I was cruising GSV and found this.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Dedham,+MA&hl=en&ll=42.209963,-71.14458&spn=0.002614,0.004463&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=6.319638,9.140625&oq=ded&t=h&hnear=Dedham,+Norfolk,+Massachusetts&z=17&layer=c&cbll=42.209963,-71.14458&panoid=A_-xICnp5h0Z5vvjD8NJCA&cbp=12,126.58,,0,0
This shows I-93 and US 1 departing from I-95 & MA 128 SB where I-93 steals the main freeway and I-95 exits for Providence and points south. Really does this qualify as an exit when in reality it is not?
I know the MUTCD requires all left hand exits to be signed as such, which is why I started this thread as it can be used for anyone to discuss one of the many latest trends the Feds have implemented on us.
That is definitely not an exit - isn't that the through route?
As for the LEFT EXIT tabs, I definitely prefer the version where the 'LEFT' is inside the exit tab itself, like so:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FLEFTEXITEx_zps9d567c18.png&hash=3ac6c61b7d0654ff5261eadb117b016375a9989b)
Yes, it's an exit, because the through roadway is always the one that keeps the number. Technically, the NJ Turnpike is an exit from I-295 coming north over the Delaware Memorial Bridge. See I-280 EB in Newark.
Quote from: Steve on December 16, 2013, 08:23:20 PM
Yes, it's an exit, because the through roadway is always the one that keeps the number.
Bring back 128 :bigass:
(yeah, I know, Interstates get priority)
The rule makes some sense here, but I could see it getting really dumb on expressways such as where US 61 leaves the Avenue of the Saints (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.356441,-91.586586&spn=0.026522,0.056691&gl=us&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.356441,-91.586586&panoid=8IRURn6aOLqrP7ED43bxhA&cbp=12,5.08,,0,0).
Are you supposed to put up an overhead marking the beginning of Route 27 as a left exit from US 61?
Quote from: NE2 on December 16, 2013, 08:32:04 PM
Quote from: Steve on December 16, 2013, 08:23:20 PM
Yes, it's an exit, because the through roadway is always the one that keeps the number.
Bring back 128 :bigass:
(yeah, I know, Interstates get priority)
The rule makes some sense here, but I could see it getting really dumb on expressways such as where US 61 leaves the Avenue of the Saints (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.356441,-91.586586&spn=0.026522,0.056691&gl=us&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.356441,-91.586586&panoid=8IRURn6aOLqrP7ED43bxhA&cbp=12,5.08,,0,0).
Are you supposed to put up an overhead marking the beginning of Route 27 as a left exit from US 61?
The NJ Turnpike right now has the mainline of I-95 as Exit 6. If/when mile-based numbering comes into being, what gets signed as the exit?
Quote from: Steve on December 16, 2013, 08:23:20 PM
Yes, it's an exit, because the through roadway is always the one that keeps the number.
I completely misread the 93 shield and thought it was a 95 one. Oops. Yeah, that's a valid exit. Not really a valid use for the LEFT EXIT tabs though...
Quote from: Zeffy on December 17, 2013, 12:55:00 AM
Quote from: Steve on December 16, 2013, 08:23:20 PM
Yes, it's an exit, because the through roadway is always the one that keeps the number.
I completely misread the 93 shield and thought it was a 95 one. Oops. Yeah, that's a valid exit. Not really a valid use for the LEFT EXIT tabs though...
Granted, this particular interchange has a unique history in terms of route designations & exit number conventions; but in principle, MUTCD would disagree with you.
Section 2E.25 (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2e.pdf)
Scroll down to Page 207 (27 of 56 on pdf) for example that the above is based on.
For those that don't know, the OP's example is how MassDOT presently signs its Left-Lane(s) exits. Personally, I like it better than the MUTCD standard. Note: I'd be still saying this even if I wasn't a Bay State native.
It is a left exit, as far as the number goes. As far as the freeway, no it is not even by a technicality as it is here.
Like NE 2 said about MA 128, if it was over thirty years ago, the so called left exit here would not be one, but the through route.
I think MassDOT could use a little common sense here. I am fine with an exit number being here, but where the main roadway continues as something else and the through route exits onto a ramp configuration I would hardly call it an actual exit.
Even at the Exit 6 of the NJ Turnpike, under this logic the through mainline turnpike would count as an exit. Or better yet, what about NB I-35 in Kansas where Exit 135 carries I-35 traffic off of the KTA and the through turnpike becomes I-335. That would mean according to MUTCD then the single lane ramp to Exit 135 (it is signed Exit 135 for the ramp that takes I-35 off of the KTA and not for through KTA)is the main freeway and the through turnpike is a left exit.
