PA Turnpike News

[PHLBOS]

There's a sign on I-276 WB just past the Delaware River Bridge that says "I-276 WEST Harrisburg" with 2 down arrows.  Is the space here for a future I-95 shield or just a wide spot?  Doesn't look big enough to fit a shield in there though.

I think those signs are old (with a new exit tab on one), so I'm not sure it even matters because I bet that they'll replace the sign on the left at the very least. The condensed "276" font inside the Interstate shield looks like the condensed "376," "279" and "579" font I saw on signs in Pittsburgh that were fabricated in the mid-1980s. Since the 1990s, the font inside three-digit Interstate shields in Pennsylvania has either been the normal font, or an even more condensed font. The two signs in your picture (save the exit tab) could be examples of some of the first fully reflectorized, non-button-copy signs in Pennsylvania.

Those BGS', except for the Exit tab are from the late 1980s or very early 1990s.  The space on the I-276 West pull-through BGS may have indeed been intended for a more immediate (closer) destination (Philadelphia perhaps) to be added when the I-95 interchange would eventually have been completed.  The 276 WEST heading would've been replaced with either 95 SOUTH or 95 TO 276 with maybe a SOUTH heading in smaller letters added.

That font for the 276 numerals are Series C and IMHO is the proper font to be used for 3dis not containing a 1 in them.  The narrower Series B or the Series D (either crowded together or elongated) one sees on more recent I-276 shields on BGS' look rather sloppy.

The new lanes of the widen section of the Northeast Extension are scheduled to be opened today.

That's good news.  I'll be using that stretch tomorrow evening.

Update: the widened section that opened runs for about 5 miles north of the I-276 & Mid-County interchange.  Work is still being done on the widening between MM 25-26 and the Lansdale interchange.

No photos of such (I was driving at night) but there are now diagrammatic approach BGS' along I-476 southbound for I-276 & the Mid-County toll plaza.  The straight-up arrow (w/out lane stripes) is for I-476 South and the two right-turn arrows are for the I-276 West & East ramps. 

Worth noting:

1.  There is no yellow LEFT tab on the EXIT 20 tab.

2.  There's a separate, wider left-mounted tab for the interchange/toll plaza name (MID-COUNTY) placed just below the fore-mentioned exit tab.  Such gives the BGS panel boards a stepped appearance.

4.  The Philadelphia/Chester listing (postitioned one above the other) for I-476 South are postioned in such a way that there's little or no blank space between the 2 destinations and the Chester listing is right-justified with respect to the Philadelphia listing.  Left & Right justification of 2-line listings for exit BGS' has been an off-and-on PennDOT & PTC practice since about 2000.  IMHO, doing such for a diagrammatic BGS is inappropriate & unnecessary.  It's not like it's being done to reduce the sign panel size (the BGS' are very tall due to the stacked movements for the I-276 exits).  The 2nd-line (Chester in this case) should be positioned so that there's at least one-full-letter height space between it and the Philadelphia heading and be center-justified.

5.  The numerals for the I-476 shields are Series C (Good!) but the numerals for the I-276 shields are Series B (Not so good IMHO).

6.  Only the destination listings (Philadelphia, Chester, Harrisburg & New Jersey) are shown in the Clearview font (Good!).

7.  One of the earlier-erected BGS panels just before the interchange was slightly modified.  The BGS for I-276 West, which featured the squished Series D numerals, was replaced with a shield cotaining Series B numerals and a yellow EXIT \|/ ONLY panel was placed over the bottom part of the panel that previously read NEXT RIGHT.

[Flyer78]

Is "Exit 20" technically a left exit worthy of a yellow Left tab? It is actually the "thru" movement of that interchange, with access to the East-West mainline the right-hand movements.

Also, the right-justification made sense to me, as those all align with the "Exit 20" information. For the amount of information on that sign (three exits, the Mid-County exit number and name, exit only reference and control cities; distance to exit) it is a very readable sign.

