Current:
http://i.imgur.com/xVSXD.jpg

Future:
http://i.imgur.com/BDgl6.jpg

Good news for motorists in Texas, they get rid of the prehistoric speed limits!

Portions of Texas Interstate Highways to see Speed Limit Increase

AUSTIN -- Miles and miles of Texas highway will soon see speed limit increases following Thursday’s Texas Transportation Commission action approving 75 mph designations for close to 1,500 miles of interstate.

The speed limit changes span 60 Texas counties making it the largest conversion since a new law was passed last year. The 82nd Texas Legislature passed and the Governor signed House Bill 1353 which allows the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to establish 75 mph speed limits on Texas highways providing speed studies show it can be done safely.

Since September, the agency has been reviewing existing 70 mph speed limits across the state to determine where a 75 mph limit may be safely posted. Four Central Texas highways were the first to see higher speeds after the new law took effect. Thursday’s Commission action brings the number of miles now zoned at 75 mph as a result of House Bill (HB) 1353 to 1,618.

Posting new speed limits on 1,500 miles of interstate highway is a major milestone in implementing the new law, said Carol Rawson, TxDOT Traffic Operations Division director.

"Texas’ economic strength depends on the efficient and safe movement of people and goods," Rawson explained. "These new speed limits increase highway efficiency while maintaining the safety of the transportation system."

TxDOT recommended to the Commission that speed limits be raised on segments of I-10, I-20, I-27, I-30, I-35, I-37, I-40, I-44 and I-45 after engineering studies showed that higher speeds could be posted safely.

Motorists must continue to travel at the posted speed until new signs are installed, said Rawson.

"The new speed limit is not official until the signs go up," she added.

TxDOT studies of speeds on U.S. highways, state highways, farm-to-market and ranch-to-market roads are still under way.

Prior to HB 1353, Texas had 1,445 miles of 75 mph speed limits and 521 miles of 80 mph speed limits on certain state highways. These speed limits were previously restricted to specific rural counties and highways located mostly in West Texas. Texas now has almost 3,600 miles zoned at 75 mph or higher.

New 75 mph speed limits approved Thursday are located on:

I-10 -- 289 miles across El Paso, Gillespie, Kerr, Kendall, Bexar, Guadalupe, Caldwell, Gonzales, Fayette, Colorado, Austin, Jefferson and Orange counties
I-20 -- 423 miles across Crane, Ector, Midland, Martin, Howard, Mitchell, Nolan, Taylor, Callahan, Eastland, Erath, Palo Pinto, Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg and Harrison counties
I-27 -- 109 miles across Lubbock, Hale, Swisher and Randall counties
I-30 -- 139 miles across Hunt, Hopkins, Franklin, Titus, Morris and Bowie counties
I-35 -- 106 miles across Webb, Medina, Atascosa, Bexar, Hill and Cooke counties
I-37 -- 130 miles across Nueces, San Patricio, Live Oak, Atascosa and Bexar counties
I-40 -- 166 miles across Deaf Smith, Oldham, Potter, Carson, Gray, Donley and Wheeler counties
I-44 -- 11 miles across Wichita County
I-45 -- 143 miles across Walker, Madison, Leon, Freestone and Navarro counties

^^

This is awesome!!! I was hoping for an 80 limit on Interstate 10 between Houston and San Antonio and Interstate 37 since that's what I tend to do on those empty highways anyway. Also 80 would be perfect from Houston to Beaumont.

Hell I just want an 80 or higher on ALL highways!!!....but I'll embrace this increase by doing 80. :cheers:

Map from the TxDOT website:

http://www.txdot.gov/safety/speed_limit/75mph.htm
http://i41.tinypic.com/24blnqt.jpg

There may be some jurisdictions that have stepped up speed enforcement for this reason.

As for NYC, anyone who has driven on the tollways and expressways in NYC know that speeders are rare. Most drive right around the speed limit. It is the arterials and city streets in Manhattan where speeds start to get out of hand.
Are you kidding me? Anyone who has driven in NYC knows nobody does the speed limit except when traffic forces you to slow down or be at a stand still. When I go up there I always have to laugh at signs saying 45mph speed limit and most people are doing at least 10 over. On the LIE (I-495) when it says 55mph most people are doing at least 65-70mph if not more. In manhattan I remember doing about 30-40mph (30mph is the city speed limit) so that isn't bad.

Are you kidding me? Anyone who has driven in NYC knows nobody does the speed limit except when traffic forces you to slow down or be at a stand still. When I go up there I always have to laugh at signs saying 45mph speed limit and most people are doing at least 10 over. On the LIE (I-495) when it says 55mph most people are doing at least 65-70mph if not more. In manhattan I remember doing about 30-40mph (30mph is the city speed limit) so that isn't bad.

I remember seeing some ridiculously low speed limits in the NYC area. In theory they might make sense but in reality once a road is in a freeway configuration it's easy to do 70.

I wouldn't do 70 in NYC. There is usually just too much stuff to pay attention to.

On the other hand, I regularly go near 80 here on Hartford highways, haven't been caught yet. :crazy:

I wouldn't do 70 in NYC. There is usually just too much stuff to pay attention to.

On the other hand, I regularly go near 80 here on Hartford highways, haven't been caught yet. :crazy:

On 95 south to New Haven there was a 55mph zone at a certain point...when it comes to the Merritt Parkway no one seems to follow the 55 speed limit there.

Not a good idea to drive too fast on those highways either. Well, I-95 south of New Haven is usually pretty crowded anyways so you probably wouldn't have a chance. Merritt Parkway's slow speed limit is warranted, it's only two lanes in a forest with lots of turns and hills with no lights at night.

They also have lots of cops on both.

I've driven mainly through I-35 from Laredo to San Antonio and Austin. But I think I-35 in Laredo doesn't have the conditions to make 75mph, it would be kind of dangerous, it needs improvements in exits and entrances to the main lanes first.

This is the most epic road widening project ever; I-35W in Forth Worth will be widened from 4 to 16 lanes.

-Q2uO95wjU8

When does this project actually get underway? Because I can show you a million renderings of road expansions that will probably never happen

When it comes to big highway projects, Texas tends to deliver.

I want them to deliver on this

lrfv-9zm7zY&

^^
Is there any time-line for the project?

I-278 East - Gowanus Expressway

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7152/6774422965_db8aa442a4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6774422965/)
DSCN1391 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6774422965/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7019/6774423677_b4ce433fdd_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6774423677/)
DSCN1393 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6774423677/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7035/6774424147_329fbd6e77_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6774424147/)
DSCN1394 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6774424147/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7142/6774424609_96fc41b428_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6774424609/)
DSCN1395 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6774424609/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7175/6774424957_9252eaa8b5_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6774424957/)
DSCN1396 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6774424957/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7144/6774425365_4b991b4125_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6774425365/)
DSCN1397 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6774425365/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7035/6774425683_e9732993da_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6774425683/)
DSCN1398 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6774425683/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7030/6774426019_25abdb6a98_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6774426019/)
DSCN1399 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/6774426019/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

I remember seeing some ridiculously low speed limits in the NYC area. In theory they might make sense but in reality once a road is in a freeway configuration it's easy to do 70.
Yeah I mean in congestion you probably won't even be doing the speed limit, but if traffic is moving forget the speed limit.

I wouldn't do 70 in NYC. There is usually just too much stuff to pay attention to.

On the other hand, I regularly go near 80 here on Hartford highways, haven't been caught yet. :crazy:
Connecticut is tough with speeding since of the Northeast states I've been to they had the most cops pulling people over. I went faster in New York because of that lol.

I-94 through Detroit is such an outdated POS. The ramps are tiny, very hard to see the huge trucks coming down the right lane as you try to merge. The shoulders are tiny; if someone pulls over, one lane of traffic is out of commission. The left side exit ramps lead to a huge amount of weaving downtown.

The only redeeming aspect is far fewer people live SW of Detroit than in any other direction, so it's relatively uncontested in the mornings. It's in much need of a complete overhaul.

Connecticut is tough with speeding since of the Northeast states I've been to they had the most cops pulling people over. I went faster in New York because of that lol.

Mass is worse I think. Try driving on the Mass Pike at night where the cops are hiding in the bushes! :runaway:

The Dallas - Fort Worth Turnpike in 1963. It's I-30 nowadays.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3094/3210112813_6b288f321e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatguyinalittlecoat/3210112813/)
Part of inside (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatguyinalittlecoat/3210112813/) by jczart (http://www.flickr.com/people/fatguyinalittlecoat/), on Flickr

Does Houston have the busiest freeway in the United States?

Usually the I-405 in Long Beach, California is quoted as having the highest traffic volume in the nation at 390,000 vehicles per day.

But I always got the feeling that the brief I-10/I-45 concurrency north of downtown Houston has a higher traffic volume. First of all, it is much wider at 19 lanes compared to the 14 lanes at the 405. A 19 lane setup at a typical 2200 vehicles/hour multiplied by 12 hours for an urban freeway gives an AADT of 500,000.

While I think half a million vehicles is a bit too high, anywhere between 400,000 and 450,000 vehicles per day may be possible.

Here are the traffic counts of the adjoining freeway sections. If you add them up and divide them by two you get 426,500 vehicles per day. Doesn't sound implausible. There are no traffic counts available for this specific section unfortunately. The value of 426,500 vehicles is just a few thousand vehicles short of the highway 401 volume in Toronto, which is still considered as the busiest freeway in the world. But Houston may just beat that, solidifying its title as the freeway capital of the world.

http://i.imgur.com/0jYVD.png

It is debatable if this particular freeway section counts as a multiplex or just an interchange. However, traffic is driving side by side here.

^^ I think it is just a giant interchange.

^^ You can easily compare this to interchange Ridderkerk (Netherlands): same sort of thing: would you count that as one interchange?

Link (http://maps.google.nl/?ll=51.867535,4.591513&spn=0.03005,0.084543&t=m&z=14)

Mass is worse I think. Try driving on the Mass Pike at night where the cops are hiding in the bushes! :runaway:
Thats pretty common in most places though, I haven't driven the Mass Pike at night so I don't really know lol.

^^ You can easily compare this to interchange Ridderkerk (Netherlands): same sort of thing: would you count that as one interchange?

Link (http://maps.google.nl/?ll=51.867535,4.591513&spn=0.03005,0.084543&t=m&z=14)

Yes, both are single interchanges. Complex ones, but you can easily see they are part of a same interchange system by its desing etc.

I want them to deliver on this

lrfv-9zm7zY&

:bow:

Does anyone know why they keep putting the raised/reflective markings (road dots) on freeways and city roads? Or why do they last 1 month before they start breaking. They break very easily and after a couple months, the road barely has any markings. But I noticed something. I saw a pictures from a New Zealand freeway, and the same markings are intact. Is it just a new road, or their markings are of better quality?

These pictures are from the New Zealand highway thread

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7007/6778133365_7b66293fdf_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7146/6778133945_8e19de8edf_b.jpg


And this is a US road with the same markings. Other roads are even worse but I don't have a picture

http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/8492/img0076he.jpg

It's a matter of maintenance I suppose. The Auckland example is a motorway which first opened in the 1950's. Road markings don't last forever.

They repaint the paint markings every year, they put new reflective markings every couple of years, but the thing is the reflective markings don't hold up and last only a couple months. But instead of getting rid of them, they keep using them which is the weird thing.

They repaint the paint markings every year, they put new reflective markings every couple of years, but the thing is the reflective markings don't hold up and last only a couple months. But instead of getting rid of them, they keep using them which is the weird thing.

Especially in Seattle. If you look closely on I-5, there are 9 or 10 reflective markings (most broken) sitting really close to each other. That is in addition to the raised non-reflective pavement markings. I'll try to find a picture.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-96qzOOok6No/TkIcr44WcMI/AAAAAAAAXt8/zzKVToE9NkM/s1024/DSC08739.JPG

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-DQO1aOh1iF8/TkIcsZN5gYI/AAAAAAAAXuE/sUdEXFJBgWk/s1024/DSC08740.JPG

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-XF2NSwfxlBU/TkIcxBfHa3I/AAAAAAAAXvc/-H8RBgwhTBk/s1024/IMG_20110510_145740.jpg

No markings at all

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Hnjqn467k1w/TkIc-HcGrMI/AAAAAAAAXyM/QS6aEgipHXM/s1024/IMG_20110513_121116.jpg

I've never seen those here (Hartford, CT). They definitely don't look long term.

I've never seen those here (Hartford, CT). They definitely don't look long term.

You mean bott dots?

Those pavement markings are actually pretty common in warmer climates. California, Texas, Florida, and Louisiana actually use them pretty extensively.

Here is the newly completed Briley Pkwy - 1-40 interchange in Nashville. It took nearly 10 years to complete. :cripes:

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4067/4548564544_894fd97eb4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/4548564544/)
I-40 West - Exit 204B&A - TN 155 Briley Parkway (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/4548564544/) by Adam's Journey (http://www.flickr.com/people/adamontheroad/), on Flickr

I-40 Towards Downtown Nashville

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3421/3830330696_4f821d92e9_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/riffsyphon1024/3830330696/)
Merge with I-40 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/riffsyphon1024/3830330696/) by riffsyphon1024 (http://www.flickr.com/people/riffsyphon1024/), on Flickr

You mean bott dots?

Those pavement markings are actually pretty common in warmer climates. California, Texas, Florida, and Louisiana actually use them pretty extensively.

What makes them suitable for warmer climates? Or is that just a coincidence?

Somehow I think it's just better off being painted, if those pics of Seattle are an indication.

In cold climates snow plows take them off. Here in Florida they paint lanes and then add reflectors that are white in the direction you are headed and red in the opposite direction for those brilliant people who would go the wrong way.

In cold climates snow plows take them off. Here in Florida they paint lanes and then add reflectors that are white in the direction you are headed and red in the opposite direction for those brilliant people who would go the wrong way.

they have those white/red reflectors here in cali too. i must say i like them. makes night driving easy. in the higher altitudes they sometimes indent the pavement so snow plows go right over them.

Those pavement markings are actually pretty common in warmer climates. California, Texas, Florida, and Louisiana actually use them pretty extensively.
do they survive there? All of Las Vegas has these markings and they were alright. I don't know why they break that easily here. It snows once a year so it's not because of snow plows

Here is the newly completed Briley Pkwy - 1-40 interchange in Nashville. It took nearly 10 years to complete. :cripes:



I-40 Towards Downtown Nashville



Nice....interesting it took 10 years to complete.

2003:
http://i.imgur.com/nu6K8.jpg

2004:
http://i.imgur.com/yvdef.jpg

2005:
http://i.imgur.com/sTTQ7.jpg

2010:
http://i.imgur.com/wXBYb.jpg

2011:
http://i.imgur.com/7w1i2.jpg

^^

We should let China take over the U.S. for 5 years and let them build up our infrastructure. They seem to do everything faster. :(

In Florida it takes 10 years for them to do roadworks too, ridiculous..

Well, in this case they simply did nothing for 5 years. It's not like the construction works itself took 10 years.

Another rockslide on I-40 in North Carolina:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7151/6813265639_949592a557_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ncdot/6813265639/)
Rockslide near Mile Marker 7 on I-40 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ncdot/6813265639/) by NCDOTcommunications (http://www.flickr.com/people/ncdot/), on Flickr

Here is the newly completed Briley Pkwy - 1-40 interchange in Nashville. It took nearly 10 years to complete. :cripes:

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4067/4548564544_894fd97eb4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/4548564544/)
I-40 West - Exit 204B&A - TN 155 Briley Parkway (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/4548564544/) by Adam's Journey (http://www.flickr.com/people/adamontheroad/), on Flickr

Gawd, it's hideous, too. White-painted trapezoidal box girder viaducts with interestingly-shaped columns would've looked a lot better. And Tennessee generally pays (or paid) more attention to aesthetics than some other states.

Texas used to not give a ratsass about aesthetics, but they've swung decisively away from that lately. Other states have moved in the other direction-- my own state of Georgia, after the Golden Age of Spaghetti Junction in the late '70's-'80's, now uses AASHTO girders for almost everything. In fact,this week I drove I-575 and noticed that new AASHTO girder bridges are being built on a route that was built with graceful cast-in-place concrete box girders for all its aesthetically prominent bridges. Are other states moving decisively in one direction or the other as far as aesthetics?

