News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

New Hampshire

Started by 74/171FAN, June 17, 2009, 09:14:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

roadman

Quote from: fwydriver405 on August 26, 2020, 11:13:29 AM
Quote from: roadman on August 26, 2020, 10:38:14 AM
So, is the VMS northbound in Salem going to be reset to the new structure or is it going to be removed entirely?

Are you referring to the variable speed limit signs, or the actual V/DMS sign? I'm probably guessing that the variable speed limit sign will be replaced with a static one, and the V/DMS sign will be moved or replaced to the new gantry.

I was referring to the varaible message sign (VMS), or changeable message sign (CMS) per current nomenclature.  The term dynamic message sign (DMS) was short lived and is no longer used.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)


shadyjay


fwydriver405

Going back to the Exit 1 area on I-93. I wonder what this sign could be... an APL of Exit 1?


fwydriver405

New APL signage along Exit 1 heading northbound from Massachusetts, replacing this former assembly:




roadman

Quote from: fwydriver405 on October 13, 2020, 03:12:01 PM
New APL signage along Exit 1 heading northbound from Massachusetts, replacing this former assembly:





Can you say overkill?
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

shadyjay

#205
At least they didn't skimp out on the control cities this time, like they did on the 'Spaulding. 

It does seem a little overkill, IMO, having an APL for the 1 mile where there's not even a lane drop/change.  An APL northbound at the I-93/I-293 jct makes sense, since at least one lane becomes a left exit only lane and the next lane over is an option.  But when an exit is coming up and there's no mainline lane drop/change, I don't see the need for an APL. 


How's progress coming at Exit 4?  Last time I was thru I-93 South this summer, the southbound roadway was still being worked on and all traffic was using the northbound roadway, 2 lanes each way.

fwydriver405

#206
Quote from: shadyjay on October 13, 2020, 06:03:38 PM
How's progress coming at Exit 4?  Last time I was thru I-93 South this summer, the southbound roadway was still being worked on and all traffic was using the northbound roadway, 2 lanes each way.

When I went on October 10th, they had the southbound traffic shifted over the final configuration but it was still down to two lanes per direction. I'm guessing they need to re-pave and re-stripe a few sections of that SB carrigeway before they open the full four lanes up.

As for NB, I'm guessing the same things as well especially since they need to remove the Jersey barrier and repave and stripe the final configuration. Exit 4 in the northbound direction eventually did become a two lane exit upon the projects completion in 2020... see reply #212 for such information. I'm not sure if Exit 4 in the NB direction will be a two lane exit given some of the project plans say so...

fwydriver405

Quote from: shadyjay on October 13, 2020, 06:03:38 PM
At least they didn't skimp out on the control cities this time, like they did on the 'Spaulding. 

It does seem a little overkill, IMO, having an APL for the 1 mile where there's not even a lane drop/change.  An APL northbound at the I-93/I-293 jct makes sense, since at least one lane becomes a left exit only lane and the next lane over is an option.  But when an exit is coming up and there's no mainline lane drop/change, I don't see the need for an APL. 

I was going to ask the question why were APL's needed at Exit 1, especially since there is no TOTSO movement in the first place (but there is an option lane)?

Also I was was wondering about the control cities as well, because at the 293-93 interchange SB in Hooksett, it is also a TOTSO movement but they do show two control cites compared to the single city at the Spaulding at Exit 6.

BridgesToIdealism

Yeah, I agree that the new huge APLs at exit 1 are definitely overkill. Instead of spending the money on that, they should've spent the money on straightening out the exit 1 off ramp from I-93 southbound to eliminate the hairpin curve. Reportedly that movement wasn't even originally planned to exist, but when Rockingham Park was still in use it was added to facilitate traffic, which resulted in the modified trumpet interchange configuration that we have now. Can't tell you how many times I've seen big rigs come within inches of rolling over on that ramp.
Matthew Wong; University of Indianapolis Class of 2024

deathtopumpkins

Quote from: BridgesToIdealism on October 27, 2020, 09:26:04 AM
Yeah, I agree that the new huge APLs at exit 1 are definitely overkill. Instead of spending the money on that, they should've spent the money on straightening out the exit 1 off ramp from I-93 southbound to eliminate the hairpin curve. Reportedly that movement wasn't even originally planned to exist, but when Rockingham Park was still in use it was added to facilitate traffic, which resulted in the modified trumpet interchange configuration that we have now. Can't tell you how many times I've seen big rigs come within inches of rolling over on that ramp.

Not sure if you're aware, but the southbound exit 1 offramp WAS rebuilt as part of the widening project. Used to be even tighter but it was shifted ~300 ft farther south to get a slightly larger radius. That curve is now the largest it's ever gonna be without completely rebuilding the southbound onramp on a different alignment, which would be pretty much infeasible due to property impacts and abutting wetlands.

The current ramp has a ~250' radius curve, which is pretty average for a loop ramp around here. Larger than some of the ramps at the 93/128 interchange in Woburn, for example. Perfectly fine for a fairly low-volume movement.
Disclaimer: All posts represent my personal opinions and not those of my employer.

Clinched Highways | Counties Visited

Dougtone

Come take a virtual visit to the Saco River Covered Bridge in Conway, New Hampshire. Yes, you can drive over the bridge. Yes, it's just a quick detour from NH 16 or NH 153.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/11/saco-river-covered-bridge-conway-new.html

Dougtone

Travelers along the famed and scenic Kancamagus Highway in the White Mountains of New Hampshire may feel compelled to take the short detour to the Albany Covered Bridge. It's worth the stop.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/12/albany-covered-bridge-new-hampshire.html

fwydriver405

#212
ANOTHER new APL with only one control city, this time at the exit. Exit 4 on I-93 NB. (Update 17 Jul 22 - Derry was added on the Exit 4 portion of the sign)


BridgesToIdealism

#213
Man, NHDOT is definitely going overboard with the APLs. Neither Exit 1 nor Exit 4 make sense, since it's only a two-way intersection both times. The only real justification I can think of is that both cases are two-lane exit ramps, with the lefter of the two right lanes being a "split lane" that can either exit or stay on the mainline at the last minute... and the fact that the mainline looses a lane immediately north of Exit 1. But still that's a very weak justification for something like this.
Matthew Wong; University of Indianapolis Class of 2024

Dougtone

Visiting the historic Bath Covered Bridge in the Lower Village of Bath, New Hampshire. It's one of the longest covered bridges remaining in New Hampshire today and the last covered bridge in North America that crossed over railroad tracks (the tracks have since been removed). Yes, you can drive over the bridge.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/01/bath-covered-bridge-new-hampshire.html

roadman

Quote from: fwydriver405 on December 30, 2020, 10:28:38 PM
ANOTHER new APL with only one control city, this time at the exit. Exit 4 on I-93 NB.



As one who's regularlly used Exit 4 several times a year for the past 35 years, all I can say is Good Grief!  And we have a new winner for "Most unnecessary APL installation."
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

roadman

Quote from: BridgesToIdealism on January 05, 2021, 01:50:39 PM
Man, NHDOT is definitely going overboard with the APLs. Neither Exit 1 nor Exit 4 make sense, since it's only a two-way intersection both times. The only real justification I can think of is that both cases are two-lane exit ramps, with the lefter of the two right lanes being a "split lane" that can either exit or stay on the mainline at the last minute... and the fact that the mainline looses a lane immediately north of Exit 1. But still that's a very weak justification for something like this.

Perhaps NHDOT should take a look at what MassDOT did on I-95 southbound at I-295 in Attleboro when they converted the exit ramp to two lanes and created an option lane on the I-95 mainline.   Used convetional signs at the 1/2 mile advance and exit direction locations, and no evidence that people can't figure out what lane they need to be in.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

shadyjay

Quote from: roadman on January 06, 2021, 11:21:05 AM
Quote from: BridgesToIdealism on January 05, 2021, 01:50:39 PM
Man, NHDOT is definitely going overboard with the APLs. Neither Exit 1 nor Exit 4 make sense, since it's only a two-way intersection both times. The only real justification I can think of is that both cases are two-lane exit ramps, with the lefter of the two right lanes being a "split lane" that can either exit or stay on the mainline at the last minute... and the fact that the mainline looses a lane immediately north of Exit 1. But still that's a very weak justification for something like this.

Perhaps NHDOT should take a look at what MassDOT did on I-95 southbound at I-295 in Attleboro when they converted the exit ramp to two lanes and created an option lane on the I-95 mainline.   Used convetional signs at the 1/2 mile advance and exit direction locations, and no evidence that people can't figure out what lane they need to be in.

Exit 4 in its new configuration is definitely worthy of an APL... the lane to the left of the solid white is an option lane, so an APL is appropriate.  APLs are a recent addition to the "sign catalog", and Mass is slow to the punch to use APLs.  The widening of I-95 SB Exit to I-295 in Attleboro MA came before the APL.  I believe I read that Mass doesn't regularly use APLs ... only one I know of is on I-84 EB approaching the Mass Pike in Sturbridge, and that was put up as part of the conversion of the Pike to all-electronic tolling, not as part of a sign replacement project. 

And I also believe reading that the MUTCD prefers APLs over diagrammatics.  Most of the diagrammatics survive in Mass, having been replaced in recent sign contracts.  In NH, most have become APLs.  See I-93 SB approaching I-293 SB, I-93 NB approaching I-293 NB, I-95 NB approaching NH 16, etc.  I'm sure at some point NH 101 WB approaching I-93 will get APLs. 

Let's remember the I-93 NB Exit 4 predecessor sign was a ground-mount (with the older outline Old Man shield).  The road was also only 2 lanes wide back then. 

roadman

While both Exit 1 and Exit 4 now have option lanes, neither would be classified as a "major" split of roadways.  To me at least, that should be a more important factor in determining whether APLs are justified than just saying "oh, it's an option lane, so we should automatically install APLs.'  A signing setup similar to the one I mentioned at I-295 in Attleboro - which was constructed well after APLs were included in the MUTCD, would be sufficent.  And why was Derry omitted from the Route 102 information, especially as Derry and Londonderry are both noted on the advance signs?  As one who's had family, friends, and business dealings in Derry for the past 45 years, I can assure you it is a more significant destination than Londonderry is.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

Dougtone

Visitors to the Great North Woods Region of northern New Hampshire can drive over the Mechanic Street Covered Bridge in Lancaster, New Hampshire.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/01/mechanic-street-covered-bridge.html

SectorZ

Quote from: shadyjay on January 06, 2021, 03:36:23 PM
Quote from: roadman on January 06, 2021, 11:21:05 AM
Quote from: BridgesToIdealism on January 05, 2021, 01:50:39 PM
Man, NHDOT is definitely going overboard with the APLs. Neither Exit 1 nor Exit 4 make sense, since it's only a two-way intersection both times. The only real justification I can think of is that both cases are two-lane exit ramps, with the lefter of the two right lanes being a "split lane" that can either exit or stay on the mainline at the last minute... and the fact that the mainline looses a lane immediately north of Exit 1. But still that's a very weak justification for something like this.

Perhaps NHDOT should take a look at what MassDOT did on I-95 southbound at I-295 in Attleboro when they converted the exit ramp to two lanes and created an option lane on the I-95 mainline.   Used convetional signs at the 1/2 mile advance and exit direction locations, and no evidence that people can't figure out what lane they need to be in.

Exit 4 in its new configuration is definitely worthy of an APL... the lane to the left of the solid white is an option lane, so an APL is appropriate.  APLs are a recent addition to the "sign catalog", and Mass is slow to the punch to use APLs.  The widening of I-95 SB Exit to I-295 in Attleboro MA came before the APL.  I believe I read that Mass doesn't regularly use APLs ... only one I know of is on I-84 EB approaching the Mass Pike in Sturbridge, and that was put up as part of the conversion of the Pike to all-electronic tolling, not as part of a sign replacement project. 

And I also believe reading that the MUTCD prefers APLs over diagrammatics.  Most of the diagrammatics survive in Mass, having been replaced in recent sign contracts.  In NH, most have become APLs.  See I-93 SB approaching I-293 SB, I-93 NB approaching I-293 NB, I-95 NB approaching NH 16, etc.  I'm sure at some point NH 101 WB approaching I-93 will get APLs. 

Let's remember the I-93 NB Exit 4 predecessor sign was a ground-mount (with the older outline Old Man shield).  The road was also only 2 lanes wide back then.

https://goo.gl/maps/d1hXJrCMewk3a58Y6

It's weird though that exit 3 has the same treatment and they signed it much differently.

PHLBOS

Quote from: shadyjay on January 06, 2021, 03:36:23 PMAPLs are a recent addition to the "sign catalog", and Mass is slow to the punch to use APLs.  The widening of I-95 SB Exit to I-295 in Attleboro MA came before the APL.  I believe I read that Mass doesn't regularly use APLs ... only one I know of is on I-84 EB approaching the Mass Pike in Sturbridge, and that was put up as part of the conversion of the Pike to all-electronic tolling, not as part of a sign replacement project. 

And I also believe reading that the MUTCD prefers APLs over diagrammatics.  Most of the diagrammatics survive in Mass, having been replaced in recent sign contracts.
At present, other APLs in MA include:

1.  The new* northbound signage along MA 24 for the I-93 interchange.
* Some of the supporting replacement APL advance signage have not yet been erected.

2.  C/D road/ramp along I-95 (MA 128) southbound/US 3 northbound.
IMHO, maybe this smaller APL covering only up to the shared-movement lane is how NHDOT should've signed Exits 1 & 4 respectively.  Granted, the Burlington example is for a C/D ramp & the NH examples don't have such.  Maybe this could be a possible listed APL alternative for future editions of the MUTCD.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

SectorZ

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 28, 2021, 10:23:25 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 06, 2021, 03:36:23 PMAPLs are a recent addition to the "sign catalog", and Mass is slow to the punch to use APLs.  The widening of I-95 SB Exit to I-295 in Attleboro MA came before the APL.  I believe I read that Mass doesn't regularly use APLs ... only one I know of is on I-84 EB approaching the Mass Pike in Sturbridge, and that was put up as part of the conversion of the Pike to all-electronic tolling, not as part of a sign replacement project. 

And I also believe reading that the MUTCD prefers APLs over diagrammatics.  Most of the diagrammatics survive in Mass, having been replaced in recent sign contracts.
At present, other APLs in MA include:

1.  The new* northbound signage along MA 24 for the I-93 interchange.
* Some of the supporting replacement APL advance signage have not yet been erected.

2.  C/D road/ramp along I-95 (MA 128) southbound/US 3 northbound.
IMHO, maybe this smaller APL covering only up to the shared-movement lane is how NHDOT should've signed Exits 1 & 4 respectively.  Granted, the Burlington example is for a C/D ramp & the NH examples don't have such.  Maybe this could be a possible listed APL alternative for future editions of the MUTCD.

These two to me are perfect.

The 24 ending APL works because the road ends and you have to make a maneuver, and it gives you specific instructions as to what lanes commit to what lanes.

The US 3 signage, which is of course on a c/d lane, should work for a full freeway width. If you're in the far left lane of a freeway and have no intention of getting off, then nothing changes for that person. Only the lane with a choice should need the signage. I certainly can see the arguments against it though, maybe it would cause confusion, but I think it would work.

deathtopumpkins

Quote from: SectorZ on January 28, 2021, 07:10:29 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/d1hXJrCMewk3a58Y6

It's weird though that exit 3 has the same treatment and they signed it much differently.

Exit 3 was completed much earlier and the signage dates to before NHDOT fully adopted APLs.




I agree that the partial-width APLs are probably the ideal middle ground here. If I recall correctly, isn't one state trying them out exactly as you guys are describing? Maybe Utah?
Disclaimer: All posts represent my personal opinions and not those of my employer.

Clinched Highways | Counties Visited

fwydriver405

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on January 29, 2021, 08:39:33 AM
I agree that the partial-width APLs are probably the ideal middle ground here. If I recall correctly, isn't one state trying them out exactly as you guys are describing? Maybe Utah?

Some examples from another thread:

Quote from: on_wisconsin on August 08, 2014, 12:31:04 PM
New APL signs on the Madison Beltline:

WisDOT
Very little excess space on this one. The FHWA should allow this particular modification (no extra pull-through arrow) as an option for non-system interchanges in the next MUTCD. IMO

Quote from: wanderer2575 on March 25, 2018, 02:58:06 PM
New signage on I-696 in Michigan last year includes some APLs.

MDOT's freeway standard appears to be... (section cut out)
...a partial-width sign over only the exit-only lane, the option lane, and the first thru-only lane when the road is five or more lanes wide ...
(EDIT:  The sign plans show the leftmost arrow being taller and wider than the others; I wonder if that was a goof but the contractor followed the plans.)


... or maybe not even the thru-only lane.




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.