50th anniversary of the Capital Beltway opening

[Zeffy]

What is with these ugly signs? The text on those signs is also freakishly huge in addition to the shields!

[PHLBOS]

What is with these ugly signs? The text on those signs is also freakishly huge in addition to the shields!

Given the various sign pics. that have since been posted in this thread; which signs are you referring to... the I-270/495 split BGS' at the gore?  Those, IMHO, are the worst.

[Zeffy]

What is with these ugly signs? The text on those signs is also freakishly huge in addition to the shields!

Given the various sign pics. that have since been posted in this thread; which signs are you referring to... the I-270/495 split BGS' at the gore?  Those, IMHO, are the worst.

The I-95 and 395/495/644 signs, as well as the 270/495 split. Plus the 95 south ones approaching the Capital Beltway.

[PHLBOS]

The I-95 and 395/495/644 signs, as well as the 270/495 split. Plus the 95 south ones approaching the Capital Beltway.

In terms of ugliness; the ones at the 270/495 split, I agree due to their abnormal shield shape and use of narrow Series B text (a non-no for 2d/3d shields IMHO).  But the majority (if not all) of the others you listed are essentially standard shaped shields & text/numerals that have been uniformly enlarged.  Nothing else has really changed regarding those signs.

[1995hoo]

Having lived in the DC area for 40 years, I think the large shields and large text on those I-95/I-495 signs is a good thing, especially at the Springfield Interchange in Virginia, because I-95 changes direction at both those places. It's theoretically less important coming south in Maryland because (a) you can go around the other side of the Beltway and rejoin I-495 at the other end, whereas in Virginia I-95 bears off to the south; and (b) in Maryland there are two other ramps a short distance down the road such that if you miss the left-side exit* you can still easily rejoin I-95, whereas the Springfield Interchange in Virginia is a very unforgiving design such that if you miss your exit,* you'll have to go on to the next interchange and turn around for another try. Having good signs at those locations is really important given the number of long-distance drivers who seldom pass through these interchanges. (I've given our relatives from Brooklyn super-thorough directions to my parents' house near Fairfax City and they STILL managed to mess up BOTH the College Park and Springfield Interchanges–they wound up calling from Dumfries, roughly 15 miles south of the Beltway. This was back before Springfield was rebuilt, though.)

Of course, all the signs in the world still don't stop some people from getting confused and swerving madly at the last second, but no design is ever going to be 100% idiot-proof.

*I'm using "exit" in the sense of the lanes splitting off from the mainline, which is especially apt in Virginia where four lanes go straight while two lanes of I-95 bear off on a flyover. I'm aware it's not an "exit" in the engineering sense, but I'm not concerned with pedantic usage even though I'm sure someone will take offense.

[agentsteel53]

flashing yellow ball seems to be superfluous from a regulatory perspective: "you have right of way all the time, or at least until this bulb burns out.  proceed with caution, because our licensing system doesn't weed out the morons."

it seems to me that it's the equivalent of a flashing yellow ball on top of a curve advisory yellow-diamond sign or something similar.  just a heads-up that things may get interesting.

[1995hoo]

flashing yellow ball seems to be superfluous from a regulatory perspective: "you have right of way all the time, or at least until this bulb burns out.  proceed with caution, because our licensing system doesn't weed out the morons."

it seems to me that it's the equivalent of a flashing yellow ball on top of a curve advisory yellow-diamond sign or something similar.  just a heads-up that things may get interesting.

Wrong thread, perchance?

[agentsteel53]

Wrong thread, perchance?

yep.  that's what I get for having my browser crash between replies.

[PHLBOS]

Of course, all the signs in the world still don't stop some people from getting confused and swerving madly at the last second, but no design is ever going to be 100% idiot-proof.

Similar could be said, if not more so, regarding GPS usage for driving navigation.

[1995hoo]

Of course, all the signs in the world still don't stop some people from getting confused and swerving madly at the last second, but no design is ever going to be 100% idiot-proof.

Similar could be said, if not more so, regarding GPS usage for driving navigation.

I thought about mentioning sat-navs because I strongly suspect blind adherence to outdated navigation data is a major cause of last-second swerving and other failure to get in the correct lane in the Springfield area, given how radically it was redesigned during the lengthy construction project.

[froggie]

Of course, all the signs in the world still don't stop some people from getting confused and swerving madly at the last second, but no design is ever going to be 100% idiot-proof.