What cities in America have the best and worst congestion relative to each other? I took at look at the congestion ratings on INRIX and compared it to the metro populations rating of each city (only looked at cities with metro populations greater then 1 million). Cities with major differences in population to congestion rankings are highlighted:

Cities with low congestion relative to each other:
+36 Tucson AZ 52
+19 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater FL 19
+19 Memphis TN-MS-AR 41
+18 Jacksonville FL 40
+16 Orlando-Kissimmee FL 27
+16 Richmond VA 43
+12 Providence-New Bedford-Fall River RI-MA 37
+12 Rochester NY 51
+11 Detroit-Warren-Livonia MI 11
+10 Indianapolis-Carmel IN 34
+9 Columbus OH 32
+9 Salt Lake City UT 48
+8 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach FL 7
+7 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale AZ 12
+7 St. Louis MO-IL 18
+5 Cincinnati-Middletown OH-KY-IN 24
+5 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor OH 26
+5 Las Vegas-Paradise NV 30
+5 Louisville/Jefferson County KY-IN 42
+4 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington PA-NJ-DE-MD 5
+3 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta GA 9
+3 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario CA 14
+3 Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord NC-SC 33
+3 Raleigh-Cary NC 49

Cities with high congestion relative to each other:
-13 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara CA 31
-13 Birmingham-Hoover AL 47
-9 Austin-Round Rock TX 35
-7 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont CA 13
-6 Baltimore-Towson MD 20
-6 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News VA-NC 36
-6 Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin TN 38
-6 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis WI 39
-6 New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner LA 46
-5 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue WA 15
-5 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington MN-WI 16
-5 Denver-Aurora-Broomfield CO 21
-5 Oklahoma City OK 44
-4 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria DC-VA-MD-WV 8
-4 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos CA 17
-4 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville CA 25
-3 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton OR-WA 23

(green & red highlighted cities are within the 25 highest metro areas by population)

Interestingly enough Tampa, Miami & Detroit often appear on the top ten lists of worst cities in America for public transportation yet according to INRIX they are some of the least congested major cities in America.

Well Tampa and Miami have a large retiree population (who don't have to commute) plus alot of people in Florida tend to work in the service industry so alot of people tend to work different shifts. In Detroit's case I would imagine it's because of the economy and their unemployment rate.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-DQO1aOh1iF8/TkIcsZN5gYI/AAAAAAAAXuE/sUdEXFJBgWk/s1024/DSC08740.JPG


This is what I'm talking about with the multiple reflectors in a row. If you look at the bottom of the picture, you can see old reflectors that haven't been removed. Every other year, WSDOT just sticks a new one right behind the cluster of old ones.

RPMs (Raised Pavement Markers) should just be phased out. They don't last at all. Wider, 6-inch by 20-ft dashed lines with a 40-ft spacing in the middle like in most European countries would do the job just fine, and last longer.

Tampa and Miami with low congestion?!? Hahahahaha!! Apparently INRIX has never been to either metro. Tampa and Miami often appear on worst congestion and commute times lists. Only thing I can see factoring in recently is the poor economy and high unemployment of Florida. Actually even Detroit makes so those lists too.

RPMs (Raised Pavement Markers) should just be phased out. They don't last at all. Wider, 6-inch by 20-ft dashed lines with a 40-ft spacing in the middle like in most European countries would do the job just fine, and last longer.If you're including raised reflectors, then I strongly disagree with you because painted lines have a tendency to "disappear" when it's raining. At least RPMs provide an audible cue to drivers when they drift out of their lane.

Here's the road network that INRIX analyzed in Tampa. I don't know how good of a job INRIX does evaluating congestion within a city when only freeways are analyzed. US-19 carries up to 80,000 vehicles per day yet since it's mainly a surface street with signalized intersections the route wasn't analyzed (at least the section through Clearwater):

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/Random/TampaInrix.jpg

Metro areas with few freeways have a lot of "hidden" congestion on their arterials. Having a bad road network doesn't stop people from going to work.

Here's the road network that INRIX analyzed in Tampa. I don't know how good of a job INRIX does evaluating congestion within a city when only freeways are analyzed. US-19 carries up to 80,000 vehicles per day yet since it's mainly a surface street with signalized intersections the route wasn't analyzed (at least the section through Clearwater):

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/Random/TampaInrix.jpg
Now it makes sense, the areas in red are where most of the congestion is in Tampa that is along the interestate, most of the other populated and dense areas are not along an interstate or highway. In fact most congestion in Tampa Bay is on its artery roads. US19 at its most congested point has 114,000 vehicles per day, there is a map with numbers for each area, I'd have to look for it however 80,000 as an average might be right. US19 has a few sections that are freeway grade and in process of being converted to it.

If you're including raised reflectors, then I strongly disagree with you because painted lines have a tendency to "disappear" when it's raining. At least RPMs provide an audible cue to drivers when they drift out of their lane.
They would be fine if they looked like the markings in New Zealand. But when most of them break fast, they make the road look terrible. What's the point of wasting money for something that doesn't last as expected but it is still used?

If you're including raised reflectors, then I strongly disagree with you because painted lines have a tendency to "disappear" when it's raining. At least RPMs provide an audible cue to drivers when they drift out of their lane.

Yeah raised reflectors should be used. However, it also depends on the type of pavement. If the pavement is open-graded porous asphalt, the water seeps through and there won't be standing water on the roadway. In those situations, a reflective stripe would be sufficient.

But in areas where non-porous asphalt and concrete is used, the lines would disappear, so raised reflectors should be used.

Also, in many countries, painted lines are actually embedded in the pavement. A groove is made and then the lines are installed into the groove, which makes them last longer.

RPMs in Seattle cost anywhere between 50 cents each to a few dollars, depending on the contract and the amount ordered. I've seen prices as high as $4.00 per marking...

They would be fine if they looked like the markings in New Zealand. But when most of them break fast, they make the road look terrible. What's the point of wasting money for something that doesn't last as expected but it is still used?Depends on your definition of "break fast" is. In California, RPMs have a lifespan of 5-10 years and since they are installed in groups of 4, it's not a big deal if one of them breaks.

In more recent paving jobs, a combination of RPMs and thermoplastic striping have been used for lane-line striping.

Portions of some controlled-access highways in Texas (mainly the interstates) are gonna look like they're on steroids, like Katy Freeway.

Here's the road network that INRIX analyzed in Tampa. I don't know how good of a job INRIX does evaluating congestion within a city when only freeways are analyzed. US-19 carries up to 80,000 vehicles per day yet since it's mainly a surface street with signalized intersections the route wasn't analyzed (at least the section through Clearwater):
That explains why Metro Atlanta got such a good ranking. :hm:

In more recent paving jobs, a combination of RPMs and thermoplastic striping have been used for lane-line striping.
They put new markings on a lot of street in Seattle area that past summer. Now several months later, there are spots on the roads, where these markings are completely gone or there is only 1 left out of 4.

I'm trying to expand a little bit on the INRIX congestion ratings. Here is the road networks to cities with relatively bad congestion to population rating ratios:

Bridgeport -Congestion Ranking: #24
http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/INRIX/Bridgeport.jpg

San Jose - Congestion Ranking #18
http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/INRIX/SanJose.jpg

Austin - Congestion Ranking #26
http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/INRIX/Austin.jpg

San Francisco - Congestion Ranking #6
http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/INRIX/SanFrancisco.jpg

Baltimore - Congestion Ranking #14
http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/INRIX/Baltimore.jpg

Seattle - Congestion Ranking #10
http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/INRIX/Seattle.jpg

Minneapolis - Congestion Ranking #11
http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/INRIX/Minneapolis.jpg

Denver - Congestion Ranking #16
http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/INRIX/Denver.jpg

And here's cities with relatively good congestion to population ratios...

Tuscon - Congestion Ranking: #88
http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/INRIX/Tuscon.jpg

Tampa - Congestion Ranking: #38
http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/INRIX/Tampa.jpg

Orlando - Congestion Ranking: #43
http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/INRIX/Orlando.jpg

Detroit - Congestion Ranking: #22
http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/INRIX/Detroit.jpg

Miami - Congestion Ranking: #15
http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/INRIX/Miami.jpg

Phoenix - Congestion Ranking: #19
http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/INRIX/Phoenix.jpg

St. Louis - Congestion Ranking: #25
http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/INRIX/StLouis.jpg

Is there any comparisons that can be made? Just looking through the maps it seems that cities with a rats nest of concentrated freeways are more congested then cities with well defined freeway networks.

They put new markings on a lot of street in Seattle area that past summer. Now several months later, there are spots on the roads, where these markings are completely gone or there is only 1 left out of 4.Actually, I'm a little surprised that WSDOT uses raised pavement markers due to the fact that is snows in Seattle a few times each year and snowplows are an RPM's worst nightmare. California does not use RPMs on I-80 over Donner Pass or on I-5 north of Redding because of the use of snowplows during the winter months. In fact, Caltrans will "embed" the reflectors in the road surface (concrete or asphalt) so they won't be scraped off by snowplows.

They put new markings on a lot of street in Seattle area that past summer. Now several months later, there are spots on the roads, where these markings are completely gone or there is only 1 left out of 4.

Seattle DOT uses RPMs almost exclusively with paint. I find that it's not even the snow plows that do the most damage. By the time snow plows get to it, the buses have already pushed them all off the street. I honestly don't understand the fascination with RPMs in this state.

WSDOT is phasing them out, opting for profiled plastic markings instead like in the Netherlands.

Lynnwood and Bellevue use these markings without paint and they don't hold up. I can't understand why they keep using them.

Seattle DOT uses RPMs almost exclusively with paint. I find that it's not even the snow plows that do the most damage. By the time snow plows get to it, the buses have already pushed them all off the street. I honestly don't understand the fascination with RPMs in this state.

WSDOT is phasing them out, opting for profiled plastic markings instead like in the Netherlands.
Keep in mind that studded tires are legal in Washington and they will also remove road markings very quickly, in addition to quickly cutting deep ruts into the road's surfaces themselves.

They are very expensive to highway departments and is why Wisconsin outlawed them back in about 1975.

Mike

Lynnwood and Bellevue use these markings without paint and they don't hold up. I can't understand why they keep using them.

Most of the time (and I find this common in many transport agencies, whether it be highway or public transport) is the mindset of "We've always done it this way."

It's very common among organizations I've seen and I have no idea why. To them, it's almost like nobody knows about the world beyond the U.S.


Keep in mind that studded tires are legal in Washington and they will also remove road markings very quickly, in addition to quickly cutting deep ruts into the road's surfaces themselves.

They are very expensive to highway departments and is why Wisconsin outlawed them back in about 1975.

Mike

There was an estimate that studded tires in Washington causes $18 million of road damage a year. I find that number to be too low, seeing how many highways that were paved just a few years ago are starting to show signs of deterioration.

Several attempts have been made to outlaw studded tires, but of course the industry's against it...

I think that USA thread of "non interste highway" should have a thread of every state as europe countries has. California has one Texas, Maine and so on as in europe we have france has one thread, sweden spain and so on.

I think that USA thread of " USA interste highway" should have a thread of every state as europe countries has. California has one Texas, Maine and so on as in europe we have france has one thread, sweden spain and so on.[/QUOTE]


Forget of the "non" I meant USA I H. Sorry

lilLAxuo5wY&

I think that USA thread of " USA interste highway" should have a thread of every state as europe countries has. California has one Texas, Maine and so on as in europe we have france has one thread, sweden spain and so on.


Forget of the "non" I meant USA I H. Sorry
State highways are all lumped together within the Non-Interstate thread.

However, this thread is for the national Interstate Highway System, which is the same system in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.

The westbound deck of the San Francisco Bay Bridge (I-80) is scheduled to close this Presidents’ Day weekend.

TRYtPCdGBT4

rP9AcgDsfNs

For more information: http://baybridgeinfo.org/

Just for fun, some renderings of the completed bridge, set to open next year:

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/images/ta0202/newspan_lg.jpg
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bay_bridge/

http://techstar.agatho.com/images/fancybox%20photos/cable/pictures/Rendering%20of%20new%20San%20Francisco-Oakland%20Bay%20Bridge.jpg
http://techstar.agatho.com/products_cable.html

http://baybridgeinfo.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/node925520/images_bulk/5_sas_render.jpg
http://baybridgeinfo.org/media/image/self-anchored-suspension-span-new-bay-bridge#.TzyyTLSwVM0

^^

It looks really nice.

What will happend to the old bridge

What will happend to the old bridge

The old bridge is going to be demolished.

Anyways can't wait to see that span be finally completed.

^ It must be demolished since it is seismically unsafe, which is why they had to build a new bridge.

Although some architects have called for adaptive reuse:

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2012/01/fd67ef20d2443ca1f5e31c4e76a40791.jpg

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2012/01/medium_5fa3aead38112f92ab76c4307679a06a.jpg
http://io9.com/5359254/william-gibsons-bridge-city-in-virtual-light-could-become-real

http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/arch_consequence_bay_bridge.jpg
http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/22782

The old bridge is nicer, shame they couldn't build a replica

The old bridge is nicer, shame they couldn't build a replica
I agree, I like the old bridge over the new one design wise.

^^ looks like some sort of barnacle that only grows by right angles growing off of the bridge in that first render!

The old bridge is nicer, shame they couldn't build a replica

I agree, I like the old bridge over the new one design wise.

Well, Gov. (at the time) Arnold Schwarzenegger wanted the bridge to be just a simple causeway. I'm glad THAT didn't happen. I think this design also allows for much more flexibility in a earthquake - one of their primary concerns.

^ It must be demolished since it is seismically unsafe, which is why they had to build a new bridge.

Although some architects have called for adaptive reuse:

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2012/01/fd67ef20d2443ca1f5e31c4e76a40791.jpg

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2012/01/medium_5fa3aead38112f92ab76c4307679a06a.jpg
http://io9.com/5359254/william-gibsons-bridge-city-in-virtual-light-could-become-real

http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/arch_consequence_bay_bridge.jpg
http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/22782

Holy fuck, it looks like a cancerous growth. :poke:

^^

Hell it looks like all those apartments are gonna fall off once a big earthquake hits.

^^ looks like some sort of barnacle that only grows by right angles growing off of the bridge in that first render!
Yeah those are terrible.. If the bridge is unsafe then bye bye it goes.

Well, Gov. (at the time) Arnold Schwarzenegger wanted the bridge to be just a simple causeway. I'm glad THAT didn't happen. I think this design also allows for much more flexibility in a earthquake - one of their primary concerns.
The governator is an idiot so that doesn't surprise me. This by no means a bad design but too much causeway for an iconic city like SF. A city like SF has few major bridges but I'd expect them all to have an iconic design.

As I understand it, the way the bridge is designed was because on the existing bridge, westbound to San Francisco is on the top deck where you get nice views and eastbound to Oakland is on the lower deck which is like driving in a tunnel with windows. Oakland figured since they had the opportunity, they called for the bridge to not be stacked so both directions were open air. Also, since San Francisco is known for suspension bridges, the Oakland side wanted one too, so they came up with the self anchored design, which I think is quite nice. The old one definitely does not look good in person and I pray earthquakes won't happen every second I am on that half of the bridge. In addition, the rather outspoken biking population got a bike path added to the new bridge, however the older western half of the bridge will not have a path, so this path only goes to Yerba Buena/Treasure Islands.

^ There are plans to add a bike lane to the existing western span, but no funding yet:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/13/BAMD1MBLAU.DTL
http://www.sfbike.org/?baybridge
http://www.donaldmacdonaldarchitects.com/SFOBB/SFOBB_west1.html#

It's technically probably not very challenging, they can just use clip-ons.

It's technically probably not very challenging, they can just use clip-ons.

The funding is always the most challenging part :lol:

^^ Which is why it's funny to read about people clamoring for 'iconic' designs. Just be glad you're getting a new bridge in this day and age.

The Springfield Interchange with nearly no traffic.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7178/6777926798_5783b8596b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vadot/6777926798/)
_BBP0005 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vadot/6777926798/) by VaDOT (http://www.flickr.com/people/vadot/), on Flickr

^ Looks like earmarks to me.

^ Looks like earmarks to me.

That section of the DC beltway is nearly always congested, hence the need for that interchange.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2161/2277650953_f8a9520b80_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bankbryan/2277650953/)
IMG_6448 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bankbryan/2277650953/) by bankbryan (http://www.flickr.com/people/bankbryan/), on Flickr

This is an example of how traffic levels normally are at the Springfield Interchange during rush hour.

What's the deal? It does not seem to be closed because I see cars.

What's the deal? It does not seem to be closed because I see cars.

I believe it was related to the construction of the Woodrow Wilson drawbridge replacement as the portion of the beltway east of the Springfield Interchange was closed off for a while (I think one or two days) because of construction.

Ah, the Springfield Interchange.

I remember many a day going south on 95/495 from Maryland and thinking that I'll have a smooth drive to my hometown... and then averaging 13 MPH between the Franconia-Springfield Parkway interchange and the Stafford County line.

For seemingly no reason.

Some places in big american cities with heavy traffic congestions have small interchanges with alot of traffic jams. They need to build bigger interchanges. In Texas they have the famoused HIGH FIVE INTERCHANGES. When will it come High Ten interchanges or atleast High Six Interchanges. Look in Los Angeles, traffic jams and small interchanges all over L.A metropolitan.

Caltran needs to build up the highway systems around L.A and bigger interchanges.

