Page 14 of 57

Re: US highway minor and major

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 7:49 am
by dbraughlr
daknife wrote:When split as at your point a few hundred miles away it does qualify as a Major, prior to that split not so much.
I don't know any way to interpret my comment except as agreeing with you.
On a continuously numbered route, Waze should not distinguish between MH and mH such that a little bit of mH disqualifies the route. I think it should be mH so that when I look at the alternative route, I know to expect mH. That is a factor in deciding whether to try the alternative.

How will the scenic alt route and temporary alt route be classified?

Re: county roads

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:37 am
by dbraughlr
banished wrote:The rural south has county roads that are dirt.
Replace the word "south" with "area" and I'll agree.
If there aren't dirt county roads, either there are no county roads or there are no dirt roads.

California farm country has numerous "county roads" that are dirt rights-of-way along section lines used mainly to access fields. Some are in such disuse that the farmers plant crops on them.
Few will ever qualify as primary streets.

It is obvious that they function as streets because there are no other streets.
Many are less than a mile apart. We don't need rural areas hatched over with primary streets. We can save PS for the occasional paved road.

Keep it smart and sensible.

Re: urban versus rural

Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 3:38 am
by dbraughlr
bart99gt wrote: For rural classification, the FC system seems to work great. However, when it comes to urban classification, what the DOT classifies the road as, and what Waze expects the road to be, in my observation, diverge somewhat. I make the assumption that Waze shows such a strong preference for MH because it is expecting a road that is multi-lane, with a higher (probably 50+ mph) limit, and few controlled intersections.
Perhaps Waze could keep a list of precalculated long-haul segments much as auto clubs used to do.
More time could be spent compiling these once. Then pruning by segment would not have an adverse impact just because it is not MH or FW.

US-40 through Baltimore was mentioned as an urban MH. Just as in rural areas all we have for streets, PS, and even mH are non-paved roads, all some urban areas have for MH and even FW are congested.

The road performs its function. Waze isn't asking us for speed limits, road surface, lane count, or traffic volume. All that we say is what function the road performs whether parking lot or freeway or something in between.

That said, I to have some reasonable expectation of road condition/construction based on the area.
My expectations are different in deserts, rural areas, and major metropolises.
That why mentioned where US-89 changes between MH and mH.

I don't have a problem assigning MH to US numbered routes that are only two lanes with at least 3 miles out of 4 being passing zones. But 23 miles of double yellow lines on asphalt winding over a mountain with just a few slow traffic turnouts or "climbing lanes" cannot be function as MH because such a road simply isn't built to be MH even if the average speed on it is 40 mph and its urban MH segments are considerably slower.

I support requiring some minimum construction standards for road types. I oppose downgrading function based on traffic congestion.

In short for any FC:
  • In urban areas I expect wider roads, more lanes, more congestion, lower speed limits, and lower average speeds.
  • In rural areas I expect narrower roads, fewer lanes, no traffic lights, higher speed limits, higher average speeds, and possibly non-paved surfaces (on other than FW or MH).

Re: urban versus rural

Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:52 am
by dbraughlr
sketch wrote:And what exactly are the downsides of making such a road Major Highway?
What is the downside of making it a freeway? After all, it is doing the job of the closed freeway.

Re: minimum construction standards for road types

Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:53 am
by dbraughlr
sketch wrote:
dbraughlr wrote:What is the downside of making it a freeway? After all, it is doing the job of the closed freeway.
It's not a freeway.
If the problem is that Waze excludes even short minor highways when solving "long" routes, that should be fixed.

I don't see how your statement "It's not a freeway" is somehow more valid than my statement "It is not a major highway either".

Re: minimum construction standards for road types

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:17 am
by dbraughlr
davielde wrote:From a functional standpoint, what benefit is there over the current road type system if we are willing to introduce more subjectivity and complexity for exceptions based on appearance?
It is no different from the subjectivity applied to freeways or downgrading other roads solely for not being paved, an act which applies a minimum construction standard to every type of road.

I am saying that the advantage is in the user expectations for such a route when evaluating alternative routes.

For example: Eureka Way certainly should be offered as an alternative route. It is not horrible, but it's the first one I recalled. In my mind, it is a minor highway. It does not meet minimum standards for passing zones or straightness to be classified as MH for its entire length.

Lincoln Hwy / US-30 between Breezewood and McConnellsburg, PA, is another example - one which I am pleased to see is still mH in Waze and I think it should remain mH under any new system. If its US number forces it to MH, that is wrong imo.

Re: minimum construction standards for road types

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:39 am
by dbraughlr
sketch wrote:Set it to Minor, and that route won't work.
That's the real real problem. It should work as minor. But like a freeway, MH should have a minimum standard.
When selecting between routes, I like to see how many miles are interstate/freeway, how many MH, and how many mH. I should be able to choose an alternative either that avoids mH or accept a primary route knowing that it includes mH. Eureka Way might be shortest and fastest. But there are people who want to avoid it. I think I once counted that it changes direction 100 times in ~12 miles ... or something like that.

As for the Lincoln Highway, it was the first interstate. It didn't become a highway through modern research. It acquired that designation circa 1925. It is truly a grandfather of highways.

Re: minimum construction standards for road types

Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:53 am
by dbraughlr
sketch wrote:If you're suggesting to me that the AASHTO/Congress/US DOT keeps routes around for their historical significance alone, …
I never even thought that or any of the other thoughts that you somehow inferred that I was thinking/suggesting.

Re: Eureka Way

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:28 am
by dbraughlr
nzahn1 wrote:Looks like a fun road to drive. 8-)
Looking at the length of the section, I think that must be 7 miles to get 100 changes in direction accompanied by multiple changes in grade.
This is quite different from US-212 across Wyoming which is mostly straight and flat.

Some people might consider it "fun". I doubt that many drivers are sending text messages. If you feel a sneeze coming on, you better hit the brakes.

Re: minimum construction standards for road types

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:55 pm
by dbraughlr
daknife wrote:But the Lincoln Hwy, the first Highway, does still exist running coast to coast and carries the designation hwy, even if the street is not a hwy by today's standards.
I think that the section that I cited (McConnellsburg, PA) is designated as US-30 for the simple reason that no other road has ever been built to replace it and it hasn't important enough to upgrade (unlike, say, between Breezewood and Bedford). It became US-30 because there wasn't anything better at the time. US-30 followed the Lincoln Hwy which followed existing roads. That's the history.

This section of highway retains the designation US-30 not for nostalgic reasons and certainly not because someone determined that it is a viable route for any trip longer than 100 miles, but because it wasn't replaced and it still is a (treacherous) highway.

[Edited to clarify that I refer only to the mH section of US-30 I previously cited; my remarks are not applicable to the Lincoln Hwy in general.]