AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 1 
 on: Today at 11:53:37 AM 
Started by Plutonic Panda - Last post by vdeane
I’m pleased to be able to use E-ZPass on the Turnpike, but I find the way they’ve implemented cashless tolling to be mildly annoying. Instead of a single entry for the old ticket system like you’d see on the Jersey Turnpike, there are constant gantries that charge separate line items for stupid amounts like 32¢. At one point near Fort Pierce we passed under two toll gantries within four minutes. Makes for a messy statement when I looked online to see whether the tolls posted.
The Thruway did that too.  :crazy: Why can't more toll roads do it like the MassPike did and group them together so that the bill looks the same as it always did?

 2 
 on: Today at 11:45:12 AM 
Started by Tom89t - Last post by roadfro
Quote from: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
Upgrading the T: Weigh in on a New Type of Train Signal on 3rd Street
Rachel Hyden, 22–FEB-2017

Implementing a Standard, Concise Design for Train Signals


Currently, Muni trains are guided by three different types of train signals. We’re in the process of upgrading 400 signals along the T Line to one uniform system within the next few months.


The three designs used for existing train signals (left) which will be consolidated into one standard type of signal (right).

Very interesting that they decided to use red in the final design. The third pattern (with the two white bars) they're changing out is the only one of these that is MUTCD-compliant.
Does Calif. have a State Supplement to the Federal Manual? If they do, does it maybe authorize the red stop bar to be used?

California actually has a state MUTCD.

The most recent CA MUTCD states in section 8C.11 that all LRT signal indications should be as shown in Figure 8C-3(CA), and that figure notes that all indications are white. However, section 8C.11 is a guidance statement and not a standard, so technically they can get away with using the red I guess.

Also of note: Figure 8C-3(CA) is a modification of the national MUTCD Figure 8C-3 that eliminates the standard three-section LRT signal display as an option.

 3 
 on: Today at 11:39:49 AM 
Started by roadman65 - Last post by Rothman
Also in MA: Woburn. Can be pronounced as Whoa-burn or Woo-burn.

Just like Baw ston is Bah Ston to Bostonians.
Nah.  You're mixing Worcester and Boston accents on that one.

 4 
 on: Today at 11:39:26 AM 
Started by roadman65 - Last post by Rothman
Also in MA: Woburn. Can be pronounced as Whoa-burn or Woo-burn.
Meh.  The MBTA says WHOA-bin.  That's what I go with.

 5 
 on: Today at 11:37:22 AM 
Started by Alex - Last post by thenetwork
Colorado's license plates make it to the big time:

https://theathletic.com/news/colorado-rockies-uniform-city-connect/BrPiblTH9l0Y/

 6 
 on: Today at 11:37:09 AM 
Started by MikeTheActuary - Last post by DrSmith
It's interesting you can see the Route 201, 27, 6, and 11 corridors through there.

 7 
 on: Today at 11:34:02 AM 
Started by Mergingtraffic - Last post by DrSmith
...And they could've solved the Exit 86 issue relatively easy, without any flyovers.  Personally, I would close Exit 86 and widen Exit 85 to 2 lanes with improved the geometry of the "second chance" ramp from 15SB to 91SB (make the curve more gradual).  This would have enabled vehicles to enter I-91 on the right, vs the left.  You could have then created an "operational lane" from the merge point down to Exit 26 (or Exit 25).  You would have to widen the bridge carrying I-91 over CT 15 to accommodate the extra lane (and the 2nd lane could have continued for a bit before ending).  Having the ramp enter on the right vs the left eliminates the slow moving trucks having to cross over a lane of high speed traffic.  And with some lane shifting, you could maintain I-91 South having 3 thru lanes in the Exit 27 vicinity. 

Such an idea would have a potential effect on the existing ramp from Airport Rd to 91/15SB and potentially the 15NB to 91SB ramp, the latter not too terribly heavily trafficked.
I'm wondering if they didn't want to widen Exit 86 because doing so would require slightly shifting I-91 SB to the right and into the ROW for the CSOR tracks. Perhaps the federal funding they received only covered Exit 29.
My guess is that they will conduct a study for Exit 86 shortly after Exit 29 is finished.

Also consider that doing Exit 86 at the exact same time as Exit 29 would have prolonged the ongoing night work and lane closures.

I thought at least part of the logic of Exit 29 was in preparation for the 84 reconstruction through Hartford (whenever that occurs) and that a suggested through route detour from Waterbury would 691 East onto 91 North to the Charter Oak Bridge back to I-84. With the old Exit 29 having problems already and frequently having delays, adding extra traffic would only make it worse.

On the opposite side, Exit 86 doesn't back up as easily although with heavy traffic it does have issues such as busy weekends. Now if long term you are trying to detour extra traffic around Hartford to the south, that ramp may also have a lot more delays. Maybe it was considered and decided to be not as necessary compared to the Exit 29 improvements.

However, there is still plenty of time for that it seems. I remember probably 8 years back there was thinking some of the initial utility relocation work would be starting around now (2022-23 or so). There's still the underground cloverleaf interchange option to consider (https://www.courant.com/business/hc-pol-haar-larson-tunnel-project-bocce-shuster-20170915-story.html)

 8 
 on: Today at 11:30:29 AM 
Started by Max Rockatansky - Last post by skluth
Quote
Tony's is just overpriced now?

Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.

The old restaurant closed. It's now in Clayton thanks to the current generation of owners. It went downhill starting in the 90's.

 9 
 on: Today at 11:25:08 AM 
Started by roadman65 - Last post by roadman65
Like NY and NJ, Pennsylvania has an alalgam of municipalities: cities, boroughs, first-class townships, and second-class townships of varying sizes. Some townships are bigger than cities, boroughs, etc.

So true. I live in Clark and Woodbridge  in NJ and saw how our state was a mess with different names for a nature in municipal government.  Then you have three exceptions which are South Orange, Ridgefied Park, and Loch Arbour that all are incorporated as Villages.  Then who knows what Orange, NJ  is as it’s got two titles both a city and township.

 10 
 on: Today at 11:23:36 AM 
Started by 1 - Last post by DrSmith
Does MassDOT ever plan to rid the clusterfuck ramps between I-90 ( the Mass Pike), I-290, I-395, US 20, and MA 12?

Now with AET the need for a one plaza connection is no longer, so why not upgrade it all and eliminate the I-290/395 and US 20 cloverleaf as well.

I would guess it’s a combination of (1) cost (inflation), (2) complexity in the current ramp configuration, (3) geography (not in metro Boston), and (4) NIMBYism (a lot of residences/businesses nearby). Perhaps if people keep getting priced out of Boston and move to central Mass. it may become a priority.

That interchange is fit into a tight space between both residential/business and also geography. There are rock cuts already fro the ramps. Not an impossible stopping point, although adds more to rebuilding. There is also the lake/reservoir right there which adds complexity in redesign.

Without the toll plaza, it seems to me when going through that there is more weaving with heavier traffic that actually slows it down even more. The toll plaza had several lanes and helped to stagger traffic heading into the rest of the interchange.

A modest shorter term solution might be to reconfigure and even remove some of the ramps for Route 12. It would alleviate the constant ramp traffic in a tight space. Instead of separate N and S access to/from Route 12, it could potentially be converted to single on and off set there. Some movements could even be re-routed via Route 20 with some other local improvements to the surface streets.

With the removal of some Route 12 ramps, that might also provide room to improve the radius on some of the curves on the ramps between the Pike and 290, although that would be a little bigger effort and include more new bridges and such.

There are probably some smaller improvements that could help it before any type major rebuild is considered. Beyond the 495 interchange, there is also the rebuild of the Allston-Brighton interchange and viaducts upcoming too.


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.