Does INRIX's 100 Most Congested Metro Summary do a good job listing the most and least congested cities in America? Looking through INRIX rankings it looks like Miami does a good job managing congestion (7th most populous city, 15th most congested).
http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/INRIX/Miami.jpg

On the other hand a city like Minneapolis has relatively bad congestion (16th most populous metro, 11th most congested).
http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/INRIX/Minneapolis.jpg

But looking closer, does INRIX make a fair comparison? In Miami's case INRIX is analyzing highways that are very far away from downtown Miami. When you are stuck in gridlock traffic 7 miles from downtown is there any comfort that the highways near Fort Pierce are traveling smoothly over 100 miles away? On the other hand, the Minneapolis network that was rated is very concentrated and only branch out about 25 miles from the city center.

I think the biggest problem is defining the size of a metro region for these rankings. What would be a better method? It's just hard to believe that Miami is ranked right next to Denver in traffic congestion.

Harbor Freeway in Los Angeles:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/images/110tway.jpg

Minneapolis and Boston have problems because of the use of cloverleaf interchanges and the lack of replacing them with weaveless(that a word?) interchanges. A look at satelite photos of these areas will show an abundance of cloverleaf interchanges which do not work well on busy roads.

Quite a number of those Minneapolis locations have only 2 lanes each way.

A more accurate comparison would be to analyze the congestion within a 25 mile radius of the city center. The highest average commute time of any major American city is in Nashville with an average commute of 25.2 miles (road miles driven, not as the bird flies). Basically your average American commuter isn't willing to drive 25 miles to get to work so why analyze highways that are over 100 miles away from downtown Miami to determine Miami's congestion rating?

Rating the highways within the shaded 25 mile radius of the two cities would lead to a closer apples to apples comparison.
http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/Major%20Metro%20Arterials/Miami.jpg

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/tradephoric/Transportation%20Pictures/Major%20Metro%20Arterials/Minneapolis.jpg

I-70 in Kansas City.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7153/6679127745_e466ac5f3f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/modot_kc/6679127745/)
122711_I70WB_DSC_0166.pic (http://www.flickr.com/photos/modot_kc/6679127745/) by MoDOT KC 4 (http://www.flickr.com/people/modot_kc/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7029/6679125639_5459375a89_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/modot_kc/6679125639/)
122711_I70EB_DSC_0163.pic (http://www.flickr.com/photos/modot_kc/6679125639/) by MoDOT KC 4 (http://www.flickr.com/people/modot_kc/), on Flickr

For some reason, the new arrows don't look right to me. I guess it takes some getting used to.

the design is poor, it makes it look like you can get to Wichita from both middle and right through lanes

But if you divide the two destinations, it looks like Topeka can only be reached via the leftmost lanes, which is not true either.

But if you divide the two destinations, it looks like Topeka can only be reached via the leftmost lanes, which is not true either.

It actually make sense to suggest using leftmost lanes for Topeka as the right lanes will be used by the exiting/joining traffic.
I find American signage very logical. You have to read it from right to left. First destinations exiting now (here Des Moines), the one to the left goes next (in this case Wichita) and destination on the left hand side (Topeka) is straight on. Simple.

Little by little Americans begin to use EU standard for directing traffic flows on MW. That is the way how the Old Continent has been functioning for years and there are not problems with those arrows, not at all.

^^ Kansas City, arguably the US metro best served with highways in the whole country!

I have to agree with Crazyknightsfan's criticism, which actually gets at the heart of an unanticipated problem with arrow-per-lane diagrammatics. Diagrammatics in general are meant to incorporate information for the straight-ahead direction and at most one exit. They become very difficult to design when they are required to incorporate information for multiple exits.

In this particular case, the sign encourages Topeka-bound traffic to make unnecessary lane changes to the left to avoid putative lane drops for Wichita when in fact all three lanes go through to Topeka. If an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic is to be used at this exit, then this problem can be fixed only by eliminating Wichita from the sign altogether. But such a solution would cause other problems because the exits for Des Moines and Wichita are closely spaced and the Wichita exit needs advance signing. If this is provided downstream of the Des Moines exit, it is too close to the ramp. If it is provided upstream of the Des Moines exit, it might confuse Wichita-bound drivers into taking the Des Moines exit because Wichita is the "next" exit (it is fairly unusual for consecutive exits to have overlapping advance guide signing). (The alternate remedy of adding a distance to the Wichita block, to indicate that it is a destination reached by exiting, would not answer the problem of false lane assignment.)

The new arrow-per-lane diagrammatics don't handle multiple closely spaced exits well. And since they can be exit direction signs as well, unlike the old stippled-arrow diagrammatics which were advance guide signs only, the problem is even worse.

Fortunately, in this case, the MUTCD does not actually require an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic. Such diagrammatics are actually required only for major interchanges that (1) have an exit with option lane that carries the through route or (2) involve splits with an option lane. In this particular case, I-70/I-435 is a major interchange, and it has an exit with an option lane, but the use of an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic is not required because the exit does not carry the through route (which is I-70 in this case) and this interchange is not a split.

So, here a diagrammatic is an option, not a requirement, and since it is one that causes problems as currently designed, it would be better to substitute different signs. Here is what I would recommend:

* Final advance guide sign gantry before both Exits 8A and 8B (left to right): (1) Pull-through for I-70 westbound/Topeka, (2) advance guide sign for I-435 southbound/Wichita (1/2 mile), (3) lane drop advance guide sign for I-435 northbound/Des Moines (lane drop advance guide signs don't have to have a distance if the exit is less than 1/4 mile away)

* Exit gantry for Exit 8B (left to right): (1) Pull-through sign for I-70/Topeka; (2) advance guide sign for I-435/Wichita (1/4 mile): (3) two-lane lane-drop exit direction sign for I-435/Des Moines

* Exit gantry for Exit 8A: Same as existing installation.

When there is one lane for straight on and right turning it is only way to use these arrows

To put JN Winkler's post into graphical form...


* Final advance guide sign gantry before both Exits 8A and 8B (left to right): (1) Pull-through for I-70 westbound/Topeka, (2) advance guide sign for I-435 southbound/Wichita (1/2 mile), (3) lane drop advance guide sign for I-435 northbound/Des Moines (lane drop advance guide signs don't have to have a distance if the exit is less than 1/4 mile away)

http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/70-435_g1.png


* Exit gantry for Exit 8B (left to right): (1) Pull-through sign for I-70/Topeka; (2) advance guide sign for I-435/Wichita (1/4 mile): (3) two-lane lane-drop exit direction sign for I-435/Des Moines

http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/70-435_g2.png

I found that photo of the I-70/I-435 guide signs very interesting because this particular signing situation is quite common in California and if (and it's a big IF) California adopts the arrow-per-lane signage, I was curious to see how they would handle this situation.

This discussion makes my head hurt. :ohno:

I can see argument for precision but don't you guys exaggerate with such splitting hair in four (as we say in Polish)?

The current signage honestly doesn't seems wrong to me, I definitely wouldn't get lost. OK, I did drive a lot in the US but how many stranded first time European tourists do you expect in Kansas City? For most Americans the currents signs are quite easy to understand.

I-40 in Nashville

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4024/4548552654_c8aeac4097_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/4548552654/)
I-40 West at Exit 213 - Nashville (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/4548552654/) by Adam's Journey (http://www.flickr.com/people/adamontheroad/), on Flickr

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4067/4548564544_894fd97eb4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/4548564544/)
I-40 West - Exit 204B&A - TN 155 Briley Parkway (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/4548564544/) by Adam's Journey (http://www.flickr.com/people/adamontheroad/), on Flickr

^^
This interchange is now complete

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3448/3284622302_4384de8298_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/riffsyphon1024/3284622302/)
Nashville International Airport (BNA) Exit (http://www.flickr.com/photos/riffsyphon1024/3284622302/) by riffsyphon1024 (http://www.flickr.com/people/riffsyphon1024/), on Flickr

^^

I-40 near the airport

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3466/picture47q.png

^^

I-40/I-24 Interchange

Fortunately, in this case, the MUTCD does not actually require an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic. Such diagrammatics are actually required only for major interchanges that (1) have an exit with option lane that carries the through route or (2) involve splits with an option lane. In this particular case, I-70/I-435 is a major interchange, and it has an exit with an option lane, but the use of an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic is not required because the exit does not carry the through route (which is I-70 in this case) and this interchange is not a split.

Wait a minute. The I-70/I-435 North exit, where the arrow-per-lane sign is installed does have an option lane that carries the through route. The #3 lane (counting from the left) IS an option lane for I-70 or I-435 North. In that case, isn't an arrow-per-lane sign required per the 2009 MUTCD Sec 2E.20?

I-40 in Nashville
<snip>

I-40/I-24 Interchange

Nice pictures. Great arrows, I say if it ain't broke don't fix it. I think I said it before...in my mind if the arrow points down it means you're staying on the highway, if it points up, you're leaving the highway for another roadway.

The #3 lane (counting from the left) IS an option lane for I-70 or I-435 North. In that case, isn't an arrow-per-lane sign required per the 2009 MUTCD Sec 2E.20?
The photo suggests that the #3 is NOT an option lane, but a through lane. After the I-435 South exit, a separate exit lane appears on the right to carry traffic to the I-435 North.

To revert on JN Winkler's thoughts, I can see his reasoning, but his proposed signs (pretty much the pre-2009 system) is, in my opinion, equally likely to provoke uncessary lane changes. Topeka and Wichita-bound traffic might leave the #3 lane because it seems to head to Des Moines. Of course, the fact that there is no EXIT ONLY above that lane tells you that you will not be forced to turn off to Des Moines, but the arrow suggests something different. In other words: the message of the old system is counter-intuitive. Presumably that is why the MUTCD with the standing arrows / European system came into being in the first place.

It may be because I am European, but I absolutely believe that the new system is the better approach. I do appreciate that the standing arrows are not ideal when it comes to signposting two exits in quick succession, but as I mentioned, neither was the old system. One could play around a bit by not placing Topeka and Wichita next to each other on the sign, but to rather place them underneath each other. That would keep Topeka-bound traffic on lane #3, but you then still need to introduce a form of advance warning to traffic exiting to Wichita. You pretty much want them in lane #3 at this stage ...

I would have to agree to -Pino-'s post, but that's just because I'm European too :). Without reading the previous posts I imagined that it would be easier to confuse the locals (at least in the first time) with the changes than confusing a first-timer.

So I'd say the arrows over lane signage is pretty good. Wichita is in the middle of one lane when Topeka is in the middle of two lanes, from here it's pretty intuitive that only one arrow is for Whichita and two arrows are for Topeka.

The signs are already installed and I think it's worthy to observe how well they actually work.

The photo suggests that the #3 is NOT an option lane, but a through lane. After the I-435 South exit, a separate exit lane appears on the right to carry traffic to the I-435 North.
I think you have your directions mixed up. The first exit on I-70 West is to I-435 North, the second exit is to I-435 South. Also, the #3 lane IS an option lane as you have the option to stay on I-70 West or exit onto I-435 North. You are correct that just past the exit a new exit-only lane to I-435 South forms.

To revert on JN Winkler's thoughts, I can see his reasoning, but his proposed signs (pretty much the pre-2009 system) is, in my opinion, equally likely to provoke uncessary lane changes. Topeka and Wichita-bound traffic might leave the #3 lane because it seems to head to Des Moines. Of course, the fact that there is no EXIT ONLY above that lane tells you that you will not be forced to turn off to Des Moines, but the arrow suggests something different. In other words: the message of the old system is counter-intuitive. Presumably that is why the MUTCD with the standing arrows / European system came into being in the first place.
But I believe the way the new arrow-per-lane sign is laid out causes even more driver confusion because it implies that vehicles in the #2 lane may also exit to I-435 South when in reality, if you're in the #2 lane you would need to dive across 2 lanes to make the exit. At least with the pre-2009 MUTCD style, the advance guide sign for I-435 South gives an indication that those wanting to take that exit should move into the rightmost through lane.

It may be because I am European, but I absolutely believe that the new system is the better approach. I do appreciate that the standing arrows are not ideal when it comes to signposting two exits in quick succession, but as I mentioned, neither was the old system.
I believe the new arrow-per-lane signs can be useful but I think their use should be limited to where the next exit must be at least 1 mile ahead to allow proper advance guide signing. I am also not a fan of overly tall signs (I'm from California where the max overhead sign height is 10 ft.) and the amount of wasted space the new arrow-per-lane signs tend to have.

But I believe the way the new arrow-per-lane sign is laid out causes even more driver confusion because it implies that vehicles in the #2 lane may also exit to I-435 South when in reality, if you're in the #2 lane you would need to dive across 2 lanes to make the exit. At least with the pre-2009 MUTCD style, the advance guide sign for I-435 South gives an indication that those wanting to take that exit should move into the rightmost through lane.
You might even be able to do so out of the #1 lane. You've got about a quarter of a mile to go before the exit and, provided that traffic levels are low enough, you can easily cross a few lanes and make the exit. What is important, however, is an indication how far away the I-435 South exit is. On comparable signs in Europe that will find that distance. The combination of traffic density and distance indication allows the motorist en route to the I-435 South to decide when to move to lane #3.

I believe the new arrow-per-lane signs can be useful but I think their use should be limited to where the next exit must be at least 1 mile ahead to allow proper advance guide signing. I am also not a fan of overly tall signs (I'm from California where the max overhead sign height is 10 ft.) and the amount of wasted space the new arrow-per-lane signs tend to have.
The wasted space tends to come with better overview when compared to three separate overhead signs. Which is also worth something. But I do agree that sign makers should be careful not to overdimension their gantries.

I would not say that all cause for the arrow-per-lane signs is lost if the next exit is closer than 1 mile. But you need to be careful in announcing the next exit through your lane allocation. In my opinion, you need a much more neutral approach that simply says how far away the next exit is and then only start allocating lanes for that next exit after you have passed the initial exit. But to be honest, I think the same of working with the old falling arrows.

You might even be able to do so out of the #1 lane. You've got about a quarter of a mile to go before the exit and, provided that traffic levels are low enough, you can easily cross a few lanes and make the exit. What is important, however, is an indication how far away the I-435 South exit is. On comparable signs in Europe that will find that distance. The combination of traffic density and distance indication allows the motorist en route to the I-435 South to decide when to move to lane #3.
I'm sorry but diving across 3 lanes in a quarter mile, even in light traffic, is dangerous even borderline reckless and will earn you a ticket if a cop sees you do it. While the arrow-per-lane sign does not provide a distance to the I-435 South exit, the drawing I posted upthread does provide a distance for the I-435 South advance guide sign (1/4 mile).

Wait a minute. The I-70/I-435 North exit, where the arrow-per-lane sign is installed does have an option lane that carries the through route. The #3 lane (counting from the left) IS an option lane for I-70 or I-435 North. In that case, isn't an arrow-per-lane sign required per the 2009 MUTCD Sec 2E.20?

I would contend not. My interpretation of the 2E.20 criterion is that the exit carries the through route--i.e., the interchange is a TOTSO. In this case there is an option lane for I-70 and I-435 but I-70 itself does not follow the exit.

The actual wording in 2E.20 is as follows:

On freeways and expressways, either the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide sign designs as provided in Sections 2E.21 and 2E.22 shall be used for all multi-lane exits at major interchanges (see Section 2E.32) that have an optional exit lane that also carries the through route (see Figures 2E-4, 2E-5, 2E-8, and 2E-9) and for all splits that include an option lane (see Figures 2E-6 and 2E-10).

It comes down to what is meant by "optional exit lane." If the intention is to require diagrammatics at all major interchanges which have an option lane, then it is not necessary to specify that the "optional exit lane" also carries the through route or, for that matter, to specify that it is an optional exit lane.

I think the intention is actually to limit the requirement to TOTSO situations and splits, a fairly narrow application which is a traditional concern in the literature on driver expectancy. The MUTCD allows arrow-per-lane diagrammatics to be used in other situations where an option lane is present but it does not actually mandate them.

By the way, thank you for drawing my suggested approach. It is actually correct for MUTCD 2003. A couple of changes are necessary to update it for MUTCD 2009. First, in the first gantry the second arrow needs to be dropped from the advance guide sign for Exit 8A, so that it is a simple lane-drop sign with just one down arrow against a yellow panel. Second, in the second gantry, the bottom yellow panel has to extend across the full width of the lane-drop exit direction sign for Exit 8A (so that both "exit" arrows are black against yellow).

Pino is correct to say that the old (2003) arrangement encouraged drivers to make unnecessary lane changes to avoid the option lane. That is the rationale for the current (2009) approach, which is based (if memory serves) on a simulator study which Jonathan Upchurch carried out at the University of Massachusetts in 2003. It does encourage drivers to make unnecessary lane changes into the dropped lane when they can equally well take the option lane for the exit, but the consequences of this tend to be more benign because the driver is moving right (rather than left) and is expecting to exit. The MUTCD recommends ground-mounted lane assignment signs (regulatory colors) to warn drivers of the option lane condition at such exits, and some state DOTs have tried part-width arrow-per-lane diagrammatics which show just the dropped lane and the option lane (not the through lanes).

