On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:40:24 -0500, Sancho Panza
wrote:

On 1/28/2012 9:37 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Clark F wrote:
Basil wrote:
On 2012\01\28 05:08, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Also, the two major freeways in the state are toll roads,

Unless I'm mistaken, the term "freeway" is only applied to roads which
are free to use. Tolled roads are called "turnpikes".

Freeway means limited access and no at grade intersections as opposed
to expressways which can have traffic lights and at grade
intersections.

. . . except where I live.

And the New York-New Jersey metropolitan region.


Ièm referring to what I recall as being the Manual for Uniform Traffic
Control devices definition where an expressway is a divided highway
with partial control of access as opposed to a freeway with full
control of access
(http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part1/part1a.htm). As a former
Illinois and New Jersey resident I am aware that the local definition
is different although saying that the limited access portions of NJ 3
or of US 22 in Union qualify as freeways may be a stretch. California
usage from what I have read on misc.transport.roads agrees with the
MUTCD.

Clark Morris

On 29-Jan-12 14:02, wrote:
On Jan 29, 9:59 am, Bruce wrote:

Trivia question (no fair Googling the answer): What was the primary
justification/purpose of the Interstate Highway System?

Wasn't it originally a Department of Defence project, inspired by the
autobahn network in Germany?

It was never of Defense Dept project.

They didn't build it, but they designed it.

The seeds of the IHS were planted during WWI, when the Army found the
railroads insufficient for their needs and started planning on truck
convoys. A trial run in 1919 from Ft Meade, MD, to San Francisco, CA,
was led by one Lt. Dwight D. Eisenhower. The trip took two weeks, which
the Army considered a failure; Gen. Pershing submitted a map of proposed
national highways to Congress in 1922 to rectify the situation.
Pershing's map was the basis for the Interstate Highway System that
Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower eventually built.

Today, a similar convoy can move from coast to coast in three days.

Some of its backers used the autobhan network as an example to justify
the project. Early literature referred to it as a defense system. It
is said Eisenhower, who was president, was impressed with the
Autobahns.

Yes, and that would have been particularly glaring considering his
earlier experience in the US (above). The _construction standards_ of
the Interstates were taken from the Autobahns he witnessed in Germany,
but the plan to build them was already there. His other major
contribution was the funding--which was accomplished by redirecting
existing federal funding to US highways with lower construction standards.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

On 29-Jan-12 14:09, wrote:
On Jan 29, 11:07 am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Movement of tanks. That is the origin of the clearance, lane width and
bridge-strength requirements--and in turn limits the height, width and
weight of new US tanks.

I'm not sure that's true. Tanks are not very kind to concrete roadway
surfaces, nor do they move very fast, and of course drink up fuel. I
would think if tanks have to be moved any sort of distance they would
be loaded onto trains.

The tanks would not be directly on the roadway unless they were actually
deployed for battle on US soil, in which case I doubt anyone would care
about what it did to the pavement.

Otherwise, the tanks would be on transporters, which is why the
Interstate vertical clearance requirements are so high.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

On Jan 29, 10:42*am, Paul Terry wrote:

In message ,
MatSav writes:

In practice, however, people don't realise the difference - and
flag down the bus anyway.

TfL effectively removed the difference several years ago. The current
policy is that drivers must stop at any bus stop whe

1. There are people waiting
2. There is a possibility that people are waiting
3. The driver's view of the bus stop is impaired
4. Someone has rung the bell

There was a proposal that they would remove the distinction between
"request stop" and "compulsory stop" signs in order to reflect this
change of policy, but I don't think this has yet started (presumably for
cost reasons).

New signs that are installed are of the compulsory design (and all
stops in central London are now of that design):
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques..._at_compulsory


Nonetheless, people do still flag down buses at stops (even compulsory
ones) served by more than one route, as there is otherwise a danger that
the bus required will simply sail straight past.

It's good when buses don't stop when there's no need to, and silly
when they do. I think it'd be preferable if 'the rules' were a bit
clearer (i.e. 'you must hail the bus' was adopted), but in day-to-day
practice things seem to work ok.

