daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Highways & Autobahns

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 9th, 2010, 01:38 AM   #6141
sonysnob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North York
Posts: 963
Likes (Received): 860

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom 958 View Post
Thanks for the pics, since I'm too lazy to take them myself. I generally hate it when people quote entire photo post, but now I'm doing it myself. This first shot is a good illustration of Georgia's bizarre compressed signage font:
Perhaps my opinion is in the minority, but I didn't mind the compressed font. What I really liked though was that Georgia's signs seemed to all be of uniform height. It made the sign trusses look very clean and clear.
__________________
Asphaltplanet.ca
sonysnob no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 9th, 2010, 04:14 AM   #6142
brewerfan386
Registered User
 
brewerfan386's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cheeseland
Posts: 712
Likes (Received): 158

Second Half of Future I-74 between High Point, NC and I-73.
(opening in 2012)



Google Maps
________________________________________________________________________________________________________


































(All are courtesy of LINK)
__________________
[intentionally left blank]

Last edited by brewerfan386; October 9th, 2010 at 10:20 AM.
brewerfan386 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2010, 06:34 AM   #6143
Tom 958
Registered User
 
Tom 958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: near Atlanta
Posts: 786
Likes (Received): 163

Quote:
Originally Posted by sonysnob View Post
Perhaps my opinion is in the minority, but I didn't mind the compressed font. What I really liked though was that Georgia's signs seemed to all be of uniform height. It made the sign trusses look very clean and clear.
That's another thing that irritates me about this. I don't like the compressed font, but at least it's been implemented consistently. It was introduced sporadically, but before the Olympics in 1996, a great many signs were replaced using the then-newish compressed font, and the look was clean and consistent.

My personal preferences aside, I really don't see any need to change. But surely if a change is made, it should be to Clearview. It's almost as if Georgia wishes to broadcast a hyperconservative, antiscientific worldview through its roadsigns.
Tom 958 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2010, 01:01 AM   #6144
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,643
Likes (Received): 53462

image hosted on flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cosmophotos/
__________________
We are floating in space...
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2010, 01:32 AM   #6145
geogregor
Registered User
 
geogregor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London
Posts: 15,491
Likes (Received): 19132

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewerfan386 View Post
Second Half of Future I-74 between High Point, NC and I-73.
(opening in 2012)
Thanks.
It's nice to see some construction pictures from US so we can compare technology with road projects in Europe.

Where can I find some technical comparisons of roads in US and Europe?
Something about pavement thickness and layers, ground stabilization techniques, road geometry etc.
geogregor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 10th, 2010, 06:41 AM   #6146
brewerfan386
Registered User
 
brewerfan386's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cheeseland
Posts: 712
Likes (Received): 158