The interchange you guys are discussing is a dream come true compared to the rest in Kansas City. This entire city is PLAGUED with left exits, left lanes that end (I-435 Eastern leg Missouri side) as soon as a major ramp joins I-435 from the right, that lane continues and the left lane ends and what was a middle lane becomes the new left lane which in turn causes semi-trucks to now be traveling in the left lane.... for miles.... this madness starts at I-435 and I-35 NE Kansas City metro, I-435 and Parvin rd, I-435 and Armour rd (just one mile south of Parvin rd) and finally at the I-435 and I-70 interchange you are discussing.

People are always shooting across 4 or 5 lanes of traffic to reach a left exit here.

Does it have a site of the project in Kansas City, or pictures. Thanks

I would contend not. My interpretation of the 2E.20 criterion is that the exit carries the through route--i.e., the interchange is a TOTSO. In this case there is an option lane for I-70 and I-435 but I-70 itself does not follow the exit.

The actual wording in 2E.20 is as follows: ...
On freeways and expressways, either the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide sign designs as provided in Sections 2E.21 and 2E.22 shall be used for all multi-lane exits at major interchanges (see Section 2E.32) that have an optional exit lane that also carries the through route (see Figures 2E-4, 2E-5, 2E-8, and 2E-9) and for all splits that include an option lane (see Figures 2E-6 and 2E-10).

Hmm... that's not how I interpreted 2E.20. If I may, here is Figure 2E-4 from the 2009 MUTCD which is referenced in your quote from Sec 2E.20...
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/images/fig2e_04.gif

In this example, I-84 is the through route and the exit is for route 72. This does not look like a TOTSO situation to me. It looks like a standard multi-lane exit with an option lane.

Myosh_tino: yes, you are right, that is not a TOTSO. My interpretation is that it shows the permissive case: an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic may be used but is not required to be used. Note that the drawing caption does not state that the interchange is "major," which is part of the "must" condition in the Standard statement in 2E.20.

Myosh_tino: yes, you are right, that is not a TOTSO. My interpretation is that it shows the permissive case: an arrow-per-lane diagrammatic may be used but is not required to be used. Note that the drawing caption does not state that the interchange is "major," which is part of the "must" condition in the Standard statement in 2E.20.

Indeed. There are many, many such splits in (for instance) Atlanta, the vast majority of which are just lane drop ramps for service interchanges. If using arrows-per-lane signage was mandatory, it would blur the distinction between a major fork and just another offramp.

As a matter of fact, I remember that sometime in the early '80's GaDOT put old skool diagrammatic arrows at a few such ramps (I-20 and Wesley Chapel Road was one), but took them down after a few months, possibly out of common sense or possibly because FHWA informed them that their interpretation of the then-current MUTCD was incorrect.

Speaking of which, a few months ago I posted about the signage for Atlanta's I-85 HOT lanes having to be redone before the lanes opened because they were at odds with the MUTCD. They looked stupid, too. :nuts:

EDIT: That said, Connecticut 72 is a freeway, so IMO the signage myosh_tino posted would be appropriate there.

I don't like the "California look" for Exit Only. Give me the more conventional style. It's bad enough that we're losing Highway Gothic to Clearview but now this? Give me a freakin' break.

What is actually so bad about Clearview? I don't understand all the fuss about it among road enthusiasts. It looks like a fine font to me, it's better than most fonts used in Europe for instance.

What is actually so bad about Clearview? I don't understand all the fuss about it among road enthusiasts. It looks like a fine font to me, it's better than most fonts used in Europe for instance.

While I suppose I could live with the letters, Clearview numerals are absolutely hideous. Series E/E(M) and D numerals are far superior IMO.

I'm fine with Clearview, and it works well for white letters on dark backgrounds. But for black letters on light backgrounds, it's atrocious.

Green power coming to a freeway near you? (http://inhabitat.com/student-designs-highway-power/)

http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/windfreeways.jpg

Concept is from 2007 but kinda interesting nonetheless.

Hideous

Green power coming to a freeway near you? (http://inhabitat.com/student-designs-highway-power/)

http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/windfreeways.jpg

Concept is from 2007 but kinda interesting nonetheless.

I don't see that generating much wind power.

^^ Better than nothing...

Solar panels against south bound sound barriers might be a better idea...

It looks like the aging flower-children in the Bloomington, IN area have finally given up and placed I-69 into their local transport plans. Yes, INDOT was quite heavily laying the pressure on them to do so.

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/mar/09/bloomington-panel-vote-i-69-section/

Bloomington, IN, home of the Indiana University Hoosiers, is a place that is on a socio-political level with Berkeley, CA, Madison, WI, Ithaca, NY, Cambridge, MA and so forth. Some of the comments in that article are priceless!

:nuts:

Bloomington is located about a third of the way from Indianapolis and Evansville, IN, along the routing of the under-construction I-69.

:dance:

Mike

It surprises me that a big college city like Bloomington isn't on the IH system. From Google Maps, it doesn't even look like it's connected by freeway to any other IN cities.

It looks like the aging flower-children in the Bloomington, IN area have finally given up and placed I-69 into their local transport plans. Yes, INDOT was quite heavily laying the pressure on them to do so.

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/mar/09/bloomington-panel-vote-i-69-section/

Bloomington, IN, home of the Indiana University Hoosiers, is a place that is on a socio-political level with Berkeley, CA, Madison, WI, Ithaca, NY, Cambridge, MA and so forth. Some of the comments in that article are priceless!

:nuts:

Bloomington is located about a third of the way from Indianapolis and Evansville, IN, along the routing of the under-construction I-69.

Mike

What's wrong with being on the same socio-political level as the cities you mentioned? Those are some of the most educated, wealthy, and culturally diverse places in the country and WORLD- far better than being an unknown hick backwater.

Who the hell are you to frame opposition to this highway as the product of some aging hippies? The people of Monroe County and Bloomington appreciate clean air and water and a relative lack of traffic congestion. I-69 destroys a lot of that.

The Evansville Courier-Press has been shameful in their coverage of this issue. They act like spoiled brats and expect Bloomington to submit to their demands for a quicker drive to Indianapolis even though their city will experience none of the negative effects of the construction of the interstate. The people that post on that site are certifiable, bloodthirsty lunatics that articulate what passes for mainstream conservative thought nowadays- an expression of desire for those of different political persuasions to suffer physical harm and death, no concern for the welfare of the environment, and complete ideological inconsistency (supporting a three BILLION dollar taxpayer funded boondoggle while simultaneously railing against government spending).

It surprises me that a big college city like Bloomington isn't on the IH system. From Google Maps, it doesn't even look like it's connected by freeway to any other IN cities.

It isn't on the path between Indianapolis and any other large city. If an interstate wasn't on the national route map in the 1960s it is going to take awhile to get built because the feds aren't providing 90% of the construction costs anymore.

Where would our nation, and our World for that matter, be if the only people who we ever listened to on transport issues was the NIMBY crowd, especially the snooty, holier-that-thou, pointy-head elitists who infest college towns?

I-69 is an important corridor for interstate and international commerce and here, sometimes things like that happen. One cannot live in a protected, isolated 'bubble'. And besides, I-69 will not be taking a city street routing though the area, it will be using *the already existing, upgradable IN 37 expressway/freeway*.

Sometimes, for the greater good of the most people, it must be "Damn torpedoes, FULL SPEED AHEAD!".

Mike

The people of Monroe County and Bloomington appreciate clean air and water and a relative lack of traffic congestion. I-69 destroys a lot of that.


In case you didn't notice, we do not live in the 1960's anymore.

Where would our nation, and our World for that matter, be if the only people who we ever listened to on transport issues was the NIMBY crowd, especially the snooty, holier-that-thou, pointy-head elitists who infest college towns?

I-69 is an important corridor for interstate and international commerce and here, sometimes things like that happen. One cannot live in a protected, isolated 'bubble'. And besides, I-69 will not be taking a city street routing though the area, it will be using *the already existing, upgradable IN 37 expressway/freeway*.



Typical reich-wing talking points. Anyone with extensive education is an "elitist." Anyone who THINKS is "snooty."

Who the fuck are you to label an entire group of people in such a manner?

I can tell you if liberal college educated people ran this country it would have universal healthcare, a clean environment, and excellent public transportation- it would look a lot like the Scandinavian countries that rank on the top of every human development index ranking.

If dipshits like you ran this country it would look like Mississippi.

Yay, let's have this argument again! :banana:

Where would our nation, and our World for that matter, be if the only people who we ever listened to on transport issues was the NIMBY crowd, especially the snooty, holier-that-thou, pointy-head elitists who infest college towns?

Sometimes, for the greater good of the most people, it must be "Damn torpedoes, FULL SPEED AHEAD!".

Mike

Sometimes, but not always. The mere existence of opposition, even selfish, NIMBY opposition, doesn't prove that a project is worthwhile. Building unneeded roads (or other stuff) in order to annoy people you don't like is poor public policy, and sometimes people do the right things for the wrong reasons-- or the wrong things for the right reasons. :ohno:

IMO, it's incumbent upon the citizens and leaders of Bloomington to consider the interests of other communities when deciding whether or not to include I-69 in their regional plan. Conversely, other communities owe the same consideration to Bloomington. If the "snooty, holier-that-thou, pointy-head elitists who infest" Bloomington supported a viable passenger rail link to their city, it wouldn't be very sporting of residents of other parts of the state to automatically oppose it just because they don't like rail or the people who support it.

I'm no expert on I-69, nor do I intend to become one. Still, it's obvious to me that I-69 will have a variety of effects on the communities through which it passes, and the communities have an interests in leveraging the positive effects and mitigating the negative ones. Which brings me to:

In case you didn't notice, we do not live in the 1960's anymore.

Yes, I'm sure that the residents of Bloomington are very much aware of that. Since the 1960's, auto-oriented sprawl has become pervasive, and there are severe limits to what a community can do to avoid it, especially if a new Interstate highway is to be introduced. I-69 will introduce a significant amount of through traffic to the corridor and increase the viability (both absolute and relative) of highway-oriented development sites that are remote from the city's core and therefore difficult to provide with effective non-automotive access. Even though...

And besides, I-69 will not be taking a city street routing though the area, it will be using *the already existing, upgradable IN 37 expressway/freeway*.

that doesn't mean that there won't be impacts, and the residents of Bloomington are right to be concerned about them.

Having said all of that, IMO the way that this issue should've played out is that the antis raise their voices in opposition, then, after a robust and elucidating debate, get modestly overruled by the community at large after winning some helpful changes to the plan. On the face of it, that doesn't seem terribly different from what actually happened-- assuming that the debate was, in fact, elucidating. The degree of name-calling suggests otherwise, though. :ohno:

Typical reich-wing talking points. Anyone with extensive education is an "elitist." Anyone who THINKS is "snooty."

Who the fuck are you to label an entire group of people in such a manner?

I can tell you if liberal college educated people ran this country it would have universal healthcare, a clean environment, and excellent public transportation- it would look a lot like the Scandinavian countries that rank on the top of every human development index ranking.

If dipshits like you ran this country it would look like Mississippi.

Mississippi is not bad at all.

HOV lanes appear to be called "express" in Hawaii.

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/101/280249000_8c22b72c45_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fusionpanda/280249000/)
H1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fusionpanda/280249000/) by fusionpanda (http://www.flickr.com/people/fusionpanda/), on Flickr

It isn't on the path between Indianapolis and any other large city. If an interstate wasn't on the national route map in the 1960s it is going to take awhile to get built because the feds aren't providing 90% of the construction costs anymore.

It is on the route between Indianapolis and Evansville. There should at least be a state freeway/expressway. (And there may already be. Google Maps does a bad job of differentiating between a two-lane undivided highway and a dual-carriageway expressway.)

HOV lanes appear to be called "express" in Hawaii.

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/101/280249000_8c22b72c45_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fusionpanda/280249000/)
H1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fusionpanda/280249000/) by fusionpanda (http://www.flickr.com/people/fusionpanda/), on Flickr

I don't like how the white highway shield disappears with the white background. They should have put a black border so it's visible, and made the sign bigger so it's less 'crowded'.

Yes, but Hawaii is not known for its road signage. :smug:

From CNN

A winter storm packing heavy snow and gusty winds forced authorities to close 180 miles of Interstate 40 in northern Arizona on Sunday until further notice.

(...) The closure stretched roughly from Kingman in western Arizona to eastward to Winslow, including the city of Flagstaff, he said.

Portions of Interstate 17 south of Flagstaff were also closed, according to the Arizona Department of Transportation's website, as were several state roads.
As of 9 a.m. Sunday, Flagstaff -- with an elevation of about 6,900 feet -- had received 10 to 14 inches of snow, according to the National Weather Service. The city of Prescott had received 8 to 12 inches. Areas above 7,000 feet could see up to 22 inches, according to the weather service.

Several crashes and reports of stuck vehicles had been reported as of Sunday morning, Beck said, with one person sustaining minor injuries on I-40.

(...)

Snow in Arizona and record heat in the Midwest and Northeast. This has become one crazy spring so far and it hasn't technically started yet. :laugh:

180 miles closing is huge, I wonder if that's the longest length of a highway closed before.

Green power coming to a freeway near you? (http://inhabitat.com/student-designs-highway-power/)

http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/windfreeways.jpg

Concept is from 2007 but kinda interesting nonetheless.

Good idea but portion of road need to close when maintanance

Good idea but portion of road need to close when maintanance

But that's also the case when they change signs and other things. Maybe they can try to sync the maintenence on these things with regular maintenance?

Good idea but portion of road need to close when maintanance
It is a terrible idea.

Snow in Arizona and record heat in the Midwest and Northeast. This has become one crazy spring so far and it hasn't technically started yet. :laugh:

180 miles closing is huge, I wonder if that's the longest length of a highway closed before.

Snow is nothing unusual in Northern Arizona.

The average snowfall for Flagstaff in January is 20.4 in (51.8cm).

Fans of toll roads may be happy to hear that Arkansas is studying a toll option to expand and modernize I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis. Those not a fan of toll roads will likely not be very happy, including the trucking industry.

I-40 is not particularly busy, and carries 30,000 - 40,000 vehicles per day outside the metropolitan areas, but the truck percentage is one of the highest in the nation, exceeding 50 and even 60% between Little Rock and Memphis.

http://www.kuar.org/kuarnews/53915-study-proposes-converting-i-40-to-a-toll-road.html

Dallas freeways

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7032/6712006087_cb1bb301c2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ninjatune/6712006087/)
Skyline (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ninjatune/6712006087/) by the urban fabric (http://www.flickr.com/people/ninjatune/), on Flickr

Oh, Dallas is trying, but to do what? One need not do much to improve the aesthetics a - make the columns hexagonal, make the hammerhead column-top more visually organic to its pillar, make all of the girders trapezoidal steel-boxes, etc - because function will always define structures like these. Why make a garish, superficial display when modifying elements of the engineering can deliver a visually pleasing impact?
The fly-overs between I-95 / I-195 in Providence or between I-10 / Sam Houston Tollway in Houston look great even though they have less. Or, as I mentioned before, if you prefer the all-concrete approach, look at some of what's been built in California (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sparciii/1862062935/sizes/l/in/photostream/). (not mine)


Haha! I didn't want to the be the one to say it!

Anyway, that's the last I'll make mention of this. Carry on, lads!

insult and run?

Fans of toll roads may be happy to hear that Arkansas is studying a toll option to expand and modernize I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis. Those not a fan of toll roads will likely not be very happy, including the trucking industry.

I-40 is not particularly busy, and carries 30,000 - 40,000 vehicles per day outside the metropolitan areas, but the truck percentage is one of the highest in the nation, exceeding 50 and even 60% between Little Rock and Memphis.

http://www.kuar.org/kuarnews/53915-study-proposes-converting-i-40-to-a-toll-road.html

There's no way it'll happen. Still, I've often wondered how little Arkansas could expect to fund I-49 and I-69 on top of maintaining and improving the rest of its road system.

I-40 there is quite old-- you can see on Google that most of it has the narrow median of early Interstates. I suppose it needs not only widening but reconstruction of the pavement and bridges.

Oh: 30-40,000 vpd is plenty busy for a rural highway in the US. I wonder if that's actual count or passenger vehicle equivalents.

It is a terrible idea.

I do not think so, if cover all the expressway with this thing, that's the bad idea with few pieces in few km is good ideal.

Those pictures go here:
The 105 and 110 Freeway interchange in Los Angeles.
http://images.quickblogcast.com/3/1/6/3/2/132163-123613/105_freeway_2.jpg
http://blog.onlinelandplanning.com/
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/sync/i7/072010/110_105_414w.jpg
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/Publications/Inside7/story.php?id=526

yes:

^^ these pictures above is a bus lane ???

ow :nuts:

^^ these pictures above is a bus lane ???

ow :nuts:

No, they are HOT/HOV lanes (high-occupancy toll / high-occupancy vehicle). In a nutshell, lanes accessible only by cars with a 2 or 3 people, or those for which a toll (electronically collected) is due in case a single-occupancy car is driven there.

^^ humm

E eu achando que era uma chique linha de BRT. :lol:

There is a bus station at the lowest level on I-110 though. It connects with the light rail in the median of I-105, two levels higher.

