Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!houxm!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
From: preece@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Flaming at highway designers - (nf)
Message-ID: <2676@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Aug-83 22:40:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.2676
Posted: Wed Aug 31 22:40:32 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Sep-83 03:19:08 EDT
Lines: 18

#R:pucc-h:-21400:uicsl:4300052:000:903
uicsl!preece    Aug 31 09:16:00 1983

It doesn't seem unreasonable to have exits/entrances attuned to the
commuter load. Don't look at it as the planners NOT providing you with
an interchange you're entitled to, look at it as their providing
EXTRA interchanges, one-way only, where normal planning wouldn't dictate
their presence.

For what it's worth, I think this is reasonable in an urban, heavy-traffic
situation, but it happened to me last on the Mass Pike, out near where it
becomes the Berkshire extension of the New York Turnpike. I got off at
one of the Berkshire exits, drove to Great Barrington, then tried to get
back on, westbound, at the next interchange. Surprise, there's no
westbound interchange there. So I ended up driving a while on pre-Turnpike
highway (actually a fairly pleasant drive). So in a rural setting (where
the next interchange may be a substantial distance further) it would
be nice to have better warning.