Adam H. Kerman wrote:
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.

John Levine is continuing his unwelcome, unpleasant behavior in a
series of replies in email. I know he has no ability to comprehend
written words, but I'll explain yet again that he and I are not
having a private discussion and his email messages are unwelcome.
Do not send replies in email, ever, John. Stop being such a big baby.

On 29-Jan-12 15:58, Clark F Morris wrote:
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:
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).

Here is the relevant quote, for those too lazy to look it up:

"Section 1A.13 Definitions of Headings, Words, and Phrases in this Manual

Standard:
....
03 The following words and phrases, when used in this Manual, shall have
the following meanings:
....
71. Expressway—a divided highway with partial control of access.
....
77. Freeway—a divided highway with full control of access."



--
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 Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:22:08 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:
It's good when buses don't stop when there's no need to, and silly
when they do.

Except in busy areas (think Oxford St) where it would sail past
because it didn't see your signal. I much prefer the German approach
of "stop if someone is waiting" - if you're the only one there and it
isn't your bus just step back and shake your head to signal "no need
to stop".

I believe this is now the official London way.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

On Jan 29, 5:10*pm, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
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.

I stand corrected.

(I have seen tanks move on city streets.)

On 29-Jan-12 17:56, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
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.

If you don't see a direct connection between Lt. Dwight D. Eisenhower,
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower, there's
really nothing I can do to help you.

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 Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:35:56 -0800 (PST), wrote:

much snipped

For reasons I can't understand, when the government builds and runs
roads the conservatives think that is a worthwhile govt endeavor, but
when the govt builds railroads, they think that's evil socialism.

If we could come with a way to run a stretch of rail line open to all
providers that can prove they are safe and handle even just compatible
types of traffic (intercity passenger at moderate high speed mixed
with intermodal, local passenger mixed with heavy haul, etc.) this
could change. There are interesting things happening in Europe but
much probably would not work in North America and there are mixed
results in Europe.

Clark Morris

On Jan 30, 11:29*am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

If you don't see a direct connection between Lt. Dwight D. Eisenhower,
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower, there's
really nothing I can do to help you.

Actually, Eisenhower saw things very differently as president of the
US than he did as a military leader.

I would recommend Stephen Ambrose' writings on Eisenhower. (Ambrose
also did an excellent and balanced three-volume set on Nixon.)

In article ,
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.

demonstrating merely that you don't know what you don't know. grin

Tanks are not very kind to concrete roadway
surfaces,

True, but irrelevant in a combat environment.

nor do they move very fast,

Hah. Modern tanks are capable of moving -quite- fast (i.e. exceeding the
speed-limit on most U.S. highways), especially if you remove the governor
on the engine.

and of course drink up fuel.

Accurate -- Consumption is measured in "gallons per mile". grin

I
would think if tanks have to be moved any sort of distance they would
be loaded onto trains.

In combat situations, trains are rarely available to the aggressor.

For long=distance movement in a combat environment, "tank transporters",
a special-purpose heavy-duty semi-trailer rig is commonly used.


*HOWEVER*, tanks are *heavy* -- substantially surpassing the legal load
limits on most highways. An "M1A1", alone, NOT INCLUDING the weight of
the transporter vehicle, is close to double the legal weight limit on most
highways.

They are also _big_. TWELVE ft wide. (needless to say, that doesn't fit 'in'
a standard traffic lane, with any safety margin Eight ft tall -- not
including any antennas -- _before_ considering the height of the transporter.
(a flat- bed type trailer will have a bed level that is approximately 5' above
ground.)

On Jan 30, 6:37*pm, (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

demonstrating merely that you don't know what you don't know. *grin

That goes both ways. You must have missed:

Jan 30, 9:45 am "I stand corrected."

On 29-Jan-12 17:57, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
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.

The "standards" of the day varied significantly from state to state and
were, in many places, completely insufficient for the Army's needs. The
entire purpose of the Interstate system was to unify and raise those
standards _to match the transport needs_.

In theory, the Army _could_ have tried to redesign their tanks, etc. to
the size, height and weight of a Model T or horse-drawn wagon--what much
of the US road infrastructure of the day could handle--but they probably
wouldn't have fared too well in battle.

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