Florida

[rickmastfan67]

IIRC the Trout River Bridge project on I-95 should be done too.

It is.  I drove it in late '09.

[roadman65]

So does that mean they are finally done with the improvements to FL 50 and Good Homes Road? It's been going on for ever it seems like...

Now they are done here, but working further west in Winter Garden and from the Lake/ Orange County Line to US 27!  Clermont and Orlando are now part of the same metropolis.  Back in 2000 there was plenty of open land from Clermont to Winter Garden.

[DeaconG]

There's still some repercussions from the bill that would have broken up the expressway authorities in Tampa and Orlando-several counties saw their expressway authorities go away anyway:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-seminole-expressway-dissolve-20110516,0,7718469.story

Brevard County had an expressway authority?   Seriously?   Who knew...

[realjd]

Brevard County had an expressway authority?   Seriously?   Who knew...

They were legally created but never actually held a meeting. There was talk last year that they'd become active and build the St. Johns Heritage Parkway as a toll freeway (which is what they should have done IMO) but they decided to build it as an "expressway" instead meaning limited, at-grade intersections.

[DeaconG]

Brevard County had an expressway authority?   Seriously?   Who knew...

They were legally created but never actually held a meeting. There was talk last year that they'd become active and build the St. Johns Heritage Parkway as a toll freeway (which is what they should have done IMO) but they decided to build it as an "expressway" instead meaning limited, at-grade intersections.

And a TWO-LANE road at that, which will be locked up with traffic five minutes after it opens.  I agree wholeheartedly, but we'll be hearing the screams of outraged drivers for years afterward.

[realjd]

And a TWO-LANE road at that, which will be locked up with traffic five minutes after it opens.  I agree wholeheartedly, but we'll be hearing the screams of outraged drivers for years afterward.

It's only going to be a 2 lane road?! I thought it was going to be at least 4. Hasn't Palm Bay learned anything from GDC's mistakes?

They kept using John Young Parkway as an example of this style of "expressway" road and how it's really not a big deal that it won't be a freeway. As if none of us realize that JYP is just as traffic clogged as every other surface street in Orlando.

[NE2]

JYP is significantly better than OBT in the Florida Mall area.

[agentsteel53]

Florida Mall

that's one way of describing the Orlando area!

[NE2]

ha. ha. ha.

[realjd]

JYP is significantly better than OBT in the Florida Mall area.

That depends on what you mean by "better". Personally, I define "better" as having a higher quantity of strip clubs and prostitutes per mile. Thus, OBT wins by a wide margin.

JYP - all the traffic without the hookers.

[Daniel Fiddler]

JYP is significantly better than OBT in the Florida Mall area.

I can agree to that since I used to live in Orlando.  In fact, I'd say from Hwy 192 in Kissimmee all the way up to I - 4 JYP is faster with the one exception of the Osceola Pkwy to the 417, which OBT is SLIGHTLY faster.  Although I would not consider JYP to be quite in the Florida Mall area, it's about a mile west.

JYP is significantly better than OBT in the Florida Mall area.

That depends on what you mean by "better". Personally, I define "better" as having a higher quantity of strip clubs and prostitutes per mile. Thus, OBT wins by a wide margin.

JYP - all the traffic without the hookers.

Yes, in that aspect, OBT is certainly better than JYP.

[Ace10]

I can agree to that since I used to live in Orlando.  In fact, I'd say from Hwy 192 in Kissimmee all the way up to I - 4 JYP is faster with the one exception of the Osceola Pkwy to the 417, which OBT is SLIGHTLY faster.  Although I would not consider JYP to be quite in the Florida Mall area, it's about a mile west.

Actually, not even a year ago (I think) they redid the John Young Pkwy and Osceola Pkwy intersection. It's now grade-separated with John Young Pkwy having freedom of movement. The interchange is a SPUI. So that may make the JYP route a little faster.

[DeaconG]

Looks like they've begun the widening of I-95 from FL 528 to FL 406-I've been watching placement of jersey barriers in the median strip of I-95 between 528 and the Port St. John exit and they've continued the shoulder widening from SR 50 north to just short of the Volusia County border with CR 5.

http://www.cflroads.com/Project/Details/52/405506_2_I_95_Widening_from_SR_528_to_south_of_SR_406

[realjd]

I took a quick iPhone picture of one of the new signs at the 520/528 interchange showing the new, yellow toll shields with the orange state outline. The use of Clearview indicates that it's an OOCEA sign, which is odd because the reassurance markers they just posted use the green TOLL banner.

