<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New sign gantries for I-384</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.aaroads.com/blog/2008/12/07/new-sign-gantries-for-i-384/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.aaroads.com/blog/2008/12/07/new-sign-gantries-for-i-384/</link>
	<description>Road news.  Pictures.  Crazed ranting.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:24:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Gilcrest</title>
		<link>http://www.aaroads.com/blog/2008/12/07/new-sign-gantries-for-i-384/comment-page-1/#comment-66766</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Gilcrest</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:10:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aaroads.com/blog/?p=185#comment-66766</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s just nice to see new signs being put up for no reason here!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s just nice to see new signs being put up for no reason here!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://www.aaroads.com/blog/2008/12/07/new-sign-gantries-for-i-384/comment-page-1/#comment-65705</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:05:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aaroads.com/blog/?p=185#comment-65705</guid>
		<description>There are several cases where the replaced signs should have been updated with new information, such as the fact that since 1984 U.S. 202 was moved onto Delaware 141 south at Exit 5. New signs continue to ignore that overlap. There are other cases where Dover is still signed at Delaware 273, and when signs were updated, they retained that control city when it should have been moved to Exit 4 (Delaware 1 &amp; 7)...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are several cases where the replaced signs should have been updated with new information, such as the fact that since 1984 U.S. 202 was moved onto Delaware 141 south at Exit 5. New signs continue to ignore that overlap. There are other cases where Dover is still signed at Delaware 273, and when signs were updated, they retained that control city when it should have been moved to Exit 4 (Delaware 1 &#038; 7)&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephane Dumas</title>
		<link>http://www.aaroads.com/blog/2008/12/07/new-sign-gantries-for-i-384/comment-page-1/#comment-65689</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephane Dumas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2008 14:09:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aaroads.com/blog/?p=185#comment-65689</guid>
		<description>Well, on the other side, they could had let them a way much longer lifespan like those BBS (big blue signs instead of BGS dating from the era when A-10 was tolled) on A-10 in Quebec who really need to be replaced 
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/qc/a-10/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, on the other side, they could had let them a way much longer lifespan like those BBS (big blue signs instead of BGS dating from the era when A-10 was tolled) on A-10 in Quebec who really need to be replaced<br />
<a href="http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/qc/a-10/" rel="nofollow">http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/qc/a-10/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://www.aaroads.com/blog/2008/12/07/new-sign-gantries-for-i-384/comment-page-1/#comment-65555</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:41:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aaroads.com/blog/?p=185#comment-65555</guid>
		<description>While I cannot speak for Delaware, in the case of Connecticut, I think the artwork is fine. I don&#039;t see what&#039;s gained by making other changes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I cannot speak for Delaware, in the case of Connecticut, I think the artwork is fine. I don&#8217;t see what&#8217;s gained by making other changes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://www.aaroads.com/blog/2008/12/07/new-sign-gantries-for-i-384/comment-page-1/#comment-65517</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aaroads.com/blog/?p=185#comment-65517</guid>
		<description>This seems to be the growing standard operation procedure from across the country. Delaware routinely replaces signs that are not yet at their lifespan for instance. Delaware and other states are a part of the carbon copy bandwagon too, where signs are replaced without the artwork being updated. That is a problem when updates to the signs should have been made.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This seems to be the growing standard operation procedure from across the country. Delaware routinely replaces signs that are not yet at their lifespan for instance. Delaware and other states are a part of the carbon copy bandwagon too, where signs are replaced without the artwork being updated. That is a problem when updates to the signs should have been made.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

