Recent posts

#1

Traffic Control / Re: Why don't option lane BGSs...

Last post by Tom958 - Today at 12:09:16 PM

I loathe exit only signage over option lanes.  I don't care if it's MUTCD compliant; I hate it.  "EXIT ONLY" should mean that if you're in that lane, there's no way out.

The EXIT ONLY in the example above is in fact over the dropped lane. The white arrow is over the option lane. The lane at right is a merge lane that ends beyond the curve-- you can see the RIGHT LANE ENDS yellow diamond on the right shoulder. Hopefully, GDOT will remember to use the proper striping when it's repaved in the near future. As it stands now, it's really confusing since there are so many instances on this part of 285 where auxiliary lanes extend from onramp to offramp.

Since you mentioned the problem in general, though, GDOT is really bad about locating the gore sign upstream from the theoretical gore, thus placing the left black arrow unambiguously over the option lane. This is one of many examples. To add insult to injury, the gantry here is new so it could've been installed at the correct location, but instead they located it immediately behind the previous gantry. Wait: I'm wrong! On this one, they put the new gantry in front of the old one! WTF. GDOT?

#2

Traffic Control / Re: Why don't option lane BGSs...

Last post by Rothman - Today at 11:19:32 AM

I loathe exit only signage over option lanes.  I don't care if it's MUTCD compliant; I hate it.  "EXIT ONLY" should mean that if you're in that lane, there's no way out.

#3

Traffic Control / Re: Why don't option lane BGSs...

Last post by Tom958 - Today at 10:59:42 AM

I wish I'd seen this when it was current. This is one of my favorite topics. First, I uploaded this snippet from the 2009 MUTCD six years ago:




In my own state of Georgia, DOT started implementing the 2009 scheme in 2014 or so, though with some major and rather inexplicable exceptions:

In 2017, four signs on the Downtown Connector that had been replaced with 2009 MUTCD-compliant signage were modified to reintroduce the pre-2009 two-color scheme on the signs at the gore, though the option lanes were still hidden per the 2009 MUTCD upstream from there. This was done at the same time as three noncompliant APLs were brought into compliance.* Two years later, two of them were changed back to the complaint scheme when John Lewis's name was appended to Freedom Parkway. Apparently, the designer didn't get the memo that Figure 2E-11 in the 2009 MUTCD didn't apply on the Downtown Connector.

*Two of those APLs were made compliant by changing the lane striping to reintroduce option lanes that had been done away with decades earlier. On one, this was done only days after repaving, requiring brand-new pavement markings to be scraped up and reapplied. Whatever was done, it was apparently done in a panic.

In late 2017-early 2018, a huge signage replacement project from Jimmy Carter Boulevard to I-985 followed the same scheme as on the Downtown Connector: two-color at the splits, hidden option lane upstream. That's nine noncompliant signs if I'm counting correctly including replacement of this compliant but hideous sign installed as part of an earlier project.

In 2019, we got this mess involving three signs. After I brought it to GDOT's attention, I was told that the designer of these signs no longer worked there-- as if this was one person's fault. 




And finally so far, we have this, which went up in mid January of 2024. This would've been a good place for Georgia's first partial APL, but, alas, no.

#4

Northwest / Re: Washington

Last post by TEG24601 - Today at 10:58:14 AM

Mukilteo is considering a rename for their section of SR 525, which has been called the "Speedway" for decades.

https://www.heraldnet.com/news/whats-in-a-speedway-mukilteo-considers-renaming-main-drag/

Joe, Joe, Joe... first you keep the state from actually bypassing the city, which most of your residents wanted.  Now you are wasting time and money on the name of the road.  Is there anything you can do that makes sense?

Just call is SR-525 and be done with it, if you are concerned.  Mukilteo Blvd. already exists, and anything that isn't Speedway or Highway will be confused with Mukilteo Blvd.

#5

General Highway Talk / Re: Routing Decisions that can...

Last post by dantheman - Today at 10:20:59 AM

So, my question for the forum: What are some routing decisions that can go badly?

A similar one that burned me recently is between the Hartford, CT area and Cape Cod, MA. The two options are basically I-84/I-90/I-495, or pick your favorite non-freeway route to Providence and then I-195. The choice has to be made at the I-84/CT 74 junction in Tolland, CT at the latest, or even earlier if you prefer US 6 to 44/101/6.

