Center median work on 169...

[chlfan]

... between 46th St N. and 56th St. N.- Anyone know what it's for?

[chlfan]

Thanks- but... aren't there plans to widen 169 in the near future? That would be a waste of $ IMO if they're just going to come through a couple of years later and remove it for the widening... ?

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by chlfan

Thanks- but... aren't there plans to widen 169 in the near future? That would be a waste of $ IMO if they're just going to come through a couple of years later and remove it for the widening... ?

What happens between now and then if someone crosses over the median and someone in the oncoming lane gets killed?  Lawsuit?  I think the state is being proactive.  Don't look for 169 to be widened anytime soon.  Bidding for that project is not even scheduled until FY 2010.

[Hoss]

Let me clarify; INCOG has the widening from I-244 to SH266 (46th St N) in the works earlier than 2010 from what I can remember.

[Composer]

I think they are working on drainage issues too.  Every time it rains hard, it does not take long before there is standing water on the roadway.

[chlfan]

Thanks everyone- I knew somebody out there would be in the know-

As far as a lawsuit if someone crossed the center median and crashed... do you really think that would stick and if so, on who? There are millions of miles of divided highway out there with no median barriers of any kind. Just curious.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by chlfan

Thanks everyone- I knew somebody out there would be in the know-

As far as a lawsuit if someone crossed the center median and crashed... do you really think that would stick and if so, on who? There are millions of miles of divided highway out there with no median barriers of any kind. Just curious.

I think in the litigious society of today, they could, given that these cable barriers have been going up rather quickly in the last year or so.  Someone would say "why weren't they in place out there?" and see that as an opening.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by chlfan

Thanks everyone- I knew somebody out there would be in the know-

As far as a lawsuit if someone crossed the center median and crashed... do you really think that would stick and if so, on who? There are millions of miles of divided highway out there with no median barriers of any kind. Just curious.

I think in the litigious society of today, they could, given that these cable barriers have been going up rather quickly in the last year or so.  Someone would say "why weren't they in place out there?" and see that as an opening.

By putting these up they are actually assuming liability, by making an inferred guarantee that  bad things wont happen once they are in.
But as soon as one fails or needs repair...

Municipalities discovered the same problem when they were sued for streetlights being out in areas that werent really having problems prior to the lights being installed.  All of the sudden it was the "lights making things right" and when one burns out the city is negligent.

They eventually figured out that they could limit their liability by removing streetlights  in areas where they didnt actually provide any benefit, rather than wait to be sued when it failed due to neglect.

In the years to come we'll probably have to upgrade cable barriers to Jersey barriers where barriers are actually needed, and tearing out the cable barriers where barriers are not needed.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by patric

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by chlfan

Thanks everyone- I knew somebody out there would be in the know-

As far as a lawsuit if someone crossed the center median and crashed... do you really think that would stick and if so, on who? There are millions of miles of divided highway out there with no median barriers of any kind. Just curious.

I think in the litigious society of today, they could, given that these cable barriers have been going up rather quickly in the last year or so.  Someone would say "why weren't they in place out there?" and see that as an opening.

By putting these up they are actually assuming liability, by making an inferred guarantee that  bad things wont happen once they are in.
But as soon as one fails or needs repair...

Municipalities discovered the same problem when they were sued for streetlights being out in areas that werent really having problems prior to the lights being installed.  All of the sudden it was the "lights making things right" and when one burns out the city is negligent.

They eventually figured out that they could limit their liability by removing streetlights  in areas where they didnt actually provide any benefit, rather than wait to be sued when it failed due to neglect.

In the years to come we'll probably have to upgrade cable barriers to Jersey barriers where barriers are actually needed, and tearing out the cable barriers where barriers are not needed.

That's gonna have to happen anyway once the widening gets started out there.  It will have to happen on I-44 as well where they have put those in.

And my point was to mean that people would say 'well, such and such area has the barriers, but why doesn't this area have them?  If they had, I wouldn't have been injured'.  I think inferring that liability is assumed is a little premature.  It kind of reminds me of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

[mrhaskellok]

I know the city manager of Owasso went to DC for funding to widen 169.  If I remember correctly he told me he got it.  Not sure if that is part of the widening project or not thought.