[NE2]

Presumably since you're already on the toll road, you don't need the yellow toll banner on reassurance.

[realjd]

Does the MUTCD require it only at entrances then? That would make sense. Although you would think with the state route markers they would want consistency statewide.

I found some docs a few weeks ago on the FTE website with their new sign plans putting a yellow TOLL banner above the standard turnpike shield. I was going to check there again to see if they made a distinction between directional and reassurance shields but their site is broken currently.

[NE2]

I'm waiting to see if they screw up the part of 528 west of OBT. Until Universal Boulevard was extended, there was a sign on Orangewood warning of the last intersection before toll, despite 528 there never having been a toll road (except before any of the interchanges existed).

[Alps]

I believe you're supposed to have the TOLL banner on all assemblies:

2F.11 Standard: The TOLL (M4-15) auxiliary sign (see Figure 2F-4) shall have a black legend and border on a yellow background and shall be mounted directly above the route sign of a numbered toll highway or, if used, above the cardinal direction and alternative route auxiliary signs, in any route sign assembly providing directions from a non-toll highway to the toll highway or to a segment of a highway on which the payment of a toll is required.

[realjd]

"...in any route sign assembly providing directions from a non-toll highway to the toll highway or to a segment of a highway on which the payment of a toll is required."

Seems to me that NE2 was right in that it is only necessary for signs leading to the toll road.

[Ace10]

I wonder how they'll post the toll banner above the cardinal direction (per 2F.11) if the toll banner is integrated into the shield to begin with.

[realjd]

I wonder how they'll post the toll banner above the cardinal direction (per 2F.11) if the toll banner is integrated into the shield to begin with.

This is pure speculation, but perhaps that's why the created those new "unisigns"? The directional is white text on the mini-BGS, not a true banner, so they can still check the box that says they're following the standard.

The turnpike site is back up. Here is their latest set of sign standards:
http://design.floridasturnpike.com/prod_design/tppph/2010/guidedwgs/traffic/TPPPH_4_27_11.pdf

It appears that they are using the yellow toll banner on approach/connecting roads, not on reassurance markers like we suspected. Interestingly they make no mention of yellow-bannered state shields.

[Alps]

"...in any route sign assembly providing directions from a non-toll highway to the toll highway or to a segment of a highway on which the payment of a toll is required."

Seems to me that NE2 was right in that it is only necessary for signs leading to the toll road.

Did you not see the part that I bolded?

[realjd]

"...in any route sign assembly providing directions from a non-toll highway to the toll highway or to a segment of a highway on which the payment of a toll is required."

Seems to me that NE2 was right in that it is only necessary for signs leading to the toll road.

Did you not see the part that I bolded?

I did. I disagree with your interpretation. Your part in bold is qualified with the part I quoted. They're saying it should be above any route sign (or above the directional if there is one) for any sign providing directions to the toll highway. The clause about the directional banners is set off with commas. It can be read it like they used parentheses instead.

This is why I hate legalese. Two otherwise intelligent people can read a sentence and come away with two very different conclusions!

[Alps]

"...in any route sign assembly providing directions from a non-toll highway to the toll highway or to a segment of a highway on which the payment of a toll is required."

Seems to me that NE2 was right in that it is only necessary for signs leading to the toll road.

Did you not see the part that I bolded?

I did. I disagree with your interpretation. Your part in bold is qualified with the part I quoted. They're saying it should be above any route sign (or above the directional if there is one) for any sign providing directions to the toll highway. The clause about the directional banners is set off with commas. It can be read it like they used parentheses instead.

This is why I hate legalese. Two otherwise intelligent people can read a sentence and come away with two very different conclusions!

I was looking at the part you quoted as an "OR". I agree, though, it's very ambiguous.

[FLRoads]

While coming back from the Panama City area this morning and I saw this in my rear-view mirror, so I turned around and snapped a photo...

   

So far this is the only instance of the new TOLL shield in the northwest Florida area.