That's a good question, I'm curious about the technical differences as well.
Here is an outline of some standards for the Interstate Highway System. (2007 version)
Quote:
  • Controlled access. All access onto and off the roadway is to be controlled with interchanges and grade separations (including railroad crossings). See List of gaps in Interstate Highways for the few cases that violate this rule. Interchanges should provide full access; ramps are to be designed with the appropriate standards in mind. Minimum interchange spacing should be 1 mi (1.6 km) in urban areas and 3 mi (4.8 km) in rural areas; collector-distributor roads or other configurations that reduce weaving can be used in urban areas to shorten this distance.
    • Access control (from adjacent properties) should extend at least 100 ft (30 m) in urban areas and 300 ft (90 m) in rural areas in each direction along the crossroad from the ramps.
  • Minimum design speed. Minimum design speed of 75 mph (120 km/h) in rural areas, with 65 mph (100 km/h) acceptable in rolling terrain, and as low as 55 mph (90 km/h) allowed in mountainous and urban areas. However, speed limits as low as 40 mph (60 km/h) are occasionally encountered, such as on I-59 through Laurel, Mississippi, I-84 near Waterbury, Connecticut, Interstate 291 near Bloomfield, Connecticut nearing I-91, I-68 through Cumberland, Maryland, I-490 through downtown Rochester, NY and I-495 through New York City; and also on long bridges such as the Mackinac Bridge which carries the "Interstate 75" designation. Interstate 264 drops to 35 mph in parts of Norfolk, Virginia.
    • Sight distance, curvature and superelevation according to the current edition of AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets for the design speed.
  • Maximum grade. Maximum grade is determined by a table, with up to 6% allowed in mountainous areas and hilly urban areas.
  • Minimum number of lanes. At least two lanes in each direction, and more if necessary for an acceptable level of service in the design year, according to the current edition of AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Climbing lanes and emergency escape ramps should be provided where appropriate.
  • Minimum lane width. Minimum lane width of 12 ft (3.62 m).
  • Shoulder width. Minimum outside paved shoulder width of 10 ft (3.0 m) and inside shoulder width of 4 ft (1.2 m). With three or more lanes in each direction, the inside paved shoulder should be at least 10 ft (3.0 m) wide. If truck traffic is over 250 Directional Design Hour Volume, shoulders at least 12 ft (3.6 m) wide should be considered. In mountainous terrain, 8 ft (2.4 m) outside and 4 ft (1.2 m) inside shoulders are acceptable, except when there are at least four lanes in each direction, in which case the inside shoulders should also be 8 ft (2.4 m) wide.
  • Pavement sloping. Pavement cross slope of at least 1.5% and preferably 2% to ensure proper drainage on straight sections. This can be increased to 2.5% in areas of heavy rainfall. Shoulder cross slope should be between 2% and 6% but not less than the main lanes.
  • Land slopes within the clear zone should be at most 4:1 and preferably 6:1 or flatter. Roadside barriers should be used for slopes of 3:1 or steeper, in accordance with the current edition of AASHTO's Roadside Design Guide.
  • Median width. Minimum median width of 36 ft (11 m) in rural areas, and 10 ft (3.0 m) in urban or mountainous areas. To prevent median-crossing accidents, guardrail or Jersey barrier should be installed in medians in accordance with the current edition of AASHTO's Roadside Design Guide, based on traffic, median width and crash history. When possible, median openings between parallel bridges less than 30 ft (9.0 m) in width should be decked over; otherwise barriers or guardrails should be installed to exclude vehicles from the gap.
  • Recovery areas. No fixed objects should be in the clear recovery area, determined by the design speed in accordance with the current edition of AASHTO's Roadside Design Guide. When this is not possible, breakaway supports or barriers guarding the objects shall be used.
  • Curb slope. Vertical curbs are prohibited. Sloping curbs are to be at the edge of the paved shoulder, with a maximum height of 100 mm (4 in). The combination of curbs and guardrail is discouraged; in this case the guardrail should be closer to the road than the curb.
  • Vertical clearance. Minimum vertical clearance under overhead structures (including over the paved shoulders) of 16 ft (4.9 m) in rural areas and 14 ft (4.3 m) in urban areas, with allowance for extra layers of pavement. Through urban areas at least one routing should have 16 ft (4.9 m) clearances. Sign supports and pedestrian overpasses must be at least 17 ft (5.1 m) above the road, except on urban routes with lesser clearance, where they should be at least 1 ft (0.3 m) higher than other objects. Vertical clearance on through truss bridges is to be at least 17 ft (5.1 m).
  • Horizontal clearance under or along a bridge shall be the full paved width of the rest of the road. Bridges longer than 200 ft (60 m) can be narrower, with a minimum of 4 ft (1.2 m) on both sides of the travel lanes.
  • Bridge strength. New bridges are to have at least MS 18 (HS-20) structural capacity. Weaker bridges that can continue to serve the route for 20 more years are allowed to remain.
    • Additionally, existing bridges can remain if they have at least 12 ft (3.6 m) lanes with 10 ft (3.0 m) outside and 3.5 ft (1.1 m) inside shoulders. Long bridges are to have at least 3.5 ft (1.1 m) on each side of the travel lanes; bridge railing should be upgraded to current standards if necessary.
  • Tunnel clearance. Tunnels should in theory be equivalent to long overcrossings, but because of cost the standards can be reduced. Vertical clearance is the same as under bridges, including the provision for alternate routing. Width should be at least 44 ft (13.1 m), which consists of two 12 ft (3.6 m) lanes, 10 ft (3.0 m) outside and 5 ft (1.5 m) inside shoulders, and 2.5 ft (.7 m) safety walkways on each side. If necessary to meet the dimensions of the approach, this can be shifted left or right. A reduced width is acceptable due to high cost. In this case, the minimum width is 30 ft (9.0 m), with at least 2 ft (0.6 m) more than the approach for the sum of the shoulder widths, but at least 24 ft (7.2 m) total, and at least 1.5 ft (0.5 m) on each side for a safety walkway. If there is no safety walkway, a 3 ft (1.0 m) offset with a "safety shape" in the wall is acceptable.
From Wikipedia.org
Exceptions exist. These apply to all Interstates designed/ built after 2007. Additionally, states may add to the standards (such as longer minimum distances between exits, more stringent grade tolerances, etc.). Remember the federal guidelines are the minimum standards states must follow and those listed above are just the tip of the iceberg.
__________________
[intentionally left blank]

Last edited by brewerfan386; October 10th, 2010 at 11:39 AM.
brewerfan386 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2010, 09:40 AM   #6147
brewerfan386
Registered User
 
brewerfan386's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cheeseland
Posts: 712
Likes (Received): 158

The planned USH-169 & I-494 interchange in Bloomington, Minnesota. (Construction is set to start spring 2011.)