On 29/01/2012 20:12, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
wrote:

So, how do people in Hawai'i get to other islands without flying, then?
Are there ferries that carry cars or bridges of any sort?

There are no bridges between major islands.

Generally, people are flown via small planes and helicopters. Cars are
shipped as freight between islands. I don't believe there is any car or
truck ferry service, but someone will correct me.

You didn't ask about Alaska, but the same thing is true the Numerous
small planes fly people throughout the state. If one isn't travelling
in the Fairbanks to Anchorage corridor, generally, one flies. The
old gold mining settlement that became the state capital, Juneau,
generally requires Alaskans to travel by air to get there.

Any talks or projects for underwater tunnels between any of the Aleutian
Islands?

I don't know where the word "defense" first got inserted, if it wasn't
in the legislation's title itself. Maybe it was in the language of
the law. Not inclined to read it.

I can't blame you, since it would take nearly five minutes to find a
copy online and read it.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...ghway-act.html

(excerpt)

Sec. 108. National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.

(a) Interstate System. It is hereby declared to be essential to the
national interest to provide for the early completion, of the National
System of Interstate Highways, as authorized and designated in
accordance with section 7 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 (58
Stat. 838). It is the intent of the Congress that the Interstate
System be completed as nearly as practicable over a thirteen-year
period and that the entire System in all the States be brought to
simultaneous completion. Because of its primary importance to the
national defense, the name of such system is hereby changed to the
National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Such National
System of Interstate and Defense Highways is hereinafter in this Act
referred to as the Interstate System.

So it wasn't the title of the bill, but the name was in the bill.

R's,
John

Any talks or projects for underwater tunnels between any of the Aleutian
Islands?

The largest "city" on the Aleutians is Dutch Harbor, pop. 4000. What
do you think?

Back in the 1800s there was a proposal for a telegraph line from
America to Europe via the Bering Strait, but that became uninteresting
once it became clear that a line from Canada to Ireland was practical.

R's,
John

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 29-Jan-12 14:02, wrote:
On Jan 29, 9:59 am, Bruce wrote:

Trivia question (no fair Googling the answer): What was the primary
justification/purpose of the Interstate Highway System?

Wasn't it originally a Department of Defence project, inspired by the
autobahn network in Germany?

It was never of Defense Dept project.

They didn't build it, but they designed it.

The seeds of the IHS were planted during WWI, when the Army found the
railroads insufficient for their needs and started planning on truck
convoys. A trial run in 1919 from Ft Meade, MD, to San Francisco, CA,
was led by one Lt. Dwight D. Eisenhower. The trip took two weeks, which
the Army considered a failure; Gen. Pershing submitted a map of proposed
national highways to Congress in 1922 to rectify the situation.
Pershing's map was the basis for the Interstate Highway System that
Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower eventually built.

Today, a similar convoy can move from coast to coast in three days.

All right, Stephen; we all know that story. The Army is still going to
design transport around civilian trucks of the day. In any event,
anyone reasonably familiar with geography and populations would have
come up with a similar map.

But you are trying to draw a direction connection between A and B;
it's tenuous at best.

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 29-Jan-12 14:09, wrote:
On Jan 29, 11:07 am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Movement of tanks. That is the origin of the clearance, lane width and
bridge-strength requirements--and in turn limits the height, width and
weight of new US tanks.

I'm not sure that's true. Tanks are not very kind to concrete roadway
surfaces, nor do they move very fast, and of course drink up fuel. I
would think if tanks have to be moved any sort of distance they would
be loaded onto trains.

The tanks would not be directly on the roadway unless they were actually
deployed for battle on US soil, in which case I doubt anyone would care
about what it did to the pavement.

Otherwise, the tanks would be on transporters, which is why the
Interstate vertical clearance requirements are so high.

Transport is designed to current standards, not the other way around.

John Levine wrote:

I can't blame you, since it would take nearly five minutes to find a
copy online and read it.

And John returns to hissy-fit mode.

Grow up, child.