Edit: I guess my point is, the sign itself is centered on the I-476 through-movement diagram, so the right justification on its right for I-476 control, and left justification for the I-276 control/exits makes sense in the overall placement...

[PHLBOS]

Is "Exit 20" technically a left exit worthy of a yellow Left tab? It is actually the "thru" movement of that interchange, with access to the East-West mainline the right-hand movements.

Such didn't stop MassDOT from installing an LEFT EXIT 1B tab over its I-95 North/US 1 South BGS at the I-95/93 interchange in Canton roughly a year ago.

Scroll down to the Dec. 2013 photos

Also, the right-justification made sense to me, as those all align with the "Exit 20" information. For the amount of information on that sign (three exits, the Mid-County exit number and name, exit only reference and control cities; distance to exit) it is a very readable sign.

Edit: I guess my point is, the sign itself is centered on the I-476 through-movement diagram, so the right justification on its right for I-476 control, and left justification for the I-276 control/exits makes sense in the overall placement...

Until this past Saturday night, I have never seen left/right justification of destination listings on a diagrammatic BGS.  If one actually saw the BGS (either in person of viewing a photo); one would clearly see how silly it was for PTC to do such.

Note: The separate panel BGS erected closer to the interchange (& erected earlier) does not do such.

[Zeffy]

Note: The separate panel BGS erected closer to the interchange (& erected earlier) does not do such.

I love how each one of those signs has a different typeface for the numbers inside the shield... from left to right: C, B, D. Even the C bleeds into the border of the shield - I still think it should be 15" numerals and not these gargantuan 18" numerals that barely have any breathing room inside the shield.

[PHLBOS]

I love how each one of those signs has a different typeface for the numbers inside the shield... from left to right: C, B, D. Even the C bleeds into the border of the shield - I still think it should be 15" numerals and not these gargantuan 18" numerals that barely have any breathing room inside the shield.

I spoke about this earlier.  The I-276 shield with the squashed Series D numerals has since been replaced with one having Series B numerals; at least, it's consistent with the other I-276 shields on newer BGS'... the supplemental BGS featuring elongated Series D 276 numerals located further north being the exception.

If one insists on using Series D for 3di shields not containing a 1; the numeral height needs to be shorter.  The lone-remaining button-copy BGS (early-90s vintage) along I-476 South at the I-276 East exit ramp is an example of 3di Series D numerals done right.

I said this before & I'll say it again; maybe PTC & PennDOT need to look towards NJTA to see how a proper-looking I-276 shield should look like.

[Flyer78]

Such didn't stop MassDOT from installing an LEFT EXIT 1B tab over its I-95 North/US 1 South BGS at the I-95/93 interchange in Canton roughly a year ago.

Interesting. I am not as familiar with that interchange, but that is I-93 exiting onto I-95, right? My point: There is a route change. Here, I-476 continues south for another 20 or so miles, absent the toll/toll plaza, I would not expect this movement to have an exit number. Before the mile-based renumber, it was actually numbered as a mainline I-276 exit, 25A. In fact, wouldn't it make more sense to have Exit 20 A/B be for the exit-to-mainline movements?

Until this past Saturday night, I have never seen left/right justification of destination listings on a diagrammatic BGS.  If one actually saw the BGS (either in person of viewing a photo); one would clearly see how silly it was for PTC to do such.

I have seen it, in fact I think I commented on them after they first appeared, but have not had the chance to get a picture. (this is my neck of the woods, I live less than 5 miles away from said overheads). In the interest of discussion, I submit the following crude ASCII version:



[EXIT 20]
[MID-COUNTY]
+---------------------------------------+
|      476 South /|\                    |
|                 | / 276 East          |
|   Philadelphia  |/  New Jersey        |
|        Chester  |_________________    |
|                 |                     |
|                 |/  276 West          |
|                 ||  Harrisburg        |
|                 ||                    |
|               1 Mile                  |
+---------------------------------------+
  (Proper Interstate shields where route number indicated)

Note: The separate panel BGS erected closer to the interchange (& erected earlier) does not do such.