No, they are HOT/HOV lanes (high-occupancy toll / high-occupancy vehicle). In a nutshell, lanes accessible only by cars with a 2 or 3 people, or those for which a toll (electronically collected) is due in case a single-occupancy car is driven there.If you are referring to the I-105/I-110 interchange photos above, the ramps that drop down in the middle of the freeway are HOV ramps for cars carrying 2 ore more people. I do not believe solo drivers can buy their way into these lanes by paying a toll yet.

Up here in northern California, the HOV direct connector ramps at the I-880/CA-237 interchange in Milpitas, CA were converted into express lanes (another term for HOT lanes) to allow solo driver to use the lane for a fee.

Lexus lanes, LMAO.

I'm so glad this part of the country has none of that HOV lane foolishness. :cheers:

Hello guys,

I am gonna make a 3 week roundtrip through the US in August this year. We are planning to rent a trailer, so we dont have to look for a hotel or a motel all the time.

Our route will be as follows: New York City - Niagara Falls - Cleveland - Detroit - Chicago - Omaha - Denver - Salt Lake City - San Francisco - Los Angeles - Las Vegas - Alboquerque - Dallas - New Orleans - Tampa - Miami - Savannah - Washington D.C - Philadelphia - New York City

What do you think, is it possible to make that trip in 3 weeks, with stops also in national parks like the Niagara Falls or the Great Salt Desert, Grand Canyon etc?

Is it allowed to stop everywhere I want with my trailer over night to sleep? I dont mean next to the road of course, but if I find some parking lot then its OK to stop and sleep there, right?

Thanks for any help.

Lexus lanes, LMAO.

I'm so glad this part of the country has none of that HOV lane foolishness. :cheers:

How's Jimmy Hoffa's column holding up on the Lodge Freeway?

Hello guys,

I am gonna make a 3 week roundtrip through the US in August this year. We are planning to rent a trailer, so we dont have to look for a hotel or a motel all the time.

Our route will be as follows: New York City - Niagara Falls - Cleveland - Detroit - Chicago - Omaha - Denver - Salt Lake City - San Francisco - Los Angeles - Las Vegas - Alboquerque - Dallas - New Orleans - Tampa - Miami - Savannah - Washington D.C - Philadelphia - New York City

What do you think, is it possible to make that trip in 3 weeks, with stops also in national parks like the Niagara Falls or the Great Salt Desert, Grand Canyon etc?

Is it allowed to stop everywhere I want with my trailer over night to sleep? I dont mean next to the road of course, but if I find some parking lot then its OK to stop and sleep there, right?

Thanks for any help.

I think trailers and motorhomes are sometimes not allowed within certain cities, but I"m not exactly sure agbout that.

It's an ambitious trip. Navigating an RV or a vehicle with a trailer will be difficult in places like New York City, and you may need to travel outside the city and pay for a parking spot somewhere.

That's quite ambitious indeed. You're looking at two weeks of driving 600 miles / 1000 kilometers every day and one week left over for sightseeing. It's about 8,000 miles if you drive the shortest route, but if you want to go out of your way to visit some national parks "nearby", you're looking at 9,000 miles or more.

A lot of people are under the impression you can drive from LA and visit the Grand Canyon and drive back in one day, but tend to forget the Grand Canyon is a good 8 hours from Los Angeles (one way), if traffic cooperates.

^^well if we run out of time, we'll cut the Miami "detour" and go straight from New Orleans to Washington D.C. to catch the plane back to Europe.

but it should be possible to do that trip in 3 weeks, apart from the mentioned national parks I am also having Mount Rushmore in mind to visit, which is not exactly on our route. And we gonna take a closer look on "only" 7 cities: New York, San Francisco, L.A. Las Vegas, New Orleans, Miami and Wahington D.C.

like I said my only concern is where to stop with the RV over night.

You can park an RV overnight in any Walmart parking lot. That doesn't help in large cities like NY or SF where you have to either find an RV campground like KOA outside of town or take your chances parking on the street. State parks charge money but are cheaper than private RV parks or hotels. Check state parks around SF, DC (Northern VA) and LA. You can Walmart it in Vegas.

^^well if we run out of time, we'll cut the Miami "detour" and go straight from New Orleans to Washington D.C. to catch the plane back to Europe.

but it should be possible to do that trip in 3 weeks, apart from the mentioned national parks I am also having Mount Rushmore in mind to visit, which is not exactly on our route. And we gonna take a closer look on "only" 7 cities: New York, San Francisco, L.A. Las Vegas, New Orleans, Miami and Wahington D.C.

like I said my only concern is where to stop with the RV over night.

I have to say it is quote ambitious if not impossible.
We once did Orlando - New Orlean - El Paso - Grand Canyon - Las Vegas - Death Valley - San Francisco and back straight to Orlando in two weeks. And we didn't have much time to spare. We only stopped for few hours in places like New Orleans, or Las Vegas and for most of the day in Grand Canyon and San Francisco.
I honestly can't see how you can do your route in 3 weeks. You can't drive trailer as fast as normal car, especially in the urban environment, also don't underestimate all the small stops you will make on your route, getting gas, eating, shopping, peeing etc. It will add up.
How many of you will drive? We had two drivers driving most of the days.
Also, do you want to see anything during your journey? If yes you should cut it in half.

^^then you say you made it from the Atlantic to the Pacific and back in 2 weeks. thats basically the same I want to do, except that I dont take the same route back I came on. And of course I have to go all the way up from Miami back to New York/JFK. But I have 3 weeks for that, you had only 2.

We are 3 to drive, and my girlfriend will cook in the RVs kitchen while I (or one of my friends) drive. :-)

I am curios if it works or not. Like I said, if we run out of time we'll leave out Florida. I'll save at least 2 days with that "sacrifice".

@desertpunk: thank you.

Many people underestimate the size of Florida. Especially if coming from the Northeast, the distance from Washington to the Florida border is nearly similar as driving further all the way to Key West, which is a 9 hour drive easily. If you drive from New Orleans to Washington, cutting Tampa and Florida saves you at least a thousand miles worth of driving and congestion (South Florida's pretty bad).

^^ An awesome drive would be the combination of Natchez Trace Parkway and Blue Ridge Parkway between Jackson, MS and Washington, DC.

I have to say it is quote ambitious if not impossible.
We once did Orlando - New Orlean - El Paso - Grand Canyon - Las Vegas - Death Valley - San Francisco and back straight to Orlando in two weeks. And we didn't have much time to spare. We only stopped for few hours in places like New Orleans, or Las Vegas and for most of the day in Grand Canyon and San Francisco.
I honestly can't see how you can do your route in 3 weeks. You can't drive trailer as fast as normal car, especially in the urban environment, also don't underestimate all the small stops you will make on your route, getting gas, eating, shopping, peeing etc. It will add up.
How many of you will drive? We had two drivers driving most of the days.
Also, do you want to see anything during your journey? If yes you should cut it in half.
I agree. As I have said many times, many Europeans have absolutely no idea of how truly *VAST* the USA is. Just driving from NYC to Chicago in relaxed comfort is something that I'd budget two days for - one way.

I would stay east of the Mississippi River for those three weeks - there is plenty to see in the eastern USA and that time will fly by.

Spend a few says exploring the Appalachians (an end-to-end drive on the Blue Ridge Parkway and Skyline Drive between Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains National Parks is a MUST DO and requires three days to do in comfort), then a few days poking around Chicago and the Great Lakes, then spend a few days in the Gulf Coast region (including end-to-end on the Natchez Trace Parkway to get there) and your time will be used up.

Save the western USA for a future holiday.

Mike

^^I cant go to America without visiting the Great Salt Lake Desert :)

Its a very big country indeed. If the route doesnt work I can still change my mind whenever I want and make a U-turn.

^^then you say you made it from the Atlantic to the Pacific and back in 2 weeks. thats basically the same I want to do, except that I dont take the same route back I came on. And of course I have to go all the way up from Miami back to New York/JFK. But I have 3 weeks for that, you had only 2.

We are 3 to drive, and my girlfriend will cook in the RVs kitchen while I (or one of my friends) drive. :-)

I am curios if it works or not. Like I said, if we run out of time we'll leave out Florida. I'll save at least 2 days with that "sacrifice".

@desertpunk: thank you.

You have great plan for your trip. I've seen most of the places you want to visit and they are all worth a visit. Fortunately I did it during few visits, not one crazy three-week madness ;)
There is so much you will have to skip on your journey and so many places you would like to stay longer.
Do you plan to sleep in the RV while someone is driving? That way you can actually make it ;)
Still, good luck and let us know how did it go once you come back.
When are you going?

^^
Sure Ill do.
Ill leave on aug 11, coming back on sep 1.
So in case I dont write anything here after sep 1, it means I didnt make it and I was left for dishwashing somewhere in Florida because I have spent all my money on gas :-)))

Jack, I'm not sure you realize how big this country is... you'll need about twice the amount of time you have set aside to really enjoy the trip.

For example, the closest really big metropolitan area to me is Atlanta, which is 3 hours away. The next closest is Chicago, which is 8 hours away, and this is exceeding the speed limit on I-65. The two big Texas metros (Dallas and Houston) as well as central and south Florida (the parts of Florida worth seeing) are all a good 11 hours away, even though I live in a state that borders Florida.

Interstate 85 widening northeast of Charlotte.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7050/7064236169_1a2f41142c_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ncdot/7064236169/)
I-85 Widening 1203210378 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ncdot/7064236169/) by NCDOTcommunications (http://www.flickr.com/people/ncdot/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7079/7064235787_2348fe303e_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ncdot/7064235787/)
I-85 Widening 1203210368 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ncdot/7064235787/) by NCDOTcommunications (http://www.flickr.com/people/ncdot/), on Flickr

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5232/6918156792_82ee3b064b_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ncdot/6918156792/)
I-85 Widening 1203210376 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ncdot/6918156792/) by NCDOTcommunications (http://www.flickr.com/people/ncdot/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7192/7064235085_f13a495b90_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ncdot/7064235085/)
I-85 Widening 1203210367 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ncdot/7064235085/) by NCDOTcommunications (http://www.flickr.com/people/ncdot/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7238/6918156040_d49a544e18_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ncdot/6918156040/)
I-85 Widening 1203210369 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ncdot/6918156040/) by NCDOTcommunications (http://www.flickr.com/people/ncdot/), on Flickr

You can see Charlotte, similar to Atlanta, is much more sprawled than other large cities in the south and west. Much more forests and spread out developments.

Jack, I'm not sure you realize how big this country is... you'll need about twice the amount of time you have set aside to really enjoy the trip.

For example, the closest really big metropolitan area to me is Atlanta, which is 3 hours away. The next closest is Chicago, which is 8 hours away, and this is exceeding the speed limit on I-65. The two big Texas metros (Dallas and Houston) as well as central and south Florida (the parts of Florida worth seeing) are all a good 11 hours away, even though I live in a state that borders Florida.

I believe you. Thats why I asked in the first place, to get the opinions of you locals. Anyway, Ill try it, and lets see how far I get. The worst that can happen is that I am forced to turn back.

:yes:

:yes:

thx

I believe you. Thats why I asked in the first place, to get the opinions of you locals. Anyway, Ill try it, and lets see how far I get. The worst that can happen is that I am forced to turn back.
I'd also give yourself an extra day just in case of anything happening. I've done long roads trips quite a few times things do happen or something slows you down.

Interstate 85 widening northeast of Charlotte.

You can see Charlotte, similar to Atlanta, is much more sprawled than other large cities in the south and west. Much more forests and spread out developments.
Well to be fair thats outer Charlotte but yes its very sprawled.

Hello guys,

I am gonna make a 3 week roundtrip through the US in August this year. We are planning to rent a trailer, so we dont have to look for a hotel or a motel all the time.

Our route will be as follows: New York City - Niagara Falls - Cleveland - Detroit - Chicago - Omaha - Denver - Salt Lake City - San Francisco - Los Angeles - Las Vegas - Alboquerque - Dallas - New Orleans - Tampa - Miami - Savannah - Washington D.C - Philadelphia - New York City

What do you think, is it possible to make that trip in 3 weeks, with stops also in national parks like the Niagara Falls or the Great Salt Desert, Grand Canyon etc?

Is it allowed to stop everywhere I want with my trailer over night to sleep? I dont mean next to the road of course, but if I find some parking lot then its OK to stop and sleep there, right?

Thanks for any help.

Like others have said, that is quite an ambitious schedule. I mapped your route on Google Maps (keeping you on the freeway) and it says you will cover 8,191 miles! Divide that by 21 days and you will need to average 390 miles per day and that assumes you are not spending more than one day at any particular location (i.e. Las Vegas, San Francisco, etc). The most I have driven in one day is almost 700 miles from San Jose, CA to Portland, OR and that was an all-day drive (over 11 hours behind the wheel).

If you do go through with it, enjoy the scenery. It will be one hell of a drive!

I spent four weeks only in the South West, drove about 4000 miles, and that was quite acceptable.
To give you an idea (sorry, in Dutch): https://docs.google.com/View?docid=drzgvw8_6fwp7sxdb

Like others have said, that is quite an ambitious schedule. I mapped your route on Google Maps (keeping you on the freeway) and it says you will cover 8,191 miles! Divide that by 21 days and you will need to average 390 miles per day and that assumes you are not spending more than one day at any particular location (i.e. Las Vegas, San Francisco, etc). The most I have driven in one day is almost 700 miles from San Jose, CA to Portland, OR and that was an all-day drive (over 11 hours behind the wheel).

If you do go through with it, enjoy the scenery. It will be one hell of a drive!

Note - that's 13182 km. 390 mi is 628 km.

New York City - Niagara Falls - Cleveland - Detroit - Chicago - Omaha - Denver - Salt Lake City - San Francisco - Los Angeles - Las Vegas - Alboquerque - Dallas - New Orleans - Tampa - Miami - Savannah - Washington D.C - Philadelphia - New York City

That's very ambitious.

NYC to Niagara Falls is about an 8 hour drive factoring in traffic. The Cleveland, Detroit and Chicago legs are much more reasonable, 3-5 hours each.

Chicago to Omaha is a brutal 8 hour drive of absolutely nothing but plains and cornfields. Omaha to Denver is an even worse 8 hour drive that manages to have less along the way. I'm not sure you can understand how incredibly boring drives across the Great Plains are unless you've done a few. You'll be exhausted from these trips.

There is no good way to get from Denver to Salt Lake City. That may seem a little outlandish to you, but it is true. As a result, you get a crushing 9 hour drive, but with a few hills along the way to break up the scenery.

Salt Lake City to San Francisco is an oppressive 12 hour drive. For the first 2/3 of it, you get to drive across Nevada, which also consists of absolutely nothing. Then you get to Reno, and while you're drained from the long drive you've already put in, then you get to take the twisty I-80 through the Sierra Nevada. Then, when you get to the Bay Area, you might find that you're stuck in traffic for two hours waiting to get across the Bay Bridge into San Francisco. Even in August, that's all your daylight right there.

San Francisco to Los Angeles is another 7 hours, allowing for traffic. Driving through the lush Central Valley, you get to see... a whole lot of nothing but crops. Thing about driving in the United States is that in the West, there is a whole lot of empty space, or agricultural fields. That's what makes driving across it such a chore.

LA to Las Vegas is much more reasonable; a breezy 4-5 hours depending on traffic. Of course, at this point, with that much traveling, I'm not sure you'd even want to be up for gambling or drinking, especially considering the driving you have ahead of you.

Las Vegas to Albuquerque is 9 hours. It's also much more scenic than many of the routes you took before. On the same note, let's think about gasoline expenses here. If you're going 8,200 mi, and getting about 10 mpg in the RV, that means you're going to be buying about 820 gallons of fuel. At the current average price of $3.80/gal of gasoline, you're talking about spending $3,116 on gas alone. At current exchange rates, that's €2380, or £1,963. That's a lot of money, needless to say.

Albuquerque to Dallas is a long, long 11 hour drive. Once again, there is practically nothing along this route. I have personally driven the Amarillo-Fort Worth section several times, and I can tell you - you'll wonder how a place so desolate and boring could exist in a state as populous as Texas. At least stop in Amarillo for the 72 oz (2.04 kg) steak.

Dallas to New Orleans is a 9 hour drive factoring in traffic. It's much more interesting given that trees start to enter the picture again, and population densities begin to rise back to more familiar levels.

New Orleans to Tampa is where the size of the United States begins to play tricks on you. It is a legitimate 11 hour drive. The Florida Peninsula is much bigger than it may seem on the map. Also, remember the time of year you're going to be driving - late August is prime hurricane season on the Gulf Coast and in Florida. It would be really unfortunate if you got caught in an evacuation or had your progress impeded because of a hurricane that wreaked havoc across your route.