The problem spots are often I-90 between 84 and Worcester (over 20 miles from the decision point) or Providence (over an hour from the decision point). Providence is typically worse during weekday rush hours, while 90 is typically bad on summer weekends and big holiday travel times. However, an accident on either can quickly snowball into a half-hour traffic jam or worse.

With the Washington Bridge on I-195 all messed up, things are even worse now. I recently started this drive around 8:30 PM on a weeknight, and Google showed no traffic in Providence so I went that way. Unknown to me, the Washington Bridge construction had I-195 EB down to a single lane starting at 9 PM. By the time I got there, it took 50 minutes to go about 2 miles from the 95/195 interchange to the far side of the Washington Bridge.

#6

Mid-South / Re: April bid openings: $1.09 ...

Last post by Rothman - Today at 10:14:25 AM

As a UT fan, any use of my tax dollars to help OU fans get to Dallas is a non-starter for me.

The governor as a fellow longhorn must stand up to such fiscal frivolousness.

He better not rollover and let out of state crimson and cream influences dictate Texas policy.

Suggesting that programming of transportation projects should be based not on actual need but on college football loyalties is absolutely unhinged behavior.

Nah.  I'm with him on keeping OU fans out of Dallas.

#7

Traffic Control / Re: Is Georgia finally getting...

Last post by Tom958 - Today at 09:34:40 AM

The exit to US 23 rightly deserves an exit only panel since that lane drops.

This isn't a lane drop, the exit uses a regular deceleration lane. I don't think it would make sense to drop a thru lane right before a major system interchange.

An added deceleration lane still drops, so an exit only panel isn't out of the question (Nevada DOT will typically sign these with exit only).

Georgia doesn't normally use decel lanes on freeways, so I checked a couple of places on I-78 in New Jersey and found their decel lanes to be right at half as long as the one in question: 346 feet in NJ vs. 686 in Georgia. If the decel lane was a mile long, it'd be considered an auxiliary lane in need of EXIT ONLY signage when it's dropped. So, there's a question of at what length one type of lane becomes the other, and GDOT has changed its opinion on the matter, at least at this particular location.

That, however, isn't the obvious issue with this sign. The issue is the fact that GDOT modified two MUTCD-compliant signs to make them noncompliant: the Buford Highway sign with its now-nonstandard EXIT ONLY treatment, and the APL on which the split and curved arrows were replaced with straight ones. WTF were they thinking?

After further consideration, I surmise that there must've been a problem with stupid people thinking that the curved APL arrow for the 85 south et al exit was pointing to the Buford Highway offramp despite there being conventional signage for the Buford Highway exit, and that the different format of the Buford Highway sign contributed to some drivers overlooking it (is that a problem here? Or here?). That would explain everything GDOT did here. If they could've done it with a wave of their magic wand, they probably would've moved the vertical divider line a foot or so to the left to be directly over the arrow between the 85 north and 85 south legends to give some indication that that's an option lane.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this is that there's no way in hell that a designer would've come up with this initially-- it's the product of unexpectedly bad performance due to unexpectedly bad drivers. All in all, it would've been better for GDOT to have stuck with conventional signage. The only advantage of an APL at this point is to show drivers that there's an option lane for the two 85 exits, something that the current sign no longer does.

#8

Bridges / Re: Bridges of the Mississippi...

Last post by Alex - Today at 08:30:56 AM

Bummer! I hope the site is only transitioning to a new server, but it hasn't been updated in so long that it appears likely to be gone for good.

Looked up the domain registration and it was updated on April 23, but the domain name expiration is February 21, 2027. That coincides with the establishment of February 21, 2000. So it was prepaid for several years, but maybe the hosting expired and GoDaddy has it with parking until new hosting is established? And if it is not, the parking will extend until 2027, but the site remans dead.

The registration uses Domains by Proxy to conceal the registration information, which is a GoDaddy service that I also use for AARoads. He might have prepaid for that as well.

I'll have to delink the citation URL's from AARoads to johnweeks.com at some point.

#9

Traffic Control / Re: Here to There Photo Game

Last post by Jim - Today at 08:27:00 AM

Is a US 129 visible somewhere in the Alcoa picture?

Yes, this is a difficult game.  The rules in the OP were probably a little too restrictive for it to take off like some of the other photo games have.

#10

Traffic Control / Re: The road sign city name ph...

Last post by Jim - Today at 08:24:53 AM

Ennis -> Sutton or Streatham, England.  From a bus in or near Clapham.  June 29, 2023.