Northwest Observations (with some Canada too!)

[The High Plains Traveler]

Flashing green is exactly equivalent to a U.S. green arrow. Fully protected turn. Short interval after the flashing stops before oncoming traffic gets their green, but no yellow arrow equivalent.

That is true for all other provinces in Canada (more-so seen in Ontario, Quebec, and points east), however this is not the case in British Columbia.  BC uses flashing greens at pedestrian controlled signals (i.e. the cross street has a stop sign, not a red light) and so you will not be protected from oncoming traffic when you see a BC flashing green.  You can debate the wisdom behind being different from virtually the rest of North America, but that is the case in BC.

That's astounding. I say that, having (as you can probably tell from my comment) driven mostly in central and eastern Canada. I have noted some minor differences in signal design and signage conventions among provinces, but I am surprised that something as uniform across Canada as the spasmodically flashing green meaning protected left turn would have a different meaning in one province.

[New to Seattle]

In much of Europe, IIRC, they post 'meters' on many signs, such as interchange approach signs, up to 10km and 'km' above.  For example, an exit ramp that is 3.5 km away will be signed as "3500 m".

Wow, that must really confuse them to have to always be converting in their head like that. 

I've always thought of decimal miles on the odometer or on highway signs as evidence that the US isn't really committed to the fundamental logic of the Olde English system, that we really intuitively see the need for decimal measurements but we're too stuck in our ways to actually adopt good ones, so instead we use decimiles. My favorite signs in this regard are the occasional improper fraction: "EXIT 2/10 MILE".

To better reflect the philosophy of the Olde English system, I insist that we replace signs for 1 1/2 mile with signs for 2640 yards.

[vdeane]

At least in Quebec I'm sure part of the theory behind that kind of sign comes from the French civil-law tradition, under which you are allowed to do only what the law says you are allowed to do. In common-law countries like the USA, Australia, UK, and most of Canada, the basic principle is that an action is allowed unless the law prohibits it. (Both of those sentences are way oversimplified to make just the basic point.)

Wouldn't that result in a LOT more signs being needed?

[707]

I don't know if anyone has stated how the pay by mail system works before I posted this, but I'm hoping no one didn't so I don't look like a fool. The pay by mail system works on toll highways (namely the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge) in Washington, where a camera takes a picture of a vehicles liscense plate, where the liscense registration is sent through a system to match it with the vehicle owner's address and then a bill is sent to the address for the person to pay. People I know usually just get the Good2Go passes (Washington's version of the E-Z Pass for those who don't know) as they are uncomfortable with the idea of having their liscense plates being seen by unkown persons. I have to agree with them as the Pay-By-Mail system is very intrusive, but it is easier construction wise than fitting several toll booths on existing highways.

[CentralCAroadgeek]

I don't know if anyone has stated how the pay by mail system works before I posted this, but I'm hoping no one didn't so I don't look like a fool. The pay by mail system works on toll highways (namely the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge) in Washington, where a camera takes a picture of a vehicles liscense plate, where the liscense registration is sent through a system to match it with the vehicle owner's address and then a bill is sent to the address for the person to pay. People I know usually just get the Good2Go passes (Washington's version of the E-Z Pass for those who don't know) as they are uncomfortable with the idea of having their liscense plates being seen by unkown persons. I have to agree with them as the Pay-By-Mail system is very intrusive, but it is easier construction wise than fitting several toll booths on existing highways.

Pretty useful, thanks! Just how does it work for out-of-staters though?

[New to Seattle]

People I know usually just get the Good2Go passes (Washington's version of the E-Z Pass for those who don't know) as they are uncomfortable with the idea of having their liscense plates being seen by unkown persons. I have to agree with them as the Pay-By-Mail system is very intrusive, but it is easier construction wise than fitting several toll booths on existing highways.

Hopefully the following sincere questions don't make me sound like a smart alec!

How do you ever leave the garage without license plates being seen by unknown persons? I guess the objection might be to having the photo taken, or to having a photographic record of where you were at such and such time on such and such day. Even so, I don't see how the G2G fixes anything. Do the cameras take photos of entering cars regardless, or are they somehow clever and quick enough to only snap the photo when no transponder data comes in before your car has sped away? And isn't the electronic record left by your transponder an equal or greater invasion of privacy than a photo, especially if you forget to turn it off after passing the toll point?

Now for a more immediate question about pay-by-mail: My car has plates that are way way way out of state (but still from the US). I drove the 520 bridge once a month or so ago and haven't yet received a notice at my address of registration (where family members live). If it takes them, say, 9 months to get me the notice, am I still going to accrue penalties for non-payment?

[707]

I don't know if anyone has stated how the pay by mail system works before I posted this, but I'm hoping no one didn't so I don't look like a fool. The pay by mail system works on toll highways (namely the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge) in Washington, where a camera takes a picture of a vehicles liscense plate, where the liscense registration is sent through a system to match it with the vehicle owner's address and then a bill is sent to the address for the person to pay. People I know usually just get the Good2Go passes (Washington's version of the E-Z Pass for those who don't know) as they are uncomfortable with the idea of having their liscense plates being seen by unkown persons. I have to agree with them as the Pay-By-Mail system is very intrusive, but it is easier construction wise than fitting several toll booths on existing highways.

Pretty useful, thanks! Just how does it work for out-of-staters though?

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing they track down the out of state drivers using other states' liscense databases. Sorry I couldn't be more straightforward.

And for the fellow who is new to Seattle, it is supposed to take 14 days for the bill to arrive. I would send the city or state a letter right away telling them you didn't recieve the bill. Apparently if the bill isn't paid within 80 days, the driver will recieve a $40 fine.

[sp_redelectric]

I'll take the pay-by-mail option any day over the psychotic scheme ODOT has worked up for the Interstate Bridge (if, and when, tolls are implemented) - by forcing you to either have a transponder (like Good to Go or EZ-Pass), OR...you will be forced to exit the freeway, locate a business (yes, a business - not a tollbooth) that will sell you a one-time pass.  Once you find the business and buy the pass then you will get back onto the freeway.

Because the CRC planners are flat out insistent that there will BE NO TOLLBOOTHS.  Never mind that the Interstate Bridge is a major north-south highway used by a LOT of non-local drivers, and interstate trucks...unlike SR 520, or SR 16 (Tacoma Narrows Bridge).

[myosh_tino]

I'll take the pay-by-mail option any day over the psychotic scheme ODOT has worked up for the Interstate Bridge (if, and when, tolls are implemented) - by forcing you to either have a transponder (like Good to Go or EZ-Pass), OR...you will be forced to exit the freeway, locate a business (yes, a business - not a tollbooth) that will sell you a one-time pass.  Once you find the business and buy the pass then you will get back onto the freeway.

Because the CRC planners are flat out insistent that there will BE NO TOLLBOOTHS.  Never mind that the Interstate Bridge is a major north-south highway used by a LOT of non-local drivers, and interstate trucks...unlike SR 520, or SR 16 (Tacoma Narrows Bridge).

Yeah, that doesn't make sense at all and the whole exit-the-freeway-find-a-business to pay the toll is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.  When (if?) this ever gets built, tollbooths are a must and any kind of ETC system should be compatible with both the "Good to Go" system in Washington and the "FasTrak" system in California.  As tolling becomes more prevalent on the west coast, I can see Washington, Oregon (if CRC is tolled), California and perhaps Nevada (Boulder City Bypass) standardize on a single ETC system.. probably California's FasTrak system due to the large number of tolled facilities that already use the system.

[corco]

I'll take the pay-by-mail option any day over the psychotic scheme ODOT has worked up for the Interstate Bridge (if, and when, tolls are implemented) - by forcing you to either have a transponder (like Good to Go or EZ-Pass), OR...you will be forced to exit the freeway, locate a business (yes, a business - not a tollbooth) that will sell you a one-time pass.  Once you find the business and buy the pass then you will get back onto the freeway.

Because the CRC planners are flat out insistent that there will BE NO TOLLBOOTHS.  Never mind that the Interstate Bridge is a major north-south highway used by a LOT of non-local drivers, and interstate trucks...unlike SR 520, or SR 16 (Tacoma Narrows Bridge).

That makes sense if the idea is to push traffic onto I-205 and away from downtown Portland, which would fit well with the Portland planning MO, agree with it or not. Only local traffic terminating in downtown Portland would use the bridge if that were the case, so I see what they're trying to do.

[kphoger]

The reason I don't use pay-by-mail toll roads is that there's always the chance the DMV doesn't have my current address on file at any given time.  As we have recently seen here in Wichita, that is a very real possibility that might not even be my fault.  It is for this reason that I never take the new toll bypass around Austin, Texas–especially since we usually have someone else's car following us, and I have no idea how well they keep their address up to date with the DMV.

[707]

I'll take the pay-by-mail option any day over the psychotic scheme ODOT has worked up for the Interstate Bridge (if, and when, tolls are implemented) - by forcing you to either have a transponder (like Good to Go or EZ-Pass), OR...you will be forced to exit the freeway, locate a business (yes, a business - not a tollbooth) that will sell you a one-time pass.  Once you find the business and buy the pass then you will get back onto the freeway.

Because the CRC planners are flat out insistent that there will BE NO TOLLBOOTHS.  Never mind that the Interstate Bridge is a major north-south highway used by a LOT of non-local drivers, and interstate trucks...unlike SR 520, or SR 16 (Tacoma Narrows Bridge).

Yeah, that doesn't make sense at all and the whole exit-the-freeway-find-a-business to pay the toll is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.  When (if?) this ever gets built, tollbooths are a must and any kind of ETC system should be compatible with both the "Good to Go" system in Washington and the "FasTrak" system in California.  As tolling becomes more prevalent on the west coast, I can see Washington, Oregon (if CRC is tolled), California and perhaps Nevada (Boulder City Bypass) standardize on a single ETC system.. probably California's FasTrak system due to the large number of tolled facilities that already use the system.

I have to agree on the system sounding stupid. At least almost every state I've been in gives you the option of a ETC system or just flat out paying the toll.

[kkt]

As tolling becomes more prevalent on the west coast, I can see Washington, Oregon (if CRC is tolled), California and perhaps Nevada (Boulder City Bypass) standardize on a single ETC system.. probably California's FasTrak system due to the large number of tolled facilities that already use the system.

So would we have to pay for all new transponders and receivers in Washington and Oregon? Any chance of getting a national standard set up so we don't have to pay for them all yet again?

[myosh_tino]

As tolling becomes more prevalent on the west coast, I can see Washington, Oregon (if CRC is tolled), California and perhaps Nevada (Boulder City Bypass) standardize on a single ETC system.. probably California's FasTrak system due to the large number of tolled facilities that already use the system.

So would we have to pay for all new transponders and receivers in Washington and Oregon? Any chance of getting a national standard set up so we don't have to pay for them all yet again?

You have to pay for your transponders?  When I signed up for FasTrak in the S.F. Bay Area, I am allowed two transponders at no cost as long as I open an account with a $25 minimum deposit for tolls.

While a national standard would be the best solution, trying to get the hundreds (thousands?) of tolling agencies to settle on a single standard would be rather difficult.  Since tolling is still a relatively new concept on the west coast and there aren't that many systems (2 to be exact... Good to Go and FasTrak), it's something that ought to be explored for the sake of interoperability and convenience.  I would love to be able to use my FasTrak transponder to pay tolls on the CRC or WA-520 or WA-167 when I visit relatives in Seattle.

[vdeane]

How hard could it be?  We already have a conglomerate - E-ZPass.  With NC and FL adding interoperability, I would say that it's the de facto standard out there.  The other agencies should follow suit.

[kkt]

You have to pay for your transponders?  When I signed up for FasTrak in the S.F. Bay Area, I am allowed two transponders at no cost as long as I open an account with a $25 minimum deposit for tolls.

While a national standard would be the best solution, trying to get the hundreds (thousands?) of tolling agencies to settle on a single standard would be rather difficult.  Since tolling is still a relatively new concept on the west coast and there aren't that many systems (2 to be exact... Good to Go and FasTrak), it's something that ought to be explored for the sake of interoperability and convenience.  I would love to be able to use my FasTrak transponder to pay tolls on the CRC or WA-520 or WA-167 when I visit relatives in Seattle.

Yes, we have to pay for our transponders in addition to putting money in the account.  It varies depending on the type.  For WA-167, use of the HOV lane is free for car pools or toll for single-occupant vehicles.  So if sometimes you might have a carpool on 167, you can buy a transponder that can be switched off.  That cost about $8 instead of the $2 or so for the nonswitchable kind.

[KEK Inc.]

Regarding the external tabs on the arrow-per-lane, Clark County has been using exit tabs on new signs for the past 3 years (i.e. Exit 9, 11 and 14) .  But the Mill Plain exit still used full-width in its 2010 update.

It's a little silly to have full-width on arrow-per-lanes.

[averill]

Last installment to this...

British Columbia Observations

First of all, what is this custom font that BC used on their older signs?

I have cut-outs of this unique BC font.  I went to the BC Sign Shop and copied as many as I could.  I would love, however, to know the name and real details of this font.

[agentsteel53]

I always found it interesting that the custom BC font for width B is completely different than the C, D, and E styles.  C, D, E look like something you'd find in the US in the 1950s - a combination of Massachusetts and Michigan.

[CentralCAroadgeek]

Bumping my old thread because I have a question.

On a trip to Oregon the past two days, I noticed that mile markers on US-199 and US-97 are increasing as they go south. I know that miles markers usually start at the highway's southernmost or westernmost point, so what's up with this?

[nexus73]

Bumping my old thread because I have a question.

On a trip to Oregon the past two days, I noticed that mile markers on US-199 and US-97 are increasing as they go south. I know that miles markers usually start at the highway's southernmost or westernmost point, so what's up with this?

101 is the same way.  What's weird is that due to realignments done during the postwar years that the original mileage is used instead of what it really should be.

Keep Oregon Weird...LOL!

Rick

[J N Winkler]

On a trip to Oregon the past two days, I noticed that mile markers on US-199 and US-97 are increasing as they go south. I know that miles markers usually start at the highway's southernmost or westernmost point, so what's up with this?

Milepointing on Oregon state routes is based on the origin and milepost progression of the underlying highway designation.  As an example, the mileposts on US 101 (Highway No. 9, Oregon Coast Highway) increase from north to south because its origin point is actually in Astoria (on the Columbia River, just south of the Oregon/Washington state line) rather than near Brookings (Oregon/California state line).

[kkt]

US 97 in Oregon increases from north to south too.

[TEG24601]

On a trip to Oregon the past two days, I noticed that mile markers on US-199 and US-97 are increasing as they go south. I know that miles markers usually start at the highway's southernmost or westernmost point, so what's up with this?

Milepointing on Oregon state routes is based on the origin and milepost progression of the underlying highway designation.  As an example, the mileposts on US 101 (Highway No. 9, Oregon Coast Highway) increase from north to south because its origin point is actually in Astoria (on the Columbia River, just south of the Oregon/Washington state line) rather than near Brookings (Oregon/California state line).

In addition to using the Oregon Highway mileage, you may also see the Oregon Route's mileage listed separately.  Plus if a route switches between highways, you may pass the same mileage a couple of time, reverse direction, or there will be a "Mileage Correction" because part of the highway was bypassed and changed the length, but ODOT didn't want to redo the numbering on the entire highway or route.

[Bickendan]

US 97 in Oregon increases from north to south too.

With few exceptions, all north south highways in Oregon base their origin at the Columbia River and east west highways at the coast.
An exception is the Lower Columbia River Highway portion of US 30 (Astoria-Portland), which puts its zero point at I-405.