Regional Boards > Southeast


<< < (368/385) > >>

It's been under development for a decade, but I just found out about this plan for GA 9-South Atlanta Street in Roswell. It'll

widen the road from three lanes to four from the Chattahoochee to downtown, eliminating the reversible lane

trench Azalea Drive and Riverside Road under GA 9 and provide a one-quadrant interchange instead of the current intersection

add two roundabouts on South Atlanta Street

and build a new bike-ped bridge across the Chattahoochee.

There's some other stuff on the south side of the river, but it's not as exciting.

Per this AJC article, the cost is estimated at $10 million, which seems ridiculously optimistic. GDOT submitted a BUILD grant application in May of 2020 for Federal funds for project construction, but it wasn't selected for funding by USDOT. Hopefully something will come together in the near future.


--- Quote from: sprjus4 on December 30, 2021, 04:27:09 PM ---
--- Quote from: architect77 on December 30, 2021, 04:16:34 PM ---Even though we have usually wide freeways, drivers are expected to be able to see the elevated exit signs on the right shoulder.

So why duplicate the same sign on the left which of course is done with a different non-matching type size?
--- End quote ---
Umm... because entry / exit points from the Express Lanes are different from the regular exits?

You need to get out of the Express Lanes at least 1-2 miles prior to your actual interchange off the mainline, in order to safely switch lanes to the right... especially on a "wide freeway".

--- End quote ---

That's a valid point, and you are correctabout the LOCAL EXIT signs being about .5-1 mile in advance of the regular 1 mile EXIT signs.

But this is what I think would look good for the Express Lane signage, over the lane itself, center median posts...

Or something similar.

The photo is somewhere in Hawaii. I remember the visual from seeing it many years ago.

left by Stephen Edwards, on Flickr

This defies the laws of gravity.

I'd forgotten about it, but originally there were three-tube guardrails on the railroad bridge, even though by the time it was built in the mid eighties, GDOT had stopped using them. They were a generation older than the ones used into the seventies.

Crossposted to The good, the bad, and the ugly

These appeared within the last couple of weeks as the new interchange at GA 316 and Harbins Road replaced the former traffic signal there. Apologies for the poor quality, but we were facing directly into the sun and it took every bit of photo-editing power my Galaxy S10 could muster to make them this clear. It also dramatizes the fact that there are visibility issues in addition to the comprehension issues I'm about to discuss.

This sign is at the beginning of an auxiliary lane added to develop the capacity of the two-lane, two-destination offramp ahead. There's an MUTCD-compliant way to sign this condition-- as it happens, it was used a few miles up the road a couple of years ago. Nobody really likes it, though, and GDOT usually does something else, such as this or even this.

Here, though, GDOT decided to go with an MUTCD-defiant unisign, a concept that, as I understand it, proved inferior to APL's in whatever testing was done, which is why APLs are in the MUTCD and unisigns like this aren't. The divider line, rather than being placed directly above the center arrow to indicate an option lane, is located to the left of said arrow, indicating, incorrectly, that two lanes go to the offramp and only one continues on the mainline. Really, it would've been more accurate to use a conventional (MUTCD-defiant) sign like this with an arrowless pullthrough. I guess that they did it this way because they really, really wanted to inform drivers that the offramp splits later on, causing the Sugarloaf Parkway text to displace the dividing line from its proper location. Ironically and infuriatingly, the Sugarloaf Parkway branch of the offramp is closed, with Sugarloaf traffic using a temporary offramp in the vicinity of the bridge we see in the distance. 

Next comes an APL at the exit divergence. Again, the Sugarloaf Parkway text displaces the divider line to the left of its correct location. Note to designers: The dividing line on an APL ALWAYS goes in the crotch of the split arrow. Here, IMO, they would've done better to omit it altogether. Or, better, they could've gone with

Sugarloaf Pkwy
Harbins Road

and not had a problem.

Also, as I mentioned before, the Sugarloaf Parkway branch of the offramp isn't open, and drivers bound there need to stay on the mainline until the vicinity of the bridge. They should've blacked out the curved part of the split arrow, not the straight part. WTF were they thinking?

But, wait: there's more: There's no reason to encourage drivers to use both lanes of the ramp because the ramp enters a tortuous one-lane detour shortly after the not-yet-operational split. Wow.

One more thing, and this is design rather than signage: They really shouldn't have combined Sugarloaf and Harbins onto a single offramp. As you can see, it needlessly complicates signage and operations. Besides, they're separate exits in the other direction anyway.

I'm amazed that they didn't just widen 316 through there at the same time of doing that construction. Passing lanes are badly needed there during rush hour, IMO


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version