MnDOT


MnDOT


MnDOT


MnDOT

The current interchange is a horribly tight and outdated parclo. (I'm not going to mince words the plan above looks like it was designed by a drunk British traffic engineering student. IMHO)
__________________
[intentionally left blank]

Last edited by brewerfan386; October 14th, 2010 at 10:08 AM.
brewerfan386 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2010, 09:49 AM   #6148
mgk920
Nonhyphenated-American
 
mgk920's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Appleton, WI USA
Posts: 2,583
Likes (Received): 68


I observed not long ago that roundabouts do allow for far, far greater flexibility in street layout and design than do conventional intersections in complex situations - how different would that area have been had it been laid out even ten years ago, before USA highway and traffic engineers really 'discovered' roundabouts?

Despite the on-the-surface unusual appearance of that rebuilt interchange and its surrounding surface streets and frontage roads, it looks 'elegant' to me in its overall simplicity and accessibility. WHATTA MESS it would be, indeed, if MnDOT was limited to using conventional intersections.

Mike
mgk920 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 14th, 2010, 10:01 AM   #6149
brewerfan386
Registered User
 
brewerfan386's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cheeseland
Posts: 712
Likes (Received): 158


I'm not anti-roundabout by any stretch, but compared to the original design this is just wonky.

But to be fair anything would be better then whats there now.

BTW, Is there anyway to look up future signage (bgs) designs/ layouts on the WisDOT site, like you can with other states?
__________________
[intentionally left blank]

Last edited by brewerfan386; October 14th, 2010 at 10:26 AM.
brewerfan386 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2010, 12:00 AM   #6150
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17033

I-278 form the Brooklyn Bridge

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


Brookyln Bridge exit to the BQE

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2010, 12:37 AM   #6151
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

Amazing that an expressway like the BQE deserves an Interstate designation.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2010, 12:39 AM   #6152
niterider
niterider
 
niterider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 413
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewerfan386 View Post
The planned USH-169 & I-494 interchange in Bloomington, Minnesota. (Construction is set to start spring 2011.)


MnDOT


MnDOT


MnDOT


MnDOT

The current interchange is a horribly tight and outdated parclo. (I'm not going to mince words the plan above looks like it was designed by a drunk British traffic engineering student. IMHO)
More than anything else the one thing I like best when driving in the USA is the fact that the roads are designed to actually make driving a pleasurable experience!
Here in the UK roundabouts are famously over-used, especially as a short-sighted cost-cutting measure and IMO have very limited place on such roads like that Interstate. They may look all foreign and progressive? but trust me, before you know it they're overused and you resent gravity pulling you from left to right again...and again...and...
niterider no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2010, 02:02 AM   #6153
siamu maharaj
樂豪酒店
 
siamu maharaj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,187
Likes (Received): 4956

About time USA discovers roundabouts!!! I've never seen one here, except one in a mall's parking lot and a lot of drivers got it wrong.

Driving here sometimes is frustrating since I know that having a roundabout at certain intersections would speed things up a LOT.
__________________
ho ho to pa ki ho
siamu maharaj no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2010, 02:04 AM   #6154
Xusein
 
Xusein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 26,172
Likes (Received): 10381

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Amazing that an expressway like the BQE deserves an Interstate designation.
It most definitely would not get it if it was built in present day.
Xusein no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2010, 02:28 AM   #6155
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17033

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Amazing that an expressway like the BQE deserves an Interstate designation.
Why?
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2010, 04:53 AM   #6156
Professor L Gee
Fan of skylines, highways
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Newport News, VA (hometown); Raleigh, NC (current)
Posts: 257
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xusein View Post
It most definitely would not get it if it was built in present day.
This.
Professor L Gee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2010, 10:55 AM   #6157
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis View Post
Why?
Haven't you seen your own pictures? This is way below Interstate Highway design standards.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2010, 11:09 AM   #6158
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17033

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Haven't you seen your own pictures? This is way below Interstate Highway design standards.
Yea , but then you would need to remove I-95 , I-678 , I-495 , I-895 , all of those highways have no or little shoulders in NYC and outside of NYC like CT , Urban Jersey , parts of Westchester....
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2010, 11:23 AM   #6159
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,572
Likes (Received): 19366

Yes, many Interstates have sections that don't comply with the standards, however the BQE is arguably one of the worst.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2010, 11:45 AM   #6160
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17033

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Yes, many Interstates have sections that don't comply with the standards, however the BQE is arguably one of the worst.
Yes ,they plan on widening it. But that has faced a city wide outrage since it would level entire historic neighborhoods. Theres another proposal to build a tunnel under Brooklyn but that might be too costly.
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
america, california, highway, highways, interstate, los angeles, united states, urban

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium