reports.

The speed limit will drop from 70 mph to 55 mph from mile marker 182 to the state line. Extra troopers will patrol the stretch, according to the newspaper. Jo Maureen Fisher of Goose Creek, S.C., died in a Birmingham hospital Tuesday, hours after a vehicle hit a pothole and threw a rock that passed through the windshield of the car Fisher was in and struck her in the head.

That's a 40-mile stretch of interstate! Unbelievable! Just because one one freak accident? This is the same crap they pulled on another stretch of I-20 just east of Leeds, only because accidents over some 3 month period back in 2003 or 2004 spiked up. I will not be taking I-20 on my way to Atlanta anymore, that's for sure. Tennessee and Georgia can have my gas tax revenues as I will fill up in Dalton and Chattanooga now.

Xusein

March 20th, 2010, 12:13 AM

That's a 40-mile stretch of interstate! Unbelievable! Just because one one freak accident? This is the same crap they pulled on another stretch of I-20 just east of Leeds, only because accidents over some 3 month period back in 2003 or 2004 spiked up. I will not be taking I-20 on my way to Atlanta anymore, that's for sure. Tennessee and Georgia can have my gas tax revenues as I will fill up in Dalton and Chattanooga now.

Maybe they are afraid that other parts of the highway have the same problems.

But usually they only limit it to the affected area, perhaps this is just an Alabama thing.

HAWC1506

March 21st, 2010, 12:53 AM

^^ The Americans know how to spend their highway user revenues. In Europe, it is usually < 50%, for example, in the Netherlands it is only 18%.

I would like to see some figures. I'm sure the U.S. spends most (if not all) of their gas tax on highways, but the amount they receive is perhaps insufficient to cover what is needed. As a result, sales tax, income tax, and money from the general funds are often used to cover highway construction as well.

The point is, the U.S. spends a good percentage of their gas tax on highways, but the total amount is possibly much less than that of Europe.

And I know you might disagree, but spending gas tax on transit also helps highways by reducing the need for constant expansion and providing alternatives. Imagine 3 million more road commuters a day in London if the Underground were to be taken out.

pwalker

March 21st, 2010, 01:18 AM

J N Winkler

March 21st, 2010, 01:25 AM

Actually, the situation is a little more complicated than that. The US spends about $100 billion on highways annually, at all levels of government. About 66% of that is paid for directly by highway user revenues, and this lower percentage is usually cited by those (primarily but not exclusively advocates of mass transit) who claim that highways are subsidized by general taxation.

But the reality is that significant portions of highway user revenue are diverted to other purposes--not just transit (through the Mass Transit Account in the federal Highway Trust Fund), but also compulsory loans to state governments, and even general expenditures in the states which don't hypothecate. The 66% figure also excludes bank interest on highway user revenues.

So the money that goes to roads from non-highway sources, like sales taxes and subventions out of the general fund, are generally replacing highway user revenues which have been diverted elsewhere. The reality is that gross highway user revenue (including bank interest) amounts to a little over 90% of highway expenditures annually. There is some subsidy to roads out of general revenues, but it is on the order of 8%, not the 33% you would expect from the 66% figure, and the subsidy is generally considered tolerable as a payment for the access function provided by roads, which benefits those who do not use the roads directly.

It is hard to do a direct financial comparison between the US and any European country because the infrastructural commitments are so different. US versus UK does not tell us much, for example, because British highway user revenues are on the order of £30 billion annually, but spending is only £6 billion. On the other hand, the US has something like 200 million drivers, while Britain has only 26 million. The US has (probably) upward of 50,000 centerline miles of freeway (the Interstate system alone is more than 46,000 miles, and populous states like California, Texas, Illinois, and even Washington have significant non-Interstate freeway mileage), while the British motorway network is around 2,000 miles in total. Perhaps British highways are adequately funded in comparison to American ones? (This ignores, though, the fact that British motorways have next to no network redundancy and have to serve twice the driving population per centerline mile.)

pwalker

March 21st, 2010, 02:38 AM

HAWC1506

March 21st, 2010, 02:55 AM

Stuck in Bama

March 21st, 2010, 04:07 AM

Maybe they are afraid that other parts of the highway have the same problems.

But usually they only limit it to the affected area, perhaps this is just an Alabama thing.

The section of I-20 in question is basically in perfect condition, so I dont understand the need to lower the speed limit to 55 mph. Im starting to suspect the state is using this as an excuse to create a 40 mile speed trap.

Stuck in Bama

March 21st, 2010, 04:21 AM

That's a 40-mile stretch of interstate! Unbelievable! Just because one one freak accident? This is the same crap they pulled on another stretch of I-20 just east of Leeds, only because accidents over some 3 month period back in 2003 or 2004 spiked up. I will not be taking I-20 on my way to Atlanta anymore, that's for sure. Tennessee and Georgia can have my gas tax revenues as I will fill up in Dalton and Chattanooga now.

I will admit that was once a dangerous section of I-20. One of the problems was that you had cars and trucks easily crossing over onto on coming traffic because of the very narrow median that was in place. Deadly accidents were becoming more common so the mayor of Pell City and St. Clair County officials asked the gov. and ALDOT to lower the speed limit.

ChrisZwolle

March 21st, 2010, 10:38 AM

And I know you might disagree, but spending gas tax on transit also helps highways by reducing the need for constant expansion and providing alternatives. Imagine 3 million more road commuters a day in London if the Underground were to be taken out.

Not in the Netherlands, corridor studies for several projects have shown significant investment in transit would lower traffic volumes between 0 and 2%. It's really not worth it if you consider it as an alternative not to improve the highway system.

Also; there is absolutely not a plan to "take out the entire underground system". However, once there is a reasonably good public transport system, there is no reason to enhance it further with the argument to reduce road traffic.

If they want to improve transit; no problem, but don't use it as an excuse not to improve the highway system. Madrid understood this.

Tom 958

March 21st, 2010, 04:08 PM

A halfassed trip report:

Yesterday I drove from my house in Lawrenceville, GA, to Warner Robins and back. Several items of interest:

Reconstruction of the interchange of I-75 and I-475 south is all but complete, with only tidying up left to do. The concrete plant in the median of I-475 is gone, and all lanes are open, except...

The new southbound roadway is built for six lanes, three from I-75, three from I-475. But the I-75 roadway is striped down to two lanes before the merge, and to me it looks permanent. It's pretty startling to see eleven lanes worth of pavement out in the countryside, even if "only" ten are actually used.

South of the interchange, a new interchange is being built at I-75 and Sardis Church Road, having a folded diamond layout with two loop ramps oriented toward the north. The ramp footprints have been cleared of trees and the new bridge carring Sardis Church over I-75 has had most of the precast beamd placed. Apparently at least one auxilliary lane is being added to I-75 as far as this interchange.

Here's a report I did two years ago (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=18907787&postcount=820) back when I was more energetic...

Back in the big town, the new interchange of I-285 and GA 10/Memorial Drive has also been completed. This interchange is one of the most bizarre projects GDOT has ever done. Why? Well...

Back in the late '80's and early '90's, GDOT had a secret plan to build an Ontario 401-style collector-distrbutor system along about 70 miles of freeways on the north side of Atlanta. "Secret plan" sounds pretty paranoid, but there had been a front-page newspaper article about it on Earth Day of 1990, and after reviewing the proposal for the I-85 Sugarloaf Parkway interchange complex in Gwinnett County, I realized the GDOT intended to build the system without bothering to incorporate it into the Regional Transportation Plan, which was a direct volation of Federal law. I did my best to beat them up about it over an incessant barrage of denials by all of the relevant agencies. Then, lo and behold, in May of 1996 the commissioner of GDOT, in another front-page newspaper article, admitted that, yes, Tom 958 was right, that indeed GDOT had been developing this CD system and would continue to do so once the air quality crisis had been resolved.

The funding picture for the CD system was never even close to complete and air quality nonconformity made the project infeasible under the Clean Air Act, and the Sugarloaf Parkway interchange complex was the only part that was ever completed.

Why am I telling you all of this? Well...

For several years, it was GDOT (and FHWA) policy that any over-freeway bridges replaced within the CD system corridors would be rebuilt with provision for the CD system. You can observe that this was done at a (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33.873124,-84.475851&spn=0,359.980795&z=16&layer=c&cbll=33.873043,-84.475898&panoid=s-cCZT2IIGS4Y-grARsh8g&cbp=12,189.93,,0,3.89) number (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33.863765,-84.480824&spn=0,359.995199&z=18&layer=c&cbll=33.863501,-84.479758&panoid=Um2SMy6GGtRX175KPyIzOQ&cbp=12,24.15,,0,-4.25) of (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33.848831,-84.485824&spn=0,359.997599&z=19&layer=c&cbll=33.848541,-84.485869&panoid=x_aJaBKCVLYRClil4fB15Q&cbp=12,59.77,,0,0.88) locations (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33.770176,-84.232843&spn=0,359.990398&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.769996,-84.232779&panoid=schRQT_ssp29J_FviejsPw&cbp=12,139.16,,0,9.22) along I-285. But... the new I-285/Memorial Drive interchange has not only clearance for the CD roads under the new bridge, but the full footprint of the CD's established through the construction of retaining walls extending nearly to the point at which the off- and onramps join the mainline grade. Plus, the clearance for the mainline itself if huge, maybe enough for ten lanes plus barrier-separated HOV's. By my eyeball it's more than the extra mainline clearance visible in the Streetviews I linked to above, but I can't swear to that.

This was especially expensive in the southwestern quadrant of the interchange since the DeKalb County Public Safety complex is sited there, atop a significant hill, so in addition to the retaining wall between the CD footprint and the southbound onramp, there's another high wall carving the onramp into the side of the hill atop which sits the DeKalb police headquarters. I really should get some photos, shouldn't I? :P

To add to the bizarreness, a few miles north of there, the interchange at US 29 and I-285 was also rebuilt recently, but the new bridge carrying US 29 over I-285 has little provision for extra mainline width and none for CD's. That means that in the extremely unlikely event that something resembling the regional CD system is ever built, the US 29 interchange will have to be re-rebuilt or perhaps vaulted over by a viaduct carrying I-285. :nuts: