Phoenix Area Highways

[Max Rockatansky]

For those of you who drive on the valley freeways, would you rather see ADOT continue with rubberized asphalt or go back to concrete? Maybe it's because of the heavy traffic, or weather, or end of life cycle on some freeway pavement, but I personally wouldn't mind if ADOT rolled back the use of rubberized asphalt.

The rubberized asphalt seems to go bad within a few years. I wouldn't mind if ADOT rolled back its use but I don't see that happening, especially with all of the urban freeways near residential areas.

I'm not a fan of its poor quality regarding maintenance but as someone who owned a house a couple hundred feet from AZ 101 it made a huge difference with the noise.

[kdk]

Now that the SMF is open, I saw some recent news about the massive "Broadway Curve" project along I-10 getting started later this year.  The news reports were vague and the ADOT site seems about 6 months behind, still talking about hearings.  https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/interstate-10-broadway-curve-interstate-17-split-loop-202-santan
I'm glad they'll finally clean up the mess of the AZ 143/1-10/US 60 interchanges that back up now already at 2pm for evening rush hour.

[Sonic99]

Now that the SMF is open, I saw some recent news about the massive "Broadway Curve" project along I-10 getting started later this year.  The news reports were vague and the ADOT site seems about 6 months behind, still talking about hearings.  https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/interstate-10-broadway-curve-interstate-17-split-loop-202-santan
I'm glad they'll finally clean up the mess of the AZ 143/1-10/US 60 interchanges that back up now already at 2pm for evening rush hour.

The widening they're proposing would mean rebuilding pretty much every interchange, along with a significant overhaul of the Superstition interchange, right? I don't think many, if any, of the current overpasses/underpasses have the space to accommodate that many new lanes. And during construction this is going to be a complete clusterfuck the likes of which the Valley hasn't seen in a long time. Really the biggest "rebuild" of any of the Valley freeways I can ever remember. Everything else has been adding a lane here and a lane their, outside of the "new construction" obviously.

[Zonie]

At least from this planning doc a few years ago, there weren't major changes to the Superstition interchange itself (page 7).  However, the exits south of US 60 could use a rebuild, particularly Warner.

http://azmag.gov/Portals/0/Documents/I-10%20I-17%20Spine%20Study/2017-09_MAG_Spine_ASTR_Chap_06_Recommendation.pdf

[Pink Jazz]

It appears that Queen Creek is going back to Clearview, although new signage has been inconsistent. Mesa and Gilbert on the other hand are sticking with FHWA.

[Exit58]

Ok what's up with ADOT's new optional exit signs? I've been noticing a lot of new signs are erroneously using 'EXIT ONLY' signage at the gore points for lanes that continue straight and are optional exits. These signs are so new that Google Maps doesn't yet have them on Street View but I noticed them at the 202-10 interchange in Chandler and where I-8 ends at I-10 in Casa Grande.



The two right lanes are exit only but the left lane should be a white arrow, correct? The advance signage correctly reflects this.



Here's I-8's terminus as I-10 in Casa Grande. All the advance signage is fine but it's the gore point signage that's bothering me. It shouldn't be 'EXIT ONLY'. Compare it to the older signage, which is viewable on Google Street View.

Compare both of those to the Superstition Freeway's western terminus, who's signage was replaced in late 18-early 19 as well when ADOT changed the lane configuration to allow for optional exit from lane #2 onto I-10 East. This one correctly reflects the fact that the number 2 lane is an optional exit lane.


I can see this being quite confusing to some, at least the ones in the Metro Area. The one on I-8 doesn't matter as much since there's no decel lane.

For those of you who drive on the valley freeways, would you rather see ADOT continue with rubberized asphalt or go back to concrete? Maybe it's because of the heavy traffic, or weather, or end of life cycle on some freeway pavement, but I personally wouldn't mind if ADOT rolled back the use of rubberized asphalt.

I saw on the Loop 202/Santan EB that there is a test section of 'Quiet Concrete'. It's on the EB side prior to Dobson. I haven't been able to drive it myself, all I saw was a sign from the EB Dobson Onramp saying 'END QUIET CONCRETE TEST SECTION' or something to that effect.

[Rothman]

NYSDOT has done this as well at Exit 17 (Bridge St) on I-690 EB.

Wonder if it's a trend.

[Bobby5280]

On I-20 multiple overhead advance signs for I-30 have a big yellow "Exit Only" bar along the bottom. The left 3 lanes are "exiting" while 2 lanes of I-20 veer off to the right.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7258938,-97.5846435,3a,75y,112.19h,92.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx1Byql2lTMlaAgt6JagJ0g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Maybe this is indeed a new trend or regulation. The EB I-20 signs leading to the I-30 split were installed sometime between mid 2015-16.

[roadfro]

Ok what's up with ADOT's new optional exit signs? I've been noticing a lot of new signs are erroneously using 'EXIT ONLY' signage at the gore points for lanes that continue straight and are optional exits. These signs are so new that Google Maps doesn't yet have them on Street View but I noticed them at the 202-10 interchange in Chandler and where I-8 ends at I-10 in Casa Grande.



The two right lanes are exit only but the left lane should be a white arrow, correct? The advance signage correctly reflects this.



Here's I-8's terminus as I-10 in Casa Grande. All the advance signage is fine but it's the gore point signage that's bothering me. It shouldn't be 'EXIT ONLY'. Compare it to the older signage, which is viewable on Google Street View.

Compare both of those to the Superstition Freeway's western terminus, who's signage was replaced in late 18-early 19 as well when ADOT changed the lane configuration to allow for optional exit from lane #2 onto I-10 East. This one correctly reflects the fact that the number 2 lane is an optional exit lane.


I can see this being quite confusing to some, at least the ones in the Metro Area. The one on I-8 doesn't matter as much since there's no decel lane.

For the first: This might depend on where the sign is located. If the above sign is replacing the one in this Street View, then the depiction is accurate based on the 2009 MUTCD. The sign structure is located at or just downstream of the theoretical/painted gore point, so 2009 MUTCD indicates it should be marked as exit only. (Not a change I agreed with...I think this a bit confusing.)

I also think it is not necessary to sign this as "Exit 161 A-B", as there's only a single exit from the mainline. In the street view, Exit 161A and 161B are not distinguished downstream.


For the second: The ramp to I-10 west definitely shouldn't be signed as exit only, since there's not a separate dedicated lane to that ramp. Also, the all-yellow left exit tab is not MUTCD spec. I wouldn't mark the through lanes to I-10 east with an exit tab, and wouldn't show them as exit only either.

On I-20 multiple overhead advance signs for I-30 have a big yellow "Exit Only" bar along the bottom. The left 3 lanes are "exiting" while 2 lanes of I-20 veer off to the right.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7258938,-97.5846435,3a,75y,112.19h,92.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx1Byql2lTMlaAgt6JagJ0g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Maybe this is indeed a new trend or regulation. The EB I-20 signs leading to the I-30 split were installed sometime between mid 2015-16.

I-30 is technically the exit from the "through" route I-20, and is signed as a left exit. So even though I-20 appears to be exiting itself and has fewer lanes, this one is signed correctly.

[jakeroot]

For the second: The ramp to I-10 west definitely shouldn't be signed as exit only, since there's not a separate dedicated lane to that ramp. Also, the all-yellow left exit tab is not MUTCD spec. I wouldn't mark the through lanes to I-10 east with an exit tab, and wouldn't show them as exit only either.

(only quoting the relevant paragraph)

I would obviously agree with you, but the the far left lane of the Exit 161 sign (first image) also does not have a dedicated exit-only lane, but is still required to be signed with an exit-only label as the sign is beyond the point of divergence. Is the Exit 178B sign not following the same standards of marking exits beyond the point of divergence with exit-only signage (irrespective of the number of exiting lanes)?

[roadfro]

For the second: The ramp to I-10 west definitely shouldn't be signed as exit only, since there's not a separate dedicated lane to that ramp. Also, the all-yellow left exit tab is not MUTCD spec. I wouldn't mark the through lanes to I-10 east with an exit tab, and wouldn't show them as exit only either.

(only quoting the relevant paragraph)

I would obviously agree with you, but the the far left lane of the Exit 161 sign (first image) also does not have a dedicated exit-only lane, but is still required to be signed with an exit-only label as the sign is beyond the point of divergence. Is the Exit 178B sign not following the same standards of marking exits beyond the point of divergence with exit-only signage (irrespective of the number of exiting lanes)?

The Exit 161 signage is a situation that follows 2009 MUTCD spec for signing exits with option lanes. With that spec, by definition you would have at least one lane dropping to exit and another lane that carries the option. The Exit 178B situation doesn't have an option lane in this same sense.

I would say to sign it as a split, which typically has one side using exit only banners *if* there is a dedicated lane–again, 178B doesn't have a dedicated lane.

So this situation doesn't really match any of the MUTCD examples. I personally wouldn't sign exit only for this situation at all–I believe the original signage was superior. (I also wouldn't have given this split exit numbers either.)

[jakeroot]

The Exit 161 signage is a situation that follows 2009 MUTCD spec for signing exits with option lanes. With that spec, by definition you would have at least one lane dropping to exit and another lane that carries the option. The Exit 178B situation doesn't have an option lane in this same sense.

I would say to sign it as a split, which typically has one side using exit only banners *if* there is a dedicated lane–again, 178B doesn't have a dedicated lane.

So this situation doesn't really match any of the MUTCD examples. I personally wouldn't sign exit only for this situation at all–I believe the original signage was superior. (I also wouldn't have given this split exit numbers either.)

I understand your point, especially that this is an unusual circumstance, but I need you to think about this pragmatically:

Exit-only lanes with an option lane require signing both the mandatory and option lanes as exit-only lanes beyond the point of divergence. Yes, this means that the non-dedicated exit lane is still signed as an exit-only lane, because the exit sign is positioned over the option lane at a point beyond the point of divergence, where that option lane has formed its own lane.

The Exit 178B sign is identical to situations like this, minus an accompanying exit-only lane: the sign is positioned over the "option lane" at a point beyond the point of divergence, where the option lane has formed its own lane. Yet here, these situations are generally not supposed to be signed with exit-only signage.

Why is it that an accompanying exit-only lane changes how an option-lane exit is signed? It is inconsistent, plain and simple. I cannot blame an engineer for how the Exit 178B sign was designed, because it matches the standards for exit-only option lanes.

[roadfro]

The Exit 161 signage is a situation that follows 2009 MUTCD spec for signing exits with option lanes. With that spec, by definition you would have at least one lane dropping to exit and another lane that carries the option. The Exit 178B situation doesn't have an option lane in this same sense.

I would say to sign it as a split, which typically has one side using exit only banners *if* there is a dedicated lane–again, 178B doesn't have a dedicated lane.

So this situation doesn't really match any of the MUTCD examples. I personally wouldn't sign exit only for this situation at all–I believe the original signage was superior. (I also wouldn't have given this split exit numbers either.)

I understand your point, especially that this is an unusual circumstance, but I need you to think about this pragmatically:

Exit-only lanes with an option lane require signing both the mandatory and option lanes as exit-only lanes beyond the point of divergence. Yes, this means that the non-dedicated exit lane is still signed as an exit-only lane, because the exit sign is positioned over the option lane at a point beyond the point of divergence, where that option lane has formed its own lane.

The Exit 178B sign is identical to situations like this, minus an accompanying exit-only lane: the sign is positioned over the "option lane" at a point beyond the point of divergence, where the option lane has formed its own lane. Yet here, these situations are generally not supposed to be signed with exit-only signage.

Why is it that an accompanying exit-only lane changes how an option-lane exit is signed? It is inconsistent, plain and simple. I cannot blame an engineer for how the Exit 178B sign was designed, because it matches the standards for exit-only option lanes.

If we're talking pragmatically, we should keep in mind that an option lane refers to an interior travel lane that has the option to exit or stay on–a travel lane on the extreme left or right side of the road is not an option lane.

An "exit only" panel has historically meant to be an indication that a particular lane drops off from the through route and is forced to exit. The MUTCD indicates exit only panels are to be used in cases where a lane is dropped–the signage standards are (unfortunately) different if it's a conventional lane drop versus a lane drop with option lane.

No lane is dropped on the Exit 178B example.


All this would have been much more clear prior to the 2009 MUTCD, as the exit direction signs were forward of the gore point. The adopted strictness of "one arrow per lane" in the manual overall necessitated the new placement of exit direction signs and standards with option lanes, thus muddying the traditional definition of "exit only" considerably...this is the one item in the 2009 MUTCD that I greatly disagreed with and hope is changed in the next manual.

[jakeroot]

I understand your point, especially that this is an unusual circumstance, but I need you to think about this pragmatically:

Exit-only lanes with an option lane require signing both the mandatory and option lanes as exit-only lanes beyond the point of divergence. Yes, this means that the non-dedicated exit lane is still signed as an exit-only lane, because the exit sign is positioned over the option lane at a point beyond the point of divergence, where that option lane has formed its own lane.

The Exit 178B sign is identical to situations like this, minus an accompanying exit-only lane: the sign is positioned over the "option lane" at a point beyond the point of divergence, where the option lane has formed its own lane. Yet here, these situations are generally not supposed to be signed with exit-only signage.

Why is it that an accompanying exit-only lane changes how an option-lane exit is signed? It is inconsistent, plain and simple. I cannot blame an engineer for how the Exit 178B sign was designed, because it matches the standards for exit-only option lanes.

If we're talking pragmatically, we should keep in mind that an option lane refers to an interior travel lane that has the option to exit or stay on–a travel lane on the extreme left or right side of the road is not an option lane.

An "exit only" panel has historically meant to be an indication that a particular lane drops off from the through route and is forced to exit. The MUTCD indicates exit only panels are to be used in cases where a lane is dropped–the signage standards are (unfortunately) different if it's a conventional lane drop versus a lane drop with option lane.

No lane is dropped on the Exit 178B example.

All this would have been much more clear prior to the 2009 MUTCD, as the exit direction signs were forward of the gore point. The adopted strictness of "one arrow per lane" in the manual overall necessitated the new placement of exit direction signs and standards with option lanes, thus muddying the traditional definition of "exit only" considerably...this is the one item in the 2009 MUTCD that I greatly disagreed with and hope is changed in the next manual.

Well, if we were talking pragmatically (how many times can we use this word?), our conclusion would be that any lane that can either continues on, or exits off, would be an "option lane". Option lane = right-most or left-most travel lane (assuming an approaching right or left exit, respectively).

The MUTCD may disagree on what constitutes an option lane (I assume their definition involves there being an accompanying exit-only lane), but from the perspective of a regular driver, option lanes and travel lanes that have exits are one-in-the-same: they both allow the driver to exit or continue on.

No lane is dropped at Exit 178B, but the left-most lane of Exit 161 also does not drop. Despite this, the lanes are signed differently beyond the point of divergence.

Nevertheless, I agree with your assessment on the 2009 MUTCD. I am totally a proponent of arrow-per-lane signs, but I don't feel the FHWA did themselves any favors by muddying the differences that I'm bringing up here, which, from a driver's perspective (mine, you could say, as I'm far less familiar with the MUTCD than you), are basically the same situation (ramp diverges that don't require you to exit should be signed the same, regardless of how many lanes exit).

[Pink Jazz]

Looks like the Loop 101 Price Freeway will have a first for the Phoenix area, roadside DMS on "T" posts. These have been installed the past three years in rural Arizona, but now these will be installed for the first time in the Phoenix area.

[Zonie]

I recall seeing these roadside Ts on the 303 NB this past weekend. 

[codeGR]

Are these installed along the median barrier?

[Zonie]

Are these installed along the median barrier?

Yes, in the rock/landscape portion between the retaining wall and shoulder.

[Pink Jazz]

It appears one of them will replace the Sylvia/SES DMS gantry in the southbound direction, although I am not sure if the existing Sylvia/SES DMS will be retained (it was refurbished not too long ago). Another one is also being installed in the SB direction on the opposite side of the Daktronics character matrix LED DMS in the NB direction.

[jakeroot]

I'm only familiar with one (or at least what I think you're talking about). Westbound WA-512 near WA-7 has a roadside matrix display. The T is shorter on the shoulder side. This stretch of freeway has no overhead gantry signs, so the placement here seems fairly logical.

These seem to be relatively rare? Not sure if that aligns with your experience, Pink Jazz.

[Pink Jazz]

I'm only familiar with one (or at least what I think you're talking about). Westbound WA-512 near WA-7 has a roadside matrix display. The T is shorter on the shoulder side. This stretch of freeway has no overhead gantry signs, so the placement here seems fairly logical.

These seem to be relatively rare? Not sure if that aligns with your experience, Pink Jazz.

Nope, the T is symmetrical, but are mounted roadside.

[Pink Jazz]

BTW, I think the reason due to the delay in adding travel times to Loop 202 DMS is due to a bug with the Skyline DMS control boards dropping connectivity with the Cameleon ITS software (possibly due to some incompatibility), requiring reboots to reconnect.  ADOT will be retrofitting the Skyline DMS with new SES America control boards and color LED displays.  Several in rural Arizona have already been retrofitted.  My guess once this is complete we might see travel times on Loop 202.

Oddly, NMDOT uses Skyline control software, but has specified Adaptive DMS exclusively since the early 2010s (NMDOT recently chose not to competitively bid their most recent DMS purchase for the sake of commonality).

[jakeroot]

Damn you know a lot about this stuff.

How do you find out about all the software and stuff? Manufacturers are easy enough to spot from the road, I suppose.

[Pink Jazz]

Damn you know a lot about this stuff.

How do you find out about all the software and stuff? Manufacturers are easy enough to spot from the road, I suppose.

Depends on the manufacturer.  I don't think Adaptive puts visible branding on the front of its DMS like Daktronics and Skyline do.

BTW, one of the new full color high resolution Daktronics DMS have been installed on the "T" posts in the southbound direction on the Loop 101 Price Freeway.  This will be the fifth freeway in the Phoenix area to use these new DMS - the others being Loop 303, the Loop 202 SMF, the eastern portion of the Loop 202 SanTan, and I-10 in Goodyear. Also another "T" post for a DMS has been installed in the northbound direction.

[Zonie]

BTW, I think the reason due to the delay in adding travel times to Loop 202 DMS is due to a bug with the Skyline DMS control boards dropping connectivity with the Cameleon ITS software (possibly due to some incompatibility), requiring reboots to reconnect.  ADOT will be retrofitting the Skyline DMS with new SES America control boards and color LED displays.  Several in rural Arizona have already been retrofitted.  My guess once this is complete we might see travel times on Loop 202.

Oddly, NMDOT uses Skyline control software, but has specified Adaptive DMS exclusively since the early 2010s (NMDOT recently chose not to competitively bid their most recent DMS purchase for the sake of commonality).

I noticed they were cutting in grooves for the sensors this past weekend as well.  I thought that was a bit odd, considering that might have been installed concurrently with road construction.