5 ms·

The best fix would probably be to change the roads to prevent the speed limit drop in the first place. RS 32:61 [1] mandates a speed limit drop there (though o

by Brybry 3y ago

The best fix would probably be to change the roads to prevent the speed limit drop in the first place. RS 32:61 [1] mandates a speed limit drop there (though only to 55) because it goes from multilane divided highway to multilane highway. A frontage road, and merge/exit lanes as needed, and keep it divided highway the whole way and then it's no longer an issue. We use highways and interstates as main streets way too much in Louisiana. [1] https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?p=y&d=88480 https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?p=y&d=88480

Symbiote 3y ago
65mph traffic through a village is noisy, and makes it more difficult to cross the road as a pedestrian. There's also a railroad, cemetery and several buildings in the way of expanding the road.
- Luc 3y ago
  That's more than 100 km/h. Without traffic lights that's not safe to cross as a pedestrian.
  - alwayslikethis 3y ago
    It's also rather unsafe to have traffic lights at all at such speeds. It's really hard to stop at 100 km/h.
- tremon 3y ago
  and makes it more difficult to cross the road as a pedestrian A five-lane road is already hard to cross, regardless of the traffic speed. I understand that this design is common in the US, but it boggles my mind that people would even consider crossing a road of that size as a pedestrian unless the traffic speed was 15 mph or less. Something like that would be solved by a bridge or tunnel in developed countries.
  - verve_rat 3y ago
    Not in a town of 200 people it wouldn't.
    - Symbiote 3y ago
      If there's money to build a 5-lane road, there would have been money to build the footbridge or tunnel. But more realistically, in other countries the 4-lane road would go around the village, and a 2-lane road with a low speed limit through it.
      - starkparker 3y ago
        As someone who took 165 through Fenton[1] from I-10 to I-49 weekly for 5 years, there's money to build a five-lane federal highway to serve logging, agriculture, and military use, or more cynically for a legislator to say "I brought $XX million in federal funds home this term". (165 is also a hurricane evacuation route, and Fenton is only 12 miles up the road from I-10, this is the typical evacuation demarcation for a major storm. That's why swaths of it are more than two lanes. Further north and between towns, it narrows to two lanes.) In either case the liability of towns or the well-being of the people who live there do not factor into design decisions of villages whatsoever. A footbridge doesn't serve anyone in power, and nobody locally would use it. A tunnel in south Louisiana, even that far inland, is logistically stupid even with good intentions. 1: I was born and raised in the Louisiana terminus of 165, which is only a little larger than Fenton, and Fenton is only one of about a dozen such small towns on that route.
ldoughty 3y ago
Adding a frontage road would destroy 10% of the homes, their only grocery store, gas station, and commercial business, all at once

by Brybry 3y ago

Symbiote 3y ago

65mph traffic through a village is noisy, and makes it more difficult to cross the road as a pedestrian. There's also a railroad, cemetery and several buildings in the way of expanding the road.

Luc 3y ago
That's more than 100 km/h. Without traffic lights that's not safe to cross as a pedestrian.
- alwayslikethis 3y ago
  It's also rather unsafe to have traffic lights at all at such speeds. It's really hard to stop at 100 km/h.
tremon 3y ago
and makes it more difficult to cross the road as a pedestrian A five-lane road is already hard to cross, regardless of the traffic speed. I understand that this design is common in the US, but it boggles my mind that people would even consider crossing a road of that size as a pedestrian unless the traffic speed was 15 mph or less. Something like that would be solved by a bridge or tunnel in developed countries.
- verve_rat 3y ago
  Not in a town of 200 people it wouldn't.
  - Symbiote 3y ago
    If there's money to build a 5-lane road, there would have been money to build the footbridge or tunnel. But more realistically, in other countries the 4-lane road would go around the village, and a 2-lane road with a low speed limit through it.
    - starkparker 3y ago
      As someone who took 165 through Fenton[1] from I-10 to I-49 weekly for 5 years, there's money to build a five-lane federal highway to serve logging, agriculture, and military use, or more cynically for a legislator to say "I brought $XX million in federal funds home this term". (165 is also a hurricane evacuation route, and Fenton is only 12 miles up the road from I-10, this is the typical evacuation demarcation for a major storm. That's why swaths of it are more than two lanes. Further north and between towns, it narrows to two lanes.) In either case the liability of towns or the well-being of the people who live there do not factor into design decisions of villages whatsoever. A footbridge doesn't serve anyone in power, and nobody locally would use it. A tunnel in south Louisiana, even that far inland, is logistically stupid even with good intentions. 1: I was born and raised in the Louisiana terminus of 165, which is only a little larger than Fenton, and Fenton is only one of about a dozen such small towns on that route.

ldoughty 3y ago

Adding a frontage road would destroy 10% of the homes, their only grocery store, gas station, and commercial business, all at once