I don't see the relationship with the three panel signs further downstream, they are three discrete signs, centered to their own internal center line.

I agree I have not seen this treatment on other BGS diagrammatic (or at least ones I can readily think of). Can you imagine what the APL would have looked like?

[PHLBOS]

I have seen it, in fact I think I commented on them after they first appeared, but have not had the chance to get a picture. (this is my neck of the woods, I live less than 5 miles away from said overheads). In the interest of discussion, I submit the following crude ASCII version:

How long ago did you see them?  I know they weren't there 2 months ago.

[EXIT 20]
[MID-COUNTY]
+---------------------------------------+
|     SOUTH 476 /|\                    |
|                 | / 276 East          |
|   Philadelphia  |/  New Jersey        |
|        Chester  |_________________    |
|                 |                     |
|                 | /  276 West         |
|                 |/   Harrisburg       |
|                 |                     |
|               1 Mile                  |
+---------------------------------------+
  (Proper Interstate shields where route number indicated)

See above for minor legend fix.  I also believe that the Philadelphia/Chester listings are closer to the SOUTH 476 legend thereby leaving a lot of green space below.

I don't see the relationship with the three panel signs further downstream, they are three discrete signs, centered to their own internal center line.

Per MUTCD, the final BGS' at an interchange that have preceeding diagrammatic approach BGS' are separate panels.  The issue here is consistency.  Had those 3 BGS panels been erected at the same time as the approach BGS'; the justification oddity would've been noticed right away. 

I agree I have not seen this treatment on other BGS diagrammatic (or at least ones I can readily think of). Can you imagine what the APL would have looked like?

I'm not sure if this ramp configuration even meets the criteria for APLs; I don't think it does.

[Flyer78]

How long ago did you see them?  I know they weren't there 2 months ago.

Last night, just before midnight. And several times before that. I commented about the signs, briefly, in late August; so 2 months sounds right. They are, as you mention, much newer than the last set of signs prior to the merge.

[EXIT 20]
[MID-COUNTY]
+---------------------------------------+
|      SOUTH 476 /|\                    |
|                 | / 276 East          |
|   Philadelphia  |/  New Jersey        |
|        Chester  |_________________    |
|                 |                     |
|                 | /  276 West         |
|                 |/   Harrisburg       |
|                 |                     |
|               1 Mile                  |
+---------------------------------------+
  (Proper Interstate shields where route number indicated)

See above for minor legend fix.  I also believe that the Philadelphia/Chester listings are closer to the SOUTH 476 legend thereby leaving a lot of green space below.

Fixed your margins.  There is indeed much green space. It's sad -- again, I live quite close to these, I need to see if I can get a real image. I promised that in August... fail.

I don't see the relationship with the three panel signs further downstream, they are three discrete signs, centered to their own internal center line.

Per MUTCD, the final BGS' at an interchange that have preceeding diagrammatic approach BGS' are separate panels.  The issue here is consistency.  Had those 3 BGS panels been erected at the same time as the approach BGS'; the justification oddity would've been noticed right away. 

Ok. It certainly would look very strange if those three sign legends were not centered. I would have a bigger issue, however, if the legends suddenly changed to Plymouth Meeting, Horsham, and Norristown, after at least 3 BGS diagrams that make no mention of those locations. As for consistency, though the exit tab is left-justified, note there is no Left indicator there, either. And again, if not for "exiting the Turnpike" -- I don't even think Exit 20 would be designated for this interchange (to "the Blue Route"), with the advent of highway speed E-Zpass, and one day full ORT; this will feel like even less of an "exit" to stay on I-476.

There are some other signs that have been replaced in the area, and some are really odd - the exit off Norristown, for example, has an all caps sign for PLYMOUTH ROAD (Centered) past the toll plaza. Again, will have to figure out the best way to get images of all the updates.

I agree I have not seen this treatment on other BGS diagrammatic (or at least ones I can readily think of). Can you imagine what the APL would have looked like?

I'm not sure if this ramp configuration even meets the criteria for APLs; I don't think it does.

It may not, but I thought "new" diagram signs like this were also discouraged. I guess that would revert to repeating the panel signs as an alternative.

[cl94]

Those things are discouraged, but not prohibited. Contrast that with the slanted arrows Ohio loved to use for option lanes (until they changed their MUTCD to be identical to the national one ~2 years ago). Really confusing if you aren't from somewhere that uses them, hence why they've been banned.

I might be the only one, but I like the arrow-per-lane signs because they can be easily read at highway speed without taking attention away from the road. There are a few diagrammatics in/near Buffalo that are pretty difficult to read and two are the only lane assignment sign before the gore point. That's what the MUTCD is getting at- might show everything, but not as clear as the alternative.

[PHLBOS]

I would have a bigger issue, however, if the legends suddenly changed to Plymouth Meeting, Horsham, and Norristown, after at least 3 BGS diagrams that make no mention of those locations.

When the first BGS for I-276 West was erected, a few non-roadgeek friends of mine asked why Norristown wasn't included on the sign like its button-copy predecessor was.  Some actually thought that they couldn't get to Germantown Pike (Norristown interchange) anymore via I-276 West.  While I may have successfully convinced them that nothing really changed except for the sign listings, they would've been totally lost if I explained to them why only one destination is listed for one direction rather than two.

While there is a supplemental BGS for the I-276 East & West movements; it only lists the exit number ranges (333 -2 for I-276 West); there's no town listings.  IMHO, a supplemental BGS reading Germantown Pike use EXIT 333 off I-276 WEST would be justified.  Not everybody knows which exit number corresponds to what road or town.

One surprise, and I mentioned such earlier when the three BGS' at the interchange was first erected, is that PTC is still using New Jersey for the I-276 East destination despite MUTCD now either discouraging or prohibiting such.  IMHO, this is one case where using a state name for a destination is appropriate.  Some BGS' have used either Philadelphia at PA 611 (which would not be correct IMHO) or N.J. Tunpike - New York (along I-476 North) as listed I-276 East destinations.

I might be the only one, but I like the arrow-per-lane signs because they can be easily read at highway speed without taking attention away from the road.

In general, APLs are only used when there's one lane that allows for more than one direction (aka a shared lane) and there are only two direction choices(?).  This interchange has two off-ramps off I-476 in short proximity and does not have a shared lane; therefore APL signage would not be appropriate in this case.  OTOH, using diagrammatic signage makes perfect sense here.

[cl94]

I would have a bigger issue, however, if the legends suddenly changed to Plymouth Meeting, Horsham, and Norristown, after at least 3 BGS diagrams that make no mention of those locations.

When the first BGS for I-276 West was erected, a few non-roadgeek friends of mine asked why Norristown wasn't included on the sign like its button-copy predecessor was.  Some actually thought that they couldn't get to Germantown Pike (Norristown interchange) anymore via I-276 West.  While I may have successfully convinced them that nothing really changed except for the sign listings, they would've been totally lost if I explained to them why only one destination is listed for one direction rather than two.

While there is a supplemental BGS for the I-276 East & West movements; it only lists the exit number ranges (333 -2 for I-276 West); there's no town listings.  IMHO, a supplemental BGS reading Germantown Pike use EXIT 333 off I-276 WEST would be justified.  Not everybody knows which exit number corresponds to what road or town.

One surprise, and I mentioned such earlier when the three BGS' at the interchange was first erected, is that PTC is still using New Jersey for the I-276 East destination despite MUTCD now either discouraging or prohibiting such.  IMHO, this is one case where using a state name for a destination is appropriate.  Some BGS' have used either Philadelphia at PA 611 (which would not be correct IMHO) or N.J. Tunpike - New York (along I-476 North) as listed I-276 East destinations.

I might be the only one, but I like the arrow-per-lane signs because they can be easily read at highway speed without taking attention away from the road.

In general, APLs are only used when there's one lane that allows for more than one direction (aka a shared lane) and there are only two direction choices(?).  This interchange has two off-ramps off I-476 in short proximity and does not have a shared lane; therefore APL signage would not be appropriate in this case.  OTOH, using diagrammatic signage makes perfect sense here.

Standard:
On freeways and expressways, either the Overhead Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide sign
designs as provided in Sections 2E.21 and 2E.22 shall be used for all multi-lane exits at major interchanges
(see Section 2E.32) that have an optional exit lane that also carries the through route (see Figures 2E-4,
2E-5, 2E-8, and 2E-9) and for all splits that include an option lane (see Figures 2E-6 and 2E-10). Overhead
Arrow-per-Lane or Diagrammatic guide signs shall not be used on freeways and expressways for any other
types of exits or splits, including single-lane exits and splits that do not have an option lane.

Diagrammatics are inappropriate in this situation, as well. Both types of signs are explicitly forbidden

[PHLBOS]

Diagrammatics are inappropriate in this situation, as well. Both types of signs are explicitly forbidden

Wouldn't be the first time for PTC to either deviate or use a superseded MUTCD standard; IIRC, diagrammatics for splits without an optional exit lane used to be allowed.

[Flyer78]

When the first BGS for I-276 West was erected, a few non-roadgeek friends of mine asked why Norristown wasn't included on the sign like its button-copy predecessor was.

The old Norristown signs (and interchange) got me into trouble when I first moved out this way, and gave directions to friends and family. They followed the routing to the mainline Turnpike exit for Norristown, instead of I-476 Exit 19, as intended. That is likely why Norristown is no longer mentioned southbound -- the exit is actually Plymouth Meeting, which was a much smaller town when the original Turnpike was constructed. There is talk of a slip-ramp/EZ Pass only exit within city of Norristown that would probably lead to the existing exit being renamed.


  Some actually thought that they couldn't get to Germantown Pike (Norristown interchange) anymore via I-276 West.  While I may have successfully convinced them that nothing really changed except for the sign listings, they would've been totally lost if I explained to them why only one destination is listed for one direction rather than two.

Adding a Germantown Pike (and/or Plymouth Meeting) supplement would seem to make sense. New Jersey is probably appropriate as well, I guess you could in theory make it PA TPK to NJ TPK... or perhaps NE Philly/etc.

I might be the only one, but I like the arrow-per-lane signs because they can be easily read at highway speed without taking attention away from the road.

In general, APLs are only used when there's one lane that allows for more than one direction (aka a shared lane) and there are only two direction choices(?).  This interchange has two off-ramps off I-476 in short proximity and does not have a shared lane; therefore APL signage would not be appropriate in this case.  OTOH, using diagrammatic signage makes perfect sense here.

I thought the exit to 276 East was an option lane, but might be remembering that wrong.

[cl94]

I might be the only one, but I like the arrow-per-lane signs because they can be easily read at highway speed without taking attention away from the road.

In general, APLs are only used when there's one lane that allows for more than one direction (aka a shared lane) and there are only two direction choices(?).  This interchange has two off-ramps off I-476 in short proximity and does not have a shared lane; therefore APL signage would not be appropriate in this case.  OTOH, using diagrammatic signage makes perfect sense here.

I thought the exit to 276 East was an option lane, but might be remembering that wrong.

Only if coming from the Blue Route. Is not heading south, unless they pulled a PTC and made the loop ramp 2 lanes recently.

[vdeane]

I might be the only one, but I like the arrow-per-lane signs because they can be easily read at highway speed without taking attention away from the road. There are a few diagrammatics in/near Buffalo that are pretty difficult to read and two are the only lane assignment sign before the gore point. That's what the MUTCD is getting at- might show everything, but not as clear as the alternative.

I prefer arrow-per-lane to diagrammatics, but not to to old standard of having down arrows on the regular exit sign.

[PHLBOS]

The old Norristown signs (and interchange) got me into trouble when I first moved out this way, and gave directions to friends and family. They followed the routing to the mainline Turnpike exit for Norristown, instead of I-476 Exit 19, as intended. That is likely why Norristown is no longer mentioned southbound -- the exit is actually Plymouth Meeting, which was a much smaller town when the original Turnpike was constructed. There is talk of a slip-ramp/EZ Pass only exit within city of Norristown that would probably lead to the existing exit being renamed.

I'm a bit confused.  Where were your friends & family coming from?  If they were coming from the north and stayed on I-476 Southbound, the next exit after the toll gantry is Exit 18 (for Ridge Pike that's marked as Norristown*)  *for a very brief period it also had Conshohocken listed underneath but was greened out.

The older BGS I was referring to read:

276 WEST
Norristown
Harrisburg
EXITS 333 - 2

and when one merged w/I-276 West, the Norristown/Germantown Pike interchange (Exit 333) is right there.

If they're coming from the south via I-476 North, the only exit marked for Norristown is Exit 16B 18B (which places one on Chemical Road and one turns right to connect to Ridge Pike westbound).  If they were going to the Plymouth Meeting Mall or Germantown Pike westbound, why would they need to get on the Turnpike (I-276)?  One can't even directly get on I-276 West from I-476 North without using local roads (Plymouth Road or Germantown Pike).

IIRC, signage for Exit 19 off I-476 North (which connects to Chemical Road further north) never contained Norristown in its listing.  It always had Plymouth Mtg. in its listing.  Earlier BGS used to have Germantown Pike - EAST listings on the main exit panels; such has since been moved to a supplemental BGS.

Nonetheless, there should be another supplemental BGS along I-476 South before I-276 that lists either Germantown Pike or Plymouth Meeting to use I-276 West to Exit 333.

The proposed EZ-Pass slip-ramp located closer to Norristown, if built, wouldn't have had a bearing on the old I-276 West BGS containing Norristown in it; it might prompt the PTC to rename the Norristown/Germantown Pike exit

[Flyer78]

There were various levels of confusion, (and yes, exit 18 as indicated). Instead of staying on I-476 South through Mid-County, then taking the exit for Norristown, they followed the old PA TPK signs to the mainline Norristown exit, off I-276 West.

I am sure you mean exit 18B for Norristown, from I-476 North. (16 A/B is the I-76/PA23 interchange) Interestingly, on the off ramp of 18-B is a sign to Norristown, indicating 3 miles; within a distance of less than a half-mile, the next intersection has a Norristown 1 sign.

[PHLBOS]

I am sure you mean exit 18B for Norristown, from I-476 North.

You're right, I did.  I've since corrected my earlier post; it was a long day.

Interestingly, on the off ramp of 18-B is a sign to Norristown, indicating 3 miles; within a distance of less than a half-mile, the next intersection has a Norristown 1 sign.

That's not the first time I've seen an inconsistency with listed distances. 

Many years ago in Revere, MA (the rotary at the Wonderland Blue Line T-station); there were MA 1A signage that listed Boston as both 5 miles and 11 miles away and these signs were only yards apart from each other.  The older sign with the latter listed distance dates back to when MA 1A along w/its US 1 companion had a longer routing prior to entering Boston's city limits but the sign was never updated (the routing changed in 1971). 

Adding insult to injury, when the sign was replaced (due to being knocked over & destroyed in an accident) sometime in the very early 90s; the obsolete/erroneous 11 mile distance to Boston was carried over onto the replacement sign.

I prefer arrow-per-lane to diagrammatics

While this is getting OT; my beef with the new APLs are the grossly-oversized arrows... particularly the upright ones (for straight-through movements).  Such make for unnecessarily large sign boards.  One state, mentioned in another thread, actually used smaller (but not too small) arrows for their APLs; and the BGS' looked 10 times better than any MUTCD-spec'd APLs IMHO.

Additionally, like the diagrammatic scheme, the final BGS' at the ramp splits for APLs are separate panels for each direction.  I'm sorry but the BGS panel for the straight-through traffic containing only long, upward arrows just looks wrong.  Maybe it's because I've seen pull-through BGS' w/short, downward arrows for nearly 40 years (yes, I recall seeing them as a kid while riding w/family or on a school bus).  IMHO, downward arrows should be used on the final separate BGS panel for straight/through movements. 