Similar could be said, if not more so, regarding GPS usage for driving navigation.

And then there's both...

[1995hoo]

Of course, all the signs in the world still don't stop some people from getting confused and swerving madly at the last second, but no design is ever going to be 100% idiot-proof.

Similar could be said, if not more so, regarding GPS usage for driving navigation.

And then there's both...

Sounds like an ideal place for big "Truckers: Do Not Follow GPS" signs. Of course, those won't be 100% effective either!

[ixnay]

There you go, Captain America!  Your shield's on the NET!

ixnay

[Laura]

Well–now that you mention it–that too. Are those the biggest Interstate shields in official use anywhere?

not counting shields painted directly on the lanes... probably.

as of 2006 there was a six or eight foot I-95 shield somewhere on the New Jersey turnpike, but that was more ceremonial than anything since, if I recall correctly, it was nailed to the side of a row of tollbooths.

That is the shield on the New England Thruway section of I-95 north:



The other larger than average shields for the Capital Beltway are posted along I-95 south ahead of its merge with I-495:

I've always hated how this is the only indication that you should not take the flyover to get to US 1. There really needs to be an extra sign indicating this prior to the split.


iPhone

[odditude]

I've always hated how this is the only indication that you should not take the flyover to get to US 1. There really needs to be an extra sign indicating this prior to the split.

eh? I remember there being advance notice anytime I drove down to UMD... did they get rid of the "To US 1 College Park" signs?

[1995hoo]

I've always hated how this is the only indication that you should not take the flyover to get to US 1. There really needs to be an extra sign indicating this prior to the split.

eh? I remember there being advance notice anytime I drove down to UMD... did they get rid of the "To US 1 College Park" signs?

That's what I thought I recalled as well, so I went into Street View (recognizing it could be out of date, although it turned out to say "September 2013") and found two signs prior to those listing Route 1 and a third sign referring to the University of Maryland:

http://goo.gl/maps/57ixa

http://goo.gl/maps/CF3vR

http://goo.gl/maps/Nz81c (sign for University of Maryland, which is off Route 1)

[odditude]

http://goo.gl/maps/Nz81c (sign for University of Maryland, which is off Route 1)

It looks like that one is suggesting 95/495 S to MD 193/University Boulevard, actually. I never went that way - always found it quicker to pick up 193 from Route 1.

[1995hoo]

http://goo.gl/maps/Nz81c (sign for University of Maryland, which is off Route 1)

It looks like that one is suggesting 95/495 S to MD 193/University Boulevard, actually. I never went that way - always found it quicker to pick up 193 from Route 1.

I don't really know that area well enough to comment. I hardly ever go to College Park, and when I have, I've usually come from the District or around the western side of the Beltway. Took the LSAT there in 1994, the MPRE there in 1998, and I've been to a couple of UVA football games (for the last one we attended, we took the Metro for fear of our car being vandalized....proved justified, some friends' cars were severely vandalized) and NCAA lacrosse Final Fours over the years. So I just assumed the sign was intended to mean "take I-95/I-495 to Route 1" because I associate Route 1 with being how you get there, but I suppose I should know better than to assume anything!

[mrsman]

http://goo.gl/maps/Nz81c (sign for University of Maryland, which is off Route 1)

It looks like that one is suggesting 95/495 S to MD 193/University Boulevard, actually. I never went that way - always found it quicker to pick up 193 from Route 1.

I don't really know that area well enough to comment. I hardly ever go to College Park, and when I have, I've usually come from the District or around the western side of the Beltway. Took the LSAT there in 1994, the MPRE there in 1998, and I've been to a couple of UVA football games (for the last one we attended, we took the Metro for fear of our car being vandalized....proved justified, some friends' cars were severely vandalized) and NCAA lacrosse Final Fours over the years. So I just assumed the sign was intended to mean "take I-95/I-495 to Route 1" because I associate Route 1 with being how you get there, but I suppose I should know better than to assume anything!

For those who have not clicked through the signs, this sign tells people on I-95 south heading into the College Park I-95/495 interchange that to head to University of MD, take 95/495 south.  But there is a problem. 