On a side note, I'd also like to point out what the non-catastrophic weather situation will be at this time of year in much of the country. From Los Angeles to Las Vegas, the high temperature will likely be 105ºF, or 40ºC. In Las Vegas, the temperature can very easily get to 115ºF, or 46ºC. From that point onward, all throughout the Southwest and the South, until you get out of South Carolina, you can expect the high temperature to be greater than 95ºF, or 35ºC. In the Southwest, it will simply be incredibly hot. In the Southeast, it will be hot and oppressively humid. Not only will this make being outside for any appreciable length of time uncomfortable, but it will put an enormous amount of stress and wear on your RV's motor. It doesn't take much for those things to overheat, and that would place a damper on your trip real quickly.

Tampa to Miami is more reasonable; 5 hours with traffic. But Florida's going to get tricky again...

Miami to Savannah is an 8 hour drive. Yes, this is entirely ridiculous. No, you will not want to do this drive at this point in the trip. And yes, you also risk getting hit by a hurricane or a tropical storm here.

Savannah to Washington, DC is supposedly a 10 hour drive. However, you'll be taking the illustrious Interstate 95 the entire way. The thing about I-95 is that it gets clogged with traffic in the middle of nowhere for no reason whatsoever, simply because everyone on the East Coast has to get to that highway for indecipherable purposes. It will likely take you 12 hours to make this leg of the journey.

At this point, you will have spent 135 hours in the RV. That's five full 24-hour days and fifteen hours. That's if you're lucky and don't run into any weather or mechanical problems.

DC to Philly is 3 hours, and Philly to NYC is 2 hours.

Summary: this trip is doable in three weeks, but it will require so much driving, be so expensive, and be subject to so many variables (like if you get caught speeding, and some highway patrolman thinks that you look suspicious, so he decides to detain you for a few hours while they get all your paperwork in order), that it really stretches the bounds of feasibility.

As mentioned above, you could do most of the country east of the Mississippi River in the same amount of time, and have a lot more time to go to different places, or enjoy the places that you are at. You could even go to Canada if that's an option. The US has a lot to offer, so perhaps think about scaling down the scope of the trip, while increasing the density.

Some nice aerials of the last leg of the I-95 project south of Washington D.C.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5329/7068419935_a77980b17e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vadot/7068419935/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vadot/7068419935/) by VaDOT (http://www.flickr.com/people/vadot/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7044/7068417639_ca047cd0eb_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vadot/7068417639/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vadot/7068417639/) by VaDOT (http://www.flickr.com/people/vadot/), on Flickr

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5334/7068416627_75787c4347_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vadot/7068416627/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vadot/7068416627/) by VaDOT (http://www.flickr.com/people/vadot/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7089/7068415137_1da2036a08_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vadot/7068415137/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vadot/7068415137/) by VaDOT (http://www.flickr.com/people/vadot/), on Flickr

Very nice sceneray and pictures. MORE PLEASE :)

I like to see new highway constructions because americans are very good road builders:banana:. I know I am from silly sweden:hammer:.

Just LOVE LOVE LOVE BIG AMRICAN HIGHWAYS:banana:

Note - that's 13182 km. 390 mi is 628 km.



That's very ambitious.

NYC to Niagara Falls is about an 8 hour drive factoring in traffic. The Cleveland, Detroit and Chicago legs are much more reasonable, 3-5 hours each.

Chicago to Omaha is a brutal 8 hour drive of absolutely nothing but plains and cornfields. Omaha to Denver is an even worse 8 hour drive that manages to have less along the way. I'm not sure you can understand how incredibly boring drives across the Great Plains are unless you've done a few. You'll be exhausted from these trips.

There is no good way to get from Denver to Salt Lake City. That may seem a little outlandish to you, but it is true. As a result, you get a crushing 9 hour drive, but with a few hills along the way to break up the scenery.

Salt Lake City to San Francisco is an oppressive 12 hour drive. For the first 2/3 of it, you get to drive across Nevada, which also consists of absolutely nothing. Then you get to Reno, and while you're drained from the long drive you've already put in, then you get to take the twisty I-80 through the Sierra Nevada. Then, when you get to the Bay Area, you might find that you're stuck in traffic for two hours waiting to get across the Bay Bridge into San Francisco. Even in August, that's all your daylight right there.

San Francisco to Los Angeles is another 7 hours, allowing for traffic. Driving through the lush Central Valley, you get to see... a whole lot of nothing but crops. Thing about driving in the United States is that in the West, there is a whole lot of empty space, or agricultural fields. That's what makes driving across it such a chore.

LA to Las Vegas is much more reasonable; a breezy 4-5 hours depending on traffic. Of course, at this point, with that much traveling, I'm not sure you'd even want to be up for gambling or drinking, especially considering the driving you have ahead of you.

Las Vegas to Albuquerque is 9 hours. It's also much more scenic than many of the routes you took before. On the same note, let's think about gasoline expenses here. If you're going 8,200 mi, and getting about 10 mpg in the RV, that means you're going to be buying about 820 gallons of fuel. At the current average price of $3.80/gal of gasoline, you're talking about spending $3,116 on gas alone. At current exchange rates, that's €2380, or £1,963. That's a lot of money, needless to say.

Albuquerque to Dallas is a long, long 11 hour drive. Once again, there is practically nothing along this route. I have personally driven the Amarillo-Fort Worth section several times, and I can tell you - you'll wonder how a place so desolate and boring could exist in a state as populous as Texas. At least stop in Amarillo for the 72 oz (2.04 kg) steak.

Dallas to New Orleans is a 9 hour drive factoring in traffic. It's much more interesting given that trees start to enter the picture again, and population densities begin to rise back to more familiar levels.

New Orleans to Tampa is where the size of the United States begins to play tricks on you. It is a legitimate 11 hour drive. The Florida Peninsula is much bigger than it may seem on the map. Also, remember the time of year you're going to be driving - late August is prime hurricane season on the Gulf Coast and in Florida. It would be really unfortunate if you got caught in an evacuation or had your progress impeded because of a hurricane that wreaked havoc across your route.

On a side note, I'd also like to point out what the non-catastrophic weather situation will be at this time of year in much of the country. From Los Angeles to Las Vegas, the high temperature will likely be 105ºF, or 40ºC. In Las Vegas, the temperature can very easily get to 115ºF, or 46ºC. From that point onward, all throughout the Southwest and the South, until you get out of South Carolina, you can expect the high temperature to be greater than 95ºF, or 35ºC. In the Southwest, it will simply be incredibly hot. In the Southeast, it will be hot and oppressively humid. Not only will this make being outside for any appreciable length of time uncomfortable, but it will put an enormous amount of stress and wear on your RV's motor. It doesn't take much for those things to overheat, and that would place a damper on your trip real quickly.

Tampa to Miami is more reasonable; 5 hours with traffic. But Florida's going to get tricky again...

Miami to Savannah is an 8 hour drive. Yes, this is entirely ridiculous. No, you will not want to do this drive at this point in the trip. And yes, you also risk getting hit by a hurricane or a tropical storm here.

Savannah to Washington, DC is supposedly a 10 hour drive. However, you'll be taking the illustrious Interstate 95 the entire way. The thing about I-95 is that it gets clogged with traffic in the middle of nowhere for no reason whatsoever, simply because everyone on the East Coast has to get to that highway for indecipherable purposes. It will likely take you 12 hours to make this leg of the journey.

At this point, you will have spent 135 hours in the RV. That's five full 24-hour days and fifteen hours. That's if you're lucky and don't run into any weather or mechanical problems.

DC to Philly is 3 hours, and Philly to NYC is 2 hours.

Summary: this trip is doable in three weeks, but it will require so much driving, be so expensive, and be subject to so many variables (like if you get caught speeding, and some highway patrolman thinks that you look suspicious, so he decides to detain you for a few hours while they get all your paperwork in order), that it really stretches the bounds of feasibility.

As mentioned above, you could do most of the country east of the Mississippi River in the same amount of time, and have a lot more time to go to different places, or enjoy the places that you are at. You could even go to Canada if that's an option. The US has a lot to offer, so perhaps think about scaling down the scope of the trip, while increasing the density.

Thanks man. Would you say I am mad if I told you that I am much more in mood to drive across your magnificent country after you posted your summary? :-)))
No, just kidding, but Ill do it, definately, but I think its better to leave Florida for my next trip to the US.

Note - that's 13182 km. 390 mi is 628 km.

I'm not sure you can understand how incredibly boring drives across the Great Plains are unless you've done a few. You'll be exhausted from these trips.
On a contrary I find driving across the great plains absolutely fascinating. It's so different from anything we know in Europe. I love every hour of great plains driving. I just play some good rock or country, relax and let my mind flow along.

There is no good way to get from Denver to Salt Lake City. That may seem a little outlandish to you, but it is true. As a result, you get a crushing 9 hour drive, but with a few hills along the way to break up the scenery.
Few hills?? That's what I call understatement ;)

Salt Lake City to San Francisco is an oppressive 12 hour drive. For the first 2/3 of it, you get to drive across Nevada, which also consists of absolutely nothing.
There are some mountain ranges along the way in Nevada, many of them higher than most mountains in Europe bar Alps ;)

Thing about driving in the United States is that in the West, there is a whole lot of empty space, or agricultural fields. That's what makes driving across it such a chore.
For me all this empty space makes driving there so fascinating.

LA to Las Vegas is much more reasonable; a breezy 4-5 hours depending on traffic. Of course, at this point, with that much traveling, I'm not sure you'd even want to be up for gambling or drinking, especially considering the driving you have ahead of you.
It is also pain to drive on the weekends when half of LA population seems to be driving to Vegas. Considering it is only 2x2 and plenty of "left lane masters" I would avoid it on Friday night.

Albuquerque to Dallas is a long, long 11 hour drive. Once again, there is practically nothing along this route. I have personally driven the Amarillo-Fort Worth section several times, and I can tell you - you'll wonder how a place so desolate and boring could exist in a state as populous as Texas.
There are quite few distractions. There is the famous Cadillac Ranch just outside Amarillo, there are few ghost towns along the old Route 66, there are bits of the route itself, there is Palo Duro Canyon State park near Amarillo, there is Barbed Wire Museum in McLean. I love all those small peculiar attractions (like Idaho Potato Museum where I bought my favorite T-shirt)

Dallas to New Orleans is a 9 hour drive factoring in traffic. It's much more interesting given that trees start to enter the picture again, and population densities begin to rise back to more familiar levels.
Funny, but I found this stretch rather boring ;)

Also, remember the time of year you're going to be driving - late August is prime hurricane season on the Gulf Coast and in Florida. It would be really unfortunate if you got caught in an evacuation or had your progress impeded because of a hurricane that wreaked havoc across your route.
It is just beginning of the season, Sept, Oct and Nov are the most risky months. Still, tropical storms might happen and slow your progress even if there is no hurricane.

On a side note, I'd also like to point out what the non-catastrophic weather situation will be at this time of year in much of the country. From Los Angeles to Las Vegas, the high temperature will likely be 105ºF, or 40ºC. In Las Vegas, the temperature can very easily get to 115ºF, or 46ºC. From that point onward, all throughout the Southwest and the South, until you get out of South Carolina, you can expect the high temperature to be greater than 95ºF, or 35ºC. In the Southwest, it will simply be incredibly hot. In the Southeast, it will be hot and oppressively humid. Not only will this make being outside for any appreciable length of time uncomfortable, but it will put an enormous amount of stress and wear on your RV's motor. It doesn't take much for those things to overheat, and that would place a damper on your trip real quickly.
100% agree with all this warnings. August is awfully hot and you have to be careful with pushing your RV to hard.


Summary: this trip is doable in three weeks, but it will require so much driving, be so expensive, and be subject to so many variables (like if you get caught speeding, and some highway patrolman thinks that you look suspicious, so he decides to detain you for a few hours while they get all your paperwork in order), that it really stretches the bounds of feasibility.

As mentioned above, you could do most of the country east of the Mississippi River in the same amount of time, and have a lot more time to go to different places, or enjoy the places that you are at. You could even go to Canada if that's an option. The US has a lot to offer, so perhaps think about scaling down the scope of the trip, while increasing the density.

It is going to be hard (if not impossible) trip but if had to rearange it I wouldn't confine myself just to east of Mississippi. That would be missing a point of transcontinental travel. I would make my way from NYC to California and South Western US and then drive straight back to NYC.
Something like:
NYC > St Louis > Denver > SF >some fun in California > Las Vegas > Grand Canyon and other National Parks (Zion, Bryce) > back towards NYC

On a contrary I find driving across the great plains absolutely fascinating. It's so different from anything we know in Europe. I love every hour of great plains driving. I just play some good rock or country, relax and let my mind flow along.

Different strokes for different folks :)

Few hills?? That's what I call understatement ;)

True, but I-80 across Wyoming goes through a basin, so it's not mountainous driving like I-70 in western Colorado.

There are some mountain ranges along the way in Nevada, many of them higher than most mountains in Europe bar Alps ;)

True, but it's basin-and-range and very arid. I could see it being appealing to more introverted people, but for me, it would take a little work and imagination to make the drive worthwhile. Knowing some of the history of the area before I left would help, for example.

For me all this empty space makes driving there so fascinating.


It is also pain to drive on the weekends when half of LA population seems to be driving to Vegas. Considering it is only 2x2 and plenty of "left lane masters" I would avoid it on Friday night.

Excellent point.

There are quite few distractions. There is the famous Cadillac Ranch just outside Amarillo, there are few ghost towns along the old Route 66, there are bits of the route itself, there is Palo Duro Canyon State park near Amarillo, there is Barbed Wire Museum in McLean. I love all those small peculiar attractions (like Idaho Potato Museum where I bought my favorite T-shirt)

True, but to hit all those "tourist traps" up, you'd have to budget a little more time than I think is available in this plan. I don't know how you could do all of this without keeping on the Interstates the whole time.

Funny, but I found this stretch rather boring ;)

It can be, but the food starts becoming so much better around here, and the trees are incredible after spending so much time on the plains.

It is just beginning of the season, Sept, Oct and Nov are the most risky months. Still, tropical storms might happen and slow your progress even if there is no hurricane.

At the same time, Katrina hit in late August. The season peaks on September 10th. I'd say that late July through late September is the most dangerous period, and that's from growing up on the Gulf Coast.

100% agree with all this warnings. August is awfully hot and you have to be careful with pushing your RV to hard.

I'm not sure many can understand this without actually having been in these kinds of temperatures, and knowing what kind of effect that has on vehicles.

It is going to be hard (if not impossible) trip but if had to rearange it I wouldn't confine myself just to east of Mississippi. That would be missing a point of transcontinental travel. I would make my way from NYC to California and South Western US and then drive straight back to NYC.
Something like:
NYC > St Louis > Denver > SF >some fun in California > Las Vegas > Grand Canyon and other National Parks (Zion, Bryce) > back towards NYC

Agree to disagree on this one. If you just want to go across the continent and back, I'd say fly across, rent a car there, and fly back. It would be much more cost-effective. If you actually want to see the country, though, it's better to take it in chunks.

I rather like driving across plains and farmland. I drive from Madison to New Orleans every year, and the stretch from Rockford to St. Louis (I-39 and I-55) is wonderful. Relatively little traffic, open stretches and simplicity.

I absolutely HATE driving thru that area. It's so tiring and almost puts me to sleep. I was driving thru there just a week ago and it was so bad I turned 180 halfway coz I couldn't take the torture anymore. But guess there are people who enjoy it.

A positive aspect of driving on relatively homogeneous areas is that you get to see the progressive change in the landscape, albeit small.

At least that was the impression I got driving once from Cheyenne, WY to Kansas City, MO

You guys think driving across the great plains is boring? Come here to Australia and try driving across the Nullarbor Plain:

http://www.crikey-adventure-tours.com/images/Nullarbor_plain.jpg

http://www.australiantraveller.com/images/galleries/2713/021-TopTen-Nullarbor1.jpg

http://media.lonelyplanet.com/lpimg/25292/25292-7/preview.jpg

http://207.45.188.234/~fctg/biketrip/NullarborFlight9.jpg

http://www.ceduna.net/webdata/resources/images/nullarbor_truck_open_road.jpg

http://www.nlandgl.com/roundOz/images/nullarbor.jpg

http://website.lineone.net/~malcolm.hough/aus-nullabor-longest-road.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullarbor_Plain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyre_Highway

http://207.45.188.234/~fctg/biketrip/Nullarbr.htm

^^Are there service stations or one has to carry supplemental gasoline aboard?

You guys think driving across the great plains is boring? Come here to Australia and try driving across the Nullarbor Plain:

http://www.crikey-adventure-tours.com/images/Nullarbor_plain.jpg

http://www.australiantraveller.com/images/galleries/2713/021-TopTen-Nullarbor1.jpg

http://media.lonelyplanet.com/lpimg/25292/25292-7/preview.jpg

http://207.45.188.234/~fctg/biketrip/NullarborFlight9.jpg

http://www.ceduna.net/webdata/resources/images/nullarbor_truck_open_road.jpg

http://www.nlandgl.com/roundOz/images/nullarbor.jpg

http://website.lineone.net/~malcolm.hough/aus-nullabor-longest-road.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullarbor_Plain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyre_Highway

http://207.45.188.234/~fctg/biketrip/Nullarbr.htm
I actually find some of these roads interesting to drive on. Whether I'd feel the same if I were there I don't know. Most probably I'd enjoy it then get bored after a couple of hours. But can't say for sure.