The only time, prior to MUTCD's current APL scheme, where I've seen upward arrows on overhead signs were R3-5a signs.  MUTCD APL's scheme is obviously attempting to replicate composite R3-5a signs (the arrows only not the ONLY text) into the BGS board.  All other overhead signs for straight/through movements feature a downward arrow.

[vdeane]

I agree about the arrows being over-sized, but I never really liked diagrammatics either.  Also, none of the NYSDOT arrow-per-lane installs I've seen (all in Region 4) have separate panels at the final sign before the split.  It's just arrow-per-lane all the way.

[02 Park Ave]

I've analysed the various construction schedules published by the PTC for various projects along the mainline of the Turnpike.  I've summarised them below:

Mileposts.         Start    Complete
12    -   14.       1/16     12/18
40    -   48.       7/14.     1/17.   (Eastbound)
                         1/17.     1/19.   (Westbound)
124.5 - 130.8.    1/17.     7/19
130.8 - 133.8.    3/19.     1/21
149.5 - 155.5.   10/17.    5/19
242.   - 245.       4/15.     7/17

The multi-phase I-95/Tpk connexion project is scheduled to have the I-95 through traffic work completed by the end of 2017.

[roadman65]

I think that the I-95 PTC interchange will be ready when our grandkids graduate  college lol.

[cl94]

I agree about the arrows being over-sized, but I never really liked diagrammatics either.  Also, none of the NYSDOT arrow-per-lane installs I've seen (all in Region 4) have separate panels at the final sign before the split.  It's just arrow-per-lane all the way.

I will note that NYSTA installs (at least the ones in Buffalo section) do have separate panels at the split. Both of them (exits 53 and 55) involved creating an option lane and eliminating an added lane that began immediately before the exit.

[Flyer78]

Note: The separate panel BGS erected closer to the interchange (& erected earlier) does not do such.

I need to amend my comments about never seeing right-justify on standalone BGS - the new Clearview signage on the mainline Turnpike has right-justified Philadelphia and Chester as well, and this is a separate panel sign. I tried to get a picture, but I clearly need more practice (it is not worth posting what I got...)

(These signs replaced the left-over-from-PA 9 days of seeing two 476 Shields for the NE Extension)

= = =

Is there any rhyme or reason to the colors of the mono-tubes they have placed? It had seemed before they were either grouping an exit together, or part of the road, but it really seems like the new assemblies are somewhat random - brown, blue and red.

[PHLBOS]

I need to amend my comments about never seeing right-justify on standalone BGS - the new Clearview signage on the mainline Turnpike has right-justified Philadelphia and Chester as well, and this is a separate panel sign. I tried to get a picture, but I clearly need more practice (it is not worth posting what I got...)

(These signs replaced the left-over-from-PA 9 days of seeing two 476 Shields for the NE Extension)

The previous button-copy BGS for that left ramp split had the two destinations right-justified as well.  That one was probably one of the first BGS' I've seen in PA that used that approach.  Truth be told, the original panel only had the Chester destination listed but was replaced/modified with a larger panel containing both Philadelphia & Chester within the first 6 months of the Mid-County interchange fully opening in 1992.  Which was why the Philadelphia text is slightly smaller and more crowded than the Chester text. 

As I mentioned earlier, left or right-justified destination listings on the actual left-or-right-turn exit panel itself is not uncommon for many PennDOT or PTC signage.  Many of the exit BGS' along the Turnpike (even the pre-Clearview ones) have done such since the 90s/2000s.

[Flyer78]

What always interested me in the older signs you linked was that Philadelphia always appeared to be an addition, the slat Philly was added on was a slightly different shade of green, and you could confirm the addition at the back of the sign.

I've seen many instances of left-justified signs, but did not readily recall right justifies.

In a somewhat-related note, I noted a lot of diagrammatic signs on the GS Parkway that justified text similar to the new southbound Extension signs.