I-95 south is four lanes.  The #1 and #2 lanes* (counting from the left) lead to a flyover ramp that puts you on the left side of the Beltway going south.  Great for through traffic heading toward FedEx Field, Andrews AFB or the Wilson Bridge to Virginia.  But there is no access to the next exit south (US 1) from the left lanes. 

The #3 and #4 lanes (counting from the left) lead to a ramp toward I-495 west.  The #3 lane also leads you down the I-95 stump toward a park and ride and a weigh station and a loop ramp that puts you on the RIGHT side of 95/495, leading to the US 1 exit.  The university is best reached from US 1.  So even though US 1 is south of the 95/495 interchange, you don't want to follow the signs of 95/495 south to get to the US 1 exit.  The best way is to follow the signs to I-495 west.

Now there are some signs that tell you to be in the #3 lane to get to US 1 by taking the I-495 west ramp.  The problem is that there is no sign telling you to take US 1 to the University. 

So I beleive that the sign telling I-95 south drivers to take I-95/495 south to the university is a misprint.  It should say that drivers to the university should follow US 1 south.




* Excuse the California-ism.  The traffic reporters in the L.A. area refer to the lanes of the freeway as the number 1 lane, number 2 lane etc., counting from the center divider.  I feel that it is a helpful shorthand to discuss this situation.

[froggie]

There are one of two possible scenarios here:

- SHA erred in not directing traffic on the University of Maryland sign to US 1.

- SHA deliberately does not want southbound 95 traffic to use US 1 to get to campus.  This seems plausible in that 1 is already traffic-choked and basically impossible to widen without significant right-of-way and commercial impacts.  Under this scenario, they probably want UMD-bound traffic to use the Inner Loop to 201/Kenilworth and then either take 193 or Paint Branch Pkwy to loop back to campus.

Of course, had the Legislature not prohibited it, SHA easily could've built a campus connector down to Adelphi Rd from the 95 stub, using the power line right-of-way.

[mrsman]

There are one of two possible scenarios here:

- SHA erred in not directing traffic on the University of Maryland sign to US 1.

- SHA deliberately does not want southbound 95 traffic to use US 1 to get to campus.  This seems plausible in that 1 is already traffic-choked and basically impossible to widen without significant right-of-way and commercial impacts.  Under this scenario, they probably want UMD-bound traffic to use the Inner Loop to 201/Kenilworth and then either take 193 or Paint Branch Pkwy to loop back to campus.

Of course, had the Legislature not prohibited it, SHA easily could've built a campus connector down to Adelphi Rd from the 95 stub, using the power line right-of-way.

I think it's likely the first because there are signs directing Beltway traffic to take US 1 to the university.

[froggie]

It's quite possible to have a destination along Route 1 that is not part of the University.  There is a distinction to be made here.

[cpzilliacus]

There are one of two possible scenarios here:

- SHA erred in not directing traffic on the University of Maryland sign to US 1.

This is correct, though it does not (IMO) matter.  U.S. 1 (N and S) are what matter, not the University (even though it is a very large generator and attractor of traffic).

- SHA deliberately does not want southbound 95 traffic to use US 1 to get to campus.  This seems plausible in that 1 is already traffic-choked and basically impossible to widen without significant right-of-way and commercial impacts.  Under this scenario, they probably want UMD-bound traffic to use the Inner Loop to 201/Kenilworth and then either take 193 or Paint Branch Pkwy to loop back to campus.

That diverts the out-of-town drivers that do  not know better. 

Of course, had the Legislature not prohibited it, SHA easily could've built a campus connector down to Adelphi Rd from the 95 stub, using the power line right-of-way.

Or just built I-95 as it had been planned - more proof that the notion that Metro could replace freeway connections from the Maryland suburbs to D.C., in spite of what elected officials fervently believed, was false.

[froggie]

That would have ripped up a lot of Brookland and (to a lesser extent) NoMA, for little net gain to the city (and a lot of negative externalities to boot).  So it's no wonder DC opposed it.

[briantroutman]

This thread seemed to be the most logical place to post this...

I noticed some early film footage of present-day I-270 at the Capital Beltway split in this FHWA video from the late '80s. The film clip is concerned with traction on wet pavement, and apparently the original surfaces of the Capital Beltway and I-270 were quite poor in this regard.

Based on the cars and the signage, the film would appear to have been taken a few years after the Beltway's completion.

Skip to about 29:30: https://archive.org/details/gov.dot.fhwa.ttp.vh-48e