I hate boring flat roads, driving in the mountains is always the best.

I hate boring flat roads, driving in the mountains is always the best.
If I must drive through rural areas, I prefer mountainous terrain as well. Keeps me alert. Especially if there are some nice curves.

^^Are there service stations or one has to carry supplemental gasoline aboard?
I must admit I've never been there but from what I've read there are service stations, but they're fairly widely separated so it's best to take extra fuel, food & water as well.

Straight routes are good for developing self-control and patience. There is no point in speeding or being "aggressive" because it will take long to complete the journey anyway.

When I lived in Wyoming, I drove I-80 to Salt Lake City couple times. Must admit the flats around the continental divide were tiring sometimes, but it was cool as near the UT border things get more interesting. There is an interesting feature of I-80: it runs dozens of miles through a gigantic basin that splits the Continental Divide in 2 :)

^^ In Italy roads that could be built straight due to terrain (mostly in the Po valley) are built with curves on purpose to keep driver's attention high.

You have these wide valleys in places like Nevada with a lot of optical illusion when it comes to estimating distances. For instance, you cross a summit and see the other end of the valley, and you think "that's a good 5 - 10 minutes of driving" when it turns out to be 30 or 40 minutes.

A positive aspect of driving on relatively homogeneous areas is that you get to see the progressive change in the landscape, albeit small.

At least that was the impression I got driving once from Cheyenne, WY to Kansas City, MO

Then, there are the changes you don't see - like the 5,152 foot (1570 m) drop in elevation from Cheyenne to KC. That, admittedly, is one of the cool parts about driving across the Great Plains: you climb a mile in elevation while perceiving the route to be essentially flat. Only way to tell is by either looking at elevation signs, or becoming short of breath more quickly as you go west.

Another cool fact about the region - during the Cretaceous period, practically the entirety of the Plains had been covered in water.

I hate boring flat roads, driving in the mountains is always the best.

Yo' state got no mountains... Or hills even. All Florida roads flat and straight. :laugh:

Yo' state got no mountains... Or hills even. All Florida roads flat and straight. :laugh:

Not quite. Interstate 75 in Florida is mostly flat and straight except for one section north of Tampa south of Exit 293 (CR 41 near Dade City) to Exit 301 (FL 50 and US 98 near Brooksville).

Yo' state got no mountains... Or hills even. All Florida roads flat and straight. :laugh:
I also hate driving in Florida except on the long bridges lol. Actually I-10 in north Florida is very hilly going west. I also live 100ft above sea level and I'm only a few miles from the water so I live on a giant hill. =P But obviously I meant in another state, I'm going to the mountains tomorrow will be at 5500ft at one point. :banana:

I was looking at a job in Brevard County (though not anymore, FL wasn't for me). The driving there was awesome. :drool:

I also hate driving in Florida except on the long bridges lol. Actually I-10 in north Florida is very hilly going west. I also live 100ft above sea level and I'm only a few miles from the water so I live on a giant hill. =P But obviously I meant in another state, I'm going to the mountains tomorrow will be at 5500ft at one point. :banana:

That stretch of 10 surprised me. I had no idea Florida had hills and rolling terrain like that. It was nice.

The Sunshine Skyway Bridge turns 25 today. It opened to traffic on April 20th, 1987, after the original bridge (1954) collapsed in 1980.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Skyway_Aerial_Looking_Southwest.jpg

Are those round things to break the flow of water?

Probably to deflect ships that are out of their course.

^^ those circle objects are called dolphins and as Chriszwolle identified they stop/deflect large out of control vessels from hitting the bridge.

Which is a good idea, because the original collapse was due to a ship striking a support

The Sunshine Skyway Bridge turns 25 today. It opened to traffic on April 20th, 1987, after the original bridge (1954) collapsed in 1980.

Are those round things to break the flow of water?

Probably to deflect ships that are out of their course.

those circle objects are called dolphins and as Chriszwolle identified they stop/deflect large out of control vessels from hitting the bridge.

Which is a good idea, because the original collapse was due to a ship striking a support

Yes, I remember the day the new Sunshine Skyway Bridge opened to traffic. The dedication ceremonies were held in February 1987 and the new bridge opened two months later in April 1987.

My Sunshine Skyway page (http://www.interstate275florida.com/ssb.htm) at Interstate275Florida.com has all the details, including pictures of the dedication ceremony and the open house where everyone got to walk the new bridge for the first (and only) time. After all, the new Sunshine Skyway is a part of Interstate 275 and US 19.

Two years later, the approach highways leading to the new Sunshine Skyway were reconstructed to interstate highway standards enabling Interstate 275 to be completed in the Tampa/St. Petersburg area, save for the twin set of drawbridges (Structure A) which were demolished and replaced with high level bridges similar in height to the Howard Frankland Bridge in 1994.

The original 1954 Sunshine Skyway did have a fender system to deter wayward ships. It was taken down in 1971 when the southbound span - the bridge that was hit by the Summit Venture in 1980 - was opened due to extensive disrepair. The Florida DOT at the time decided to use clusters of wooden piles secured by a steel cable on either side of the main channel support piers of the old Sunshine Skyway.

Went to Milwaukee yesterday and took a few pictures along the way. Pardon the quality; I was riding in the back seat for part of the trip.


Interstate 39/90/94 north of Madison
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg29/scaled.php?server=29&filename=dsc0003rmz.jpg&res=landing

Roadwork ahead where I-39/90/94 intersects U.S. 51. The bridge is being repaired, I believe.
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg215/scaled.php?server=215&filename=dsc0006ylo.jpg&res=landing

Exit to U.S. 151 and the east side of Madison
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg600/scaled.php?server=600&filename=dsc0013hxt.jpg&res=landing

8+ lanes of I-39/90/94 approaching the Badger Interchange, where I-94 breaks off in a more easterly direction and WI-30 spurs into eastern Madison
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg220/scaled.php?server=220&filename=dsc0019ki.jpg&res=landing

The Badger Interchange
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg269/scaled.php?server=269&filename=dsc0023fs.jpg&res=landing

I-94 in rural Jefferson County, east of Madison.
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg502/scaled.php?server=502&filename=dsc0029es.jpg&res=landing

I-94 in Waukesha County, suburban Milwaukee
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg710/scaled.php?server=710&filename=dsc0037jf.jpg&res=landing

I wanted a few shots of the Marquette interchange, but unfortunately our route didn't take us that way. Maybe next time.

Those are pretty good shots considering they were taken from the backseat of a car! Mustn't have been using your cell phone. :cheers:

Is it me, or do American highways have tighter (and shorter) curves than European highways?

Most European highways I've seen have long, gradual curves with a big radius that makes driving feel safer and more comfortable.

The main difference appears to be the usage of tunnels in hilly and mountainous areas. European freeways have many more tunnels, straightening them out, while roads like I-40 in North Carolina, I-5 in Oregon or I-77 in West Virginia are very twisty.

Is it me, or do American highways have tighter (and shorter) curves than European highways?

Most European highways I've seen have long, gradual curves with a big radius that makes driving feel safer and more comfortable.

Depends on the state and when that particular stretch of interstate was built. Post-1970 interstates have the standards that European motorways do as far as curvature and other aspects of engineering go. I-75 between Chattanooga and Atlanta is a good example.

Those are pretty good shots considering they were taken from the backseat of a car! Mustn't have been using your cell phone. :cheers:

I have a Nikon D40. I cropped the images so you can't see the dashboard or the rearview mirror reflecting my brother's very ugly hat. ;)

Is it me, or do American highways have tighter (and shorter) curves than European highways?

Most European highways I've seen have long, gradual curves with a big radius that makes driving feel safer and more comfortable.

It can be hard to judge that by looking at photos. A good telephoto lens will significantly alter the severity of the curve relative to a flatter lens.

Some curves are sharper than others tho

I've done all but 25, 30, 45, and 55.

5 - In OR, WA, and probably sometime in L.A.
15 - between St. George, UT, and I-10 in CA
35 - between Wichita and Arkansas City, KS
65 - between Indianapolis and Louisville
75 - between Knoxville and Tampa
85 - assorted places in VA, NC, and upstate SC
95 - practically all of it between Brunswick, ME and Daytona Beach, FL

10 - bits and pieces in LA, MS, and FL (ETA: and CA)
20 - between Columbia and Florence, SC
40 - bits and pieces in NC and eastern TN
70 - from the PA turnpike to the I-270 split in MD
80 - northern NJ, eastern OH, plus the part that's also 90
90 - almost all of it, except for the parts between Rome, NY and Cleveland, and between Coeur d'Alene, ID and Bozeman, MT

The main difference appears to be the usage of tunnels in hilly and mountainous areas. European freeways have many more tunnels, straightening them out, while roads like I-40 in North Carolina, I-5 in Oregon or I-77 in West Virginia are very twisty.

That differs per country. Most motorways in mainland Europe do have more tunnels, but we do have a lot of twisty motorways, with steep crawler lanes for freight. In Germany, the A3 between Köln and Frankfurt is a good example, but also the A5 at Kassel and the A8 between Munich and Salzburg. France has its share, especially in the Auvergne, and in the UK, they don`t know any different. (M25 north, M1 Yorkshire, M20 in Kent are good examples)

Why should those euro's have all that construction fun... fear not:
I decided to take a vacation day on Friday to check out progress on I-69. I am not an expert, but I am having a hard time seeing how the SR 68 to US 231 section will open in 2012 as scheduled. I decided to venture down some gravel roads and covered the entire length (as much as possible).

Starting at SR 37 in Bloomington, the first sign of construction was at SR 445 where a lot of trees have been cut and earth moving has begun. The second sign was where I-69 crosses SR 45 where a lot of earth has been moved. I did not go down any backroads in this newest section. The next point I saw was at US 231, and from there on I spent more time. Below are some pictures - these are all from areas that are well underway. I will try to post some where the road is not as far along in another post.

http://highwayexplorer.com/Photos/Temp/I69-US231-1.jpg
US 231 at I-69 - the deck is not in place on this overpass

http://highwayexplorer.com/Photos/Temp/I69-Asphalt-1.jpg
Asphalt paving in Daviess County north of Washington

http://highwayexplorer.com/Photos/Temp/I69-PCCP-1.jpg
PCCP paving near Washington (just north of US 50)

http://highwayexplorer.com/Photos/Temp/I69-US50-1.jpg
US 50 new eastbound lanes at I-69

http://highwayexplorer.com/Photos/Temp/I69-SR64.jpg
SR 64 at I-69
original quote by user mukade (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=168) link: http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4855.msg148586#msg148586
Images courtesy of HighwayExplorer.com (http://wwwHighwayExplorer.com)

part 2
The scale of this project is amazing. I thought 70 -80 miles was long, but when you see all the men and machinery operating along the whole length of this thing, the scale sinks in. I think this would be considered a long project even by 1960s and early 1970s standards as even then it was common to see 20-30 mile sections being built at a time.

This is where I am seeing a problem as so much paving will have to be done over so many miles toward the tail end of this year. Not much of the road is yet paved today. A lot of the road isn't even close to final grade and some of it is still in earth-moving stages. Most bridges are well along, but some are barely started. If this opens up in 2012, it will be pretty amazing, but on the other hand a lot has changed since my last look at it in late October, 2011.

Part 2 of I-69 photos follows.

http://highwayexplorer.com/Photos/Temp/I69-SR56-2.jpg
I-69 at SR 56/SR 61 near Petersburg. This overpass has a ways to go.

http://highwayexplorer.com/Photos/Temp/I69-Elnora-2.jpg
Overpass over railway tracks near Elnora

http://highwayexplorer.com/Photos/Temp/I69-GreeneCty-2.jpg
Looking north in northern Daviess County (south of SR 58)

http://highwayexplorer.com/Photos/Temp/I69Hole-1.jpg
Digging out bad soil in Gibson County

http://highwayexplorer.com/Photos/Temp/I69-Washington-1.jpg
Overpass over railway tracks just north of US 50 in Washington

http://highwayexplorer.com/Photos/Temp/I69-Elnora-1.jpg
Looking where the road makes a turn toward the east near Elnora, INoriginal quote by user mukade (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=168) link: http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4855.msg148659
Images courtesy of HighwayExplorer.com (http://wwwHighwayExplorer.com)

I-30 and US 59 stack at Texarkana TX

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8008/6957241044_4d83b203df_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatguyinalittlecoat/6957241044/)
US 59 stack (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fatguyinalittlecoat/6957241044/) by jczart (http://www.flickr.com/people/fatguyinalittlecoat/), on Flickr

I-95 thru Jacksonville (sorry if repost)

WfzCJtHcm9s

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/1/9/4/1050491.jpg
via airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Japan-Airlines--/Boeing-747-446/1050491/L/)

WOW GREAT picture how did you get the timing so good, your plane maybe:lol:.

"Brewerfan386" very nice photos on the construction I 69

I love to drive on american highways just incredible roads, probably the best highways in the world^^

More construction photos please:banana:

THANKS^^

WOW GREAT picture how did you get the timing so good, your plane maybe:lol:.

"Brewerfan386" very nice photos on the construction I 69

It looks quite Romanian to me, except the median is wider and bridge piers aren't as interesting. :)

More construction photos please:banana:

THANKS^^

Not from me, LOL. :ohno:

Earlier this week I drove I-20 east of Atlanta for the first time in a while, and I noticed that work is underway between I-285 and just east of Panola Road-- trees are being bulldozed along the eastbound roadway and a large noise barrier is being built along part of the westbound just east of Wesley Chapel Road. I assumed that this was part of the long-programmed widening of I-20 all the way out to Conyers, but Georgia DOT's ridiculously inadequate website (http://www.dot.state.ga.us/informationcenter/activeprojects/summerprojects/Pages/default.aspx) says:

I-20 (Eastside) Collector Distributor (CD) Lanes

A $31 million project to add 4.5 miles of new eastbound CD lanes between the I-285 and Panola Road interchanges in Dekalb County. It is due to be finished in mid-2013.

Here's the background:

For a long time, maybe since the '80's, there's been a concept to widen I-20 from downtown Atlanta to Conyers (or maybe beyond) to four lanes plus an HOV lanes in each direction. The part inside I-285 was completed in 1994 or so, and... The remaining part of I-20 between I-285 and Covington is one of the state's older Interstates, finished in the late '50's-early '60's with a 36 foot median and widened in the early 70's (actually, IIRC, the widening went as far as Conyers initially, then to Covington quite some time later) to 2x3 by adding two lanes and a Jersey barrier in the median. At that time, the bridges at the first two interchanges outside I-285 were widened but not replaced, so that only a 2x3 layout (or a very tight 2x4) would fit under them.

Starting in the '80's, when more capacity was desired at interchanges, the old bridges were demolished and replaced with new ones that would accommodate the eventual 2x5 mainline. The Evan Mill Road interchange was rebuilt within the last five years or so; I-20 passes over Evans Mill, and a new bridge was built that's wide enough to carry the 2x5 mainline (http://g.co/maps/4njsn). The same thing was done at the new Lithonia Industrial Boulevard interchange a bit further west (http://g.co/maps/bswyz) (it and Evans Mill are now a split diamond with one way frontage roads and a rather useless Texas turnaround bridge. But I digress-- the 2x5 mainline is my focus here).

Even more recently, the bridge at Wesley Chapel Road has been replaced with a new bridge built for the 2x5 mainline plus three lanes CD roads in each direction (http://g.co/maps/zemxv).

At this point, only the Panola Road interchange bridge and two two-lane non-interchange bridges, one on either side of Panola Road, obstruct the 2x5 cross section until West Avenue in Conyers, 13 miles outside of 285. Judging from the placement of the construction zone signs, one of these bridges (at Hillandale Road) will remain even after the current project is completed.

Believe it or not, Georgia DOT has a stated policy against adding more general traffic lanes to metro Atlanta freeways-- added lanes are to be HOV, HOT, truck lanes, or, apparently, CD's. :nuts: So now we have a project that increases capacity in one direction only, and which makes no use of facilities constructed at considerable expense only a few years ago.

I wish GDOT would put some project drawings online. I'd like to know what this thing will end up looking like. I'd expect a ramp braid between I-285 and Wesley Chapel, but I guess I'll have to wait and see.

2nd EDIT: A few years ago, GDOT did kind of the opposite thing at I-285 and Memorial Drive: they replaced the six lane c. 1967 interchange bridge with a ten lane one that includes space for (I'm guessing) a mainline of five general lanes and an HOV plus three-lane CD's, again in each direction (http://g.co/maps/tp9zj). It's difficult for me to imagine that the CD's will ever be built, especially since the US 29 bridge over 285 a few miles north was replaced by one that has no provision for CD's. But they did it anyway. WTF? :ohno:

Breaking:
AASHTO's route numbering committee discussed the US 41 corridor at their meeting last week and is interested in making it I-55.

"The USRN discussed the Interstate 55 through Wisconsin that connects with I-55 in Illinois. It was decided that the committee Secretary, M. Vitale, will coordinate with Wisconsin in sending a letter to Illinois and copying FHWA on the need for I-55 and to support the value of I-55. It is Wisconsin’s intent to get this process completed by the AASHTO Annual Meeting 2012 in Pittsburgh, PA."

Breaking:
AASHTO's route numbering committee discussed the US 41 corridor at their meeting last week and is interested in making it I-55.
So they're going to multiplex I-55 with I-94 for almost 90 miles from Chicago to Milwaukee and it doesn't fit the Interstate system grid? Instead of doing that, why not sign the freeway portion of US 41 north of Milwaukee as I-41 since it would be in between I-39 and I-43.

I-78 Westbound...Holland Tunnel

1.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7096/7236977750_f9bc9b1d78_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7236977750/)
DSCN4817 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7236977750/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

2.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8021/7236979326_fbab6d21f0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7236979326/)
DSCN4820 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7236979326/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

3.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7245/7236979664_bea593916c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7236979664/)
DSCN4822 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7236979664/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

4.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5280/7236980368_1e851db08c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7236980368/)
DSCN4824 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7236980368/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

5.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7231/7236980964_6a3df1b977_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7236980964/)
DSCN4826 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7236980964/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

6.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5198/7236981482_9c37c9cd47_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7236981482/)
DSCN4827 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7236981482/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

I-287 Northbound

1.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7225/7236998596_b53b109ceb.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7236998596/)
DSCN4867 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7236998596/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

2.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8149/7236998940_886d5747eb.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7236998940/)
DSCN4868 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7236998940/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

3.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7075/7237000196_c3d3121a1d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237000196/)
DSCN4871 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237000196/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

4.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8149/7237001080_90130b982c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237001080/)
DSCN4873 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237001080/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

5.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7096/7237001940_ce51c1af88.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237001940/)
DSCN4875 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237001940/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

6.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7076/7237002742_4193c47f1c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237002742/)
DSCN4877 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237002742/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

7.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7083/7237003128_f273b56786.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237003128/)
DSCN4878 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237003128/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

8.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5080/7237003572_06dc58e946.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237003572/)
DSCN4879 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237003572/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

9.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7083/7237003986_5f4739c53e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237003986/)
DSCN4880 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237003986/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

10.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7225/7237004950_b3dfc83bbe.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237004950/)
DSCN4882 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237004950/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

11.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7240/7237005274_2078324145.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237005274/)
DSCN4883 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237005274/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

12.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7093/7237005672_5fa71b4af4.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237005672/)
DSCN4884 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237005672/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

13.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5196/7237006222_2864095c4d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237006222/)
DSCN4885 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237006222/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

14.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7216/7237006640_24fd5610bf.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237006640/)
DSCN4886 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237006640/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

15.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7085/7237007050_3eed2cab63.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237007050/)
DSCN4887 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237007050/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

16.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8028/7237007586_ef84866a7e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237007586/)
DSCN4888 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237007586/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

17.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8023/7237007996_64f75a0999.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237007996/)
DSCN4889 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237007996/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

18.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7100/7237008402_5e657bac33.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237008402/)
DSCN4890 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237008402/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

19.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7101/7237008944_0d2879f1a5.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237008944/)
DSCN4891 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237008944/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

20.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8165/7237009250_32e6ff43e8.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237009250/)
DSCN4892 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237009250/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

21.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7223/7237009884_80a9bf023d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237009884/)
DSCN4894 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237009884/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

22.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7222/7237010254_54b85517f7.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237010254/)
DSCN4895 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237010254/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

23.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8003/7237010718_8867a59e30.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237010718/)
DSCN4896 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237010718/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

24.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8002/7237011368_7faaeb28d3.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237011368/)
DSCN4898 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237011368/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

25.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5031/7237013140_c12a5cf4df.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237013140/)
DSCN4901 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237013140/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

26.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7084/7237013256_c510d01a26.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237013256/)
DSCN4902 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237013256/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

27.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7226/7237013580_bf0fbe2e00.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237013580/)
DSCN4903 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237013580/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

28.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5119/7237014782_8a3d6076a7.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237014782/)
DSCN4906 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237014782/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

29.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7076/7237015584_96d12038a7.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237015584/)
DSCN4908 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237015584/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

30.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5446/7237015960_e4bc11914d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237015960/)
DSCN4909 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237015960/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

31.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7240/7237016806_170d8cdef6.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237016806/)
DSCN4911 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237016806/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

32.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7218/7237016980_92f195076e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237016980/)
DSCN4912 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/7237016980/) by Nexis4Jersey09 (http://www.flickr.com/people/42178139@N06/), on Flickr

Just amazing pics, Love it Thanks for chearing your beautiful roadtrip:)

Holland tunnel seems to be too small in size to the amount of cars it has to swallow a day. No plans to build another tunnel or try to double the size? I can imagine that it is amazingly high traffic levels and traffic jams daily

Thanks

Ideally, they should build a complex of 2 tunnels there:

- new tunnel under the Hudson, 2x4 lanes, starting at the terminus of I-75.

- new trans-Manhattan tunnel, 2x3 lanes, connecting the previous proposed tunnel to the Williamsburg bridge.

It would be an easy undertaking, especially drilling under all already existing subway tunnles in Lower Manhattan, but it is doable.

Ideally, they should build a complex of 2 tunnels there:

- new tunnel under the Hudson, 2x4 lanes, starting at the terminus of I-78.

- new trans-Manhattan tunnel, 2x3 lanes, connecting the previous proposed tunnel to the Williamsburg bridge.

It would be an easy undertaking, especially drilling under all already existing subway tunnles in Lower Manhattan, but it is doable.

They can't its so complex under Manhattan , and each subway line is a different depth....some as deep as 4 stories. As for the Hudson River , the PA has no more plans for any tunnels expect 2 Railway tunnels as part of the Gateway Project and 2 more being proposed as part of the Lower Manhattan Railway project. The Current Second Avenue subway will cost 15-20 Billion due to the Complexity of Tunneling under Manhattan. Highways would be around the same cost. Traffic doesn't really warrant a new crossing between Urban Jersey and Lower Manhattan , its been dropping recently maybe due to tolls and gas but better Transit has a huge impact. The only tunnel project that would get support would be burying and widing I-278 through Brooklyn , which would be easy.

^^ It is not relevant to this thread, but on the 2nd Avenue subway, tunneling, building and installing the tracks itself account for less than 40% of total costs. Building the stations is extremely costly because of their "underground cavern" design.

^^ It is not relevant to this thread, but on the 2nd Avenue subway, tunneling, building and installing the tracks itself account for less than 40% of total costs. Building the stations is extremely costly because of their "underground cavern" design.

And building a highway tunnel under Manhattan is somehow cheaper? You need to have multiple exits , a ventilation system and ramps....and you can't build them at 1920s standards....so it would cost the same as a Subway...if not more. Everything in Manhattan that is cheap elsewhere doubles or triples in cost...

^^ Oh, I was thinking just a cross-town tunnel to the Williamsburg bridg. Rather short tunnel.

But I think NY-NJ Porth Authority is quite maxed out of debt capacity and tolls would be too high to justify this project for now.

=======================

When I last visited NYC I drove in both Hudson tunnels. I liked the Lincoln tunnel more than the Holland tunnel. The NJ portal and exit of the Lincoln tunnel is very cool with the helix and the cliffs.

Ultimately, I would drill a deep-bored tunnel that would run from about the NJTP (I-95) at interchange 16E under the Hudson River, Manhattan and the East River to emerge at about the LIE (I-495)/BQE (I-278) interchange in Queens that would bypass both the Lincoln and Midtown tunnels for traffic between Long Island (including Brooklyn and Queens) and the rest of the USA to the west.

I can foresee no other real highway upgrades involving Manhattan.

Mike

So they're going to multiplex I-55 with I-94 for almost 90 miles from Chicago to Milwaukee and it doesn't fit the Interstate system grid? Instead of doing that, why not sign the freeway portion of US 41 north of Milwaukee as I-41 since it would be in between I-39 and I-43.

Because it would make roadgeeks puke. :bash:

Sign it as I-65, multiplexed with I-90 through Chicago. It'd be straighter and wouldn't create a TOTSO in downtown Chicago (there's a WI 65, but it's short and on the other side of the state).

Then, de-designate I-94 between Milwaukee and I-80/90 in Indiana. :banana:

Give the orphaned I-94 south of Chicago a 3DI number-- and sign it as running north-south. :)

As icing on the cake, redesignate the eastern segment of I-94 as I-92.

Just came back from another roadtrip, time to post some shots.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-GWaFoq63PYU/T7wTMPu9MAI/AAAAAAAABPo/V3WiZ7wwjW4/s800/2012%2520map.jpg
I did over 3100 miles (just about 5000km) in 2 weeks

I started in Atlanta
I-85 southbound (I took it on my way back)
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-SzfvN7odwww/T71qAQubTzI/AAAAAAAAB1Y/FgbbhRqoxZ0/s800/DSC05508.JPG

Prices for HOT lanes
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-0ZxCSznXTTo/T71qBbVE78I/AAAAAAAAB1g/9ggBKua6EPk/s800/DSC05509.JPG

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-6ErApym7fN0/T71qCrVK2aI/AAAAAAAAB1o/bjwy_szli9E/s800/DSC05511.JPG

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-2PHrXMZ3ehU/T71qD2B87SI/AAAAAAAAB1w/WYfCGfeuvOY/s800/DSC05512.JPG

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-9L9OGhJxB6Q/T71qE7v1kBI/AAAAAAAAB14/EhiY2vIy4wY/s800/DSC05513.JPG

I-85/I-285 junction
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-d_k2rdRoh9M/T71qGJkXiXI/AAAAAAAAB2A/G1Yh10d1E94/s800/DSC05514.JPG

I like American signage, find it very logical and dumb-proof
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-xswMpbshuoY/T71qHacD34I/AAAAAAAAB2I/-_M5829bdgk/s800/DSC05515.JPG

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-SU-bktc6FqE/T71qIUAxPTI/AAAAAAAAB2Q/t2vOZIrsw-Q/s800/DSC05516.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-pdxsl6v5t4Q/T71qNYnYOTI/AAAAAAAAB2Y/c-C9kUv-wk4/s800/DSC05517.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vbLgyyJJv2A/T71qOh6bMrI/AAAAAAAAB2g/_Cn26FsP3NA/s800/DSC05518.JPG

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-e-eFw1M_m7M/T71qPksk59I/AAAAAAAAB2o/Wm8TbONBwtU/s800/DSC05521.JPG

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-sspD7Y1TJWE/T71qR9xhKZI/AAAAAAAAB24/V6WdXRLbj80/s800/DSC05523.JPG

Downtown Connector and further south
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-MYj8Yi__FIQ/T71qTCYYELI/AAAAAAAAB3A/w9S3NbunPHc/s800/DSC05526.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-J9uHNeVBjgs/T71qUfO4EVI/AAAAAAAAB3I/ZbnwlVK9VYU/s800/DSC05527.JPG

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-3P9jDiUDelc/T71qVH5Oc_I/AAAAAAAAB3Q/h3lZh_ETs3I/s800/DSC05528.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-WNXOhdIUi1Y/T71qWn2LU9I/AAAAAAAAB3Y/LytPeE3h_yc/s800/DSC05529.JPG

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Swx5GPmQevs/T71qX7F5uAI/AAAAAAAAB3g/bqsx066QUmE/s800/DSC05530.JPG

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-9YusmZXwI3w/T71qZFXiuyI/AAAAAAAAB3o/L3VvRdF1jkg/s800/DSC05531.JPG

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-ywM8LJ4hJzk/T71qaLjkOOI/AAAAAAAAB3w/2Z0GW4HkkkE/s800/DSC05532.JPG

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-NIhvOXuNp2M/T71qbaXnNKI/AAAAAAAAB34/PXQza25laiA/s800/DSC05535.JPG

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-OlhYvgqrjck/T71qcXkHCII/AAAAAAAAB4A/AifITGb_Z1U/s800/DSC05536.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vUKERXE9ULc/T71qd_-S9WI/AAAAAAAAB4I/caypAq6GMpg/s800/DSC05537.JPG

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-b570eZuXcYw/T71qfLi-KiI/AAAAAAAAB4Q/u2rOlA1jLM0/s800/DSC05539.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-m2JNhg5kq_Y/T71qgMRZUeI/AAAAAAAAB4Y/Y6QdhutmltY/s800/DSC05540.JPG

I had a bit of spare time before catching my plane so went a bit south before turning back to ATL
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-q74QbHsI4xk/T71qhOcA45I/AAAAAAAAB4g/VVBdB9xbRNU/s800/DSC05541.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-LiYj3k6fNuk/T71qiDNhMcI/AAAAAAAAB4o/Dqrga4-77_o/s800/DSC05543.JPG

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-0bOkRHV8vf8/T71qjfgeABI/AAAAAAAAB4s/rtApZj4NVXA/s800/DSC05544.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xG6hZS4p2OQ/T71qketwxPI/AAAAAAAAB40/yaND5x0O7-c/s800/DSC05545.JPG

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-ElqvglhJXXA/T71qld6XG_I/AAAAAAAAB5A/HgwbLlR2wWk/s800/DSC05547.JPG

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ha-C0KTWRKU/T71qm6CLbeI/AAAAAAAAB5I/gLErbM8TqCY/s800/DSC05548.JPG

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-wq0rjMAIIEc/T71qn-kjy1I/AAAAAAAAB5Q/K2PAZV35HwM/s800/DSC05549.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-weiFKShGr68/T71qqczgb5I/AAAAAAAAB5g/NSbljkl6coM/s800/DSC05551.JPG

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-qZ4sVUGy1H4/T71qtS2aAeI/AAAAAAAAB5w/LYjF_vjEvKM/s800/DSC05554.JPG

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-K7l4sL0lvbQ/T71quYkHnVI/AAAAAAAAB54/FVouF4OceyU/s800/DSC05556.JPG

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-fLNsVFeWcFU/T71qwgue7CI/AAAAAAAAB6I/SUS9t8GO01w/s800/DSC05558.JPG

Turning back
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-MdwashCjGrA/T71qxzAE_5I/AAAAAAAAB6Q/YidhHwZZNoA/s800/DSC05559.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-lorlKOW7vLE/T71qzCtRhXI/AAAAAAAAB6Y/rwiLL1VtPqE/s800/DSC05560.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bdXPqynZhj0/T71q0laPbPI/AAAAAAAAB6g/0GEwTBLb7Jo/s800/DSC05561.JPG

Last bit for tonight.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-uzWIDJS3cjU/T71q2P8Nv5I/AAAAAAAAB6o/rdN1goNHQg0/s800/DSC05562.JPG

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-8yKGi_zfXfo/T71q3aAlvcI/AAAAAAAAB6w/iJ8zRgYPX7k/s800/DSC05563.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-jCOd7rvO8Ws/T71q4RNUUnI/AAAAAAAAB64/3Y49ujy-_y8/s800/DSC05564.JPG

Prices ;)
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-mwBo2CUK2Qg/T71q9CA3MyI/AAAAAAAAB7Q/NpOePzF4kWc/s800/DSC05569.JPG

Time to head back to the airport
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-AGmzZOmELF4/T71rEpZ8H8I/AAAAAAAAB8A/nyOAQkiUF_g/s800/DSC05578.JPG

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-L04zierObGg/T71rGGzrr0I/AAAAAAAAB8I/uOuu0V4VRIs/s800/DSC05579.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-TRbcKGFOjl0/T71rHLvd81I/AAAAAAAAB8Q/zFUWqXfgxug/s800/DSC05580.JPG

I go to domestic terminal because that's where car rental center is located
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-KN6835oIs7g/T71rIN1xj0I/AAAAAAAAB8Y/TvhmSVIGgso/s800/DSC05582.JPG

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-m2t5kRnLQQI/T71rO5DPi-I/AAAAAAAAB8w/ubRjtjLba7E/s800/DSC05585.JPG

I like clear signage where to go where you return a car
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-c4_Qq3UD7fE/T71rQaakegI/AAAAAAAAB84/HTRwaH8Sfls/s800/DSC05586.JPG

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-f3sPDb42jZM/T71rRv7d4AI/AAAAAAAAB9A/a9mnSEeZUgM/s800/DSC05587.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GyYNQuc0vRI/T71rShXPxUI/AAAAAAAAB9I/8Pn9WW8PEHo/s800/DSC05588.JPG

Car rental center, quite impressive structure.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6tfgwdxr3tU/T71rUNpV0JI/AAAAAAAAB9Q/54v_M2yWmTc/s800/DSC05590.JPG

Did you happen to make it up to Tennessee? Only 2 hours or so north and very worth it! I love the highways in Atlanta, I've driven through there quite a few times, the size never fails to impress me. I get a rush driving through those massive highways at 80mph/125km/h, probably the only major city where all the traffic can do such speeds all the way through the city center. Those tolls are so cheap!