Then in the case of KTA assigning Exit 135, they are wrong according to federal guidelines to have it for through I-35 just as the PTC is wrong for having Exit number on the Pennsylvania Turnpike where I-76 leaves it at Valley Forge. Under the MUTCD then the through turnpike lanes, would be a LEFT EXIT as well. Or even one better yet, if I-95 had been built as the Somerset Freeway in NJ, it would have left the NJT at Exit 10. Then the three through traffic lanes signed as "THRU TRAFFIC Next Exit 5 Miles" would be an exit as well with the single lane Exit 10 as the main roadway.
It is making I-90 having an exit number for itself at I-94's western terminus make sense now under this scenario created by MUTCD.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 17, 2013, 09:45:17 AMI think MassDOT could use a little common sense here. I am fine with an exit number being here, but where the main roadway continues as something else and the through route exits onto a ramp configuration I would hardly call it an actual exit.
What would you call it then since I-95 does indeed leave the Yankee Divsion Highway at that point and the exit numbers follow the interstates not the highway/street name?
FWIW, there are long-term plans to reconfigure the present trumpet interchange into one with fly-over ramps that will be a
minimum of 2-lanes wide. When completed, the revamped interchange will resemble what was constructed in Peabody (I-95/MA 128 split/Exit 45) circa the late 80s.
Do keep in mind that NJDOT, PennDOT & the PTC will be faced w/a similar scenario when it comes time to redesignate I-95/295 north of the PA Turnpike & I-195 as an extension of I-195.
Both MD & VA had to do similar with I-95 entering and leaving the Capital Beltway (I-495) & Henry Shirley Highway (I-395).
At present, the NJTA is keeping the PA Turnpike Connector/future I-95 split as Exit 6 off the mainline NJ Turnpike. How that will change should the NJTA be forced to adopt mile-marker-based exits remains to be seen.
If the NJ Turnpike goes mile based, I think it will use the current NJT mileposts, just as the NYS Thruway will use one set for the whole roadway between Ripley and New York City.
As far as the I-95/ I-495 thing, true I-495 mainline is an exit of I-95 as they chose to maintain I-95's numbering scheme. However, they could have used I-495 too which would change the whole thing completely, as I-95 south leaving the Beltway would then be the left exit and need the yellow supplement, but now the four lane mainline is considered the "exit" even though it is a freeway mainline.
As far as I-95 goes, yes I-93 is an exit for that route, but the way the interchange is configured (as I-95 was to go through Boston as originally planned) the through route of I-95 actually exits a major freeway and becomes another one. I think the Yellow exit supplement is not really needed. Now since it is up I am not saying MassDOT should take it down, no I was merely pointing out that it really was not necessary as this is kind of a rare case thing. There are always exceptions to every rule in life, and this happens to be one of them.
For the record, MassHighway started specifying the use of their "LEFT" exit tabs as a requirement for new guide signs in 2004, while it was still an option in the 2003 MUTCD.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 16, 2013, 07:07:11 PM
I was cruising GSV and found this.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Dedham,+MA&hl=en&ll=42.209963,-71.14458&spn=0.002614,0.004463&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=6.319638,9.140625&oq=ded&t=h&hnear=Dedham,+Norfolk,+Massachusetts&z=17&layer=c&cbll=42.209963,-71.14458&panoid=A_-xICnp5h0Z5vvjD8NJCA&cbp=12,126.58,,0,0
This shows I-93 and US 1 departing from I-95 & MA 128 SB where I-93 steals the main freeway and I-95 exits for Providence and points south. Really does this qualify as an exit when in reality it is not?
I know the MUTCD requires all left hand exits to be signed as such, which is why I started this thread as it can be used for anyone to discuss one of the many latest trends the Feds have implemented on us.
Note that this GSV is dated and only shows 3 through lanes. The 4th lane has since been opened, making the idea of this being a "Left Exit" even less aparent.
Quote from: Steve on December 16, 2013, 08:23:20 PM
Yes, it's an exit, because the through roadway is always the one that keeps the number.
Nope. I-44 exits off itself several times. It is usually signed "EXIT" with no number.
IMO, since you are not turning left by any means, it shouldn't be considered a left exit - when I consider a left exit, I think of an exit where you must be in the leftmost lanes and generally curves to the left as you approach whichever road you may be exiting on. In this example, yes the I-93 split is indeed an exit, but a left exit? Not by my standards. I know that some people may disagree with me - that's fine, but the LEFT EXIT tabs should only be used as I described previously.
Quote from: Zeffy on December 17, 2013, 12:03:22 PM
but the LEFT EXIT tabs should only be used as I described previously.
its like a "road work ahead" sign with no road work. people get accustomed to it having no meaning and then ignore it when they encounter a situation where they should heed it.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 17, 2013, 11:24:01 AM
If the NJ Turnpike goes mile based, I think it will use the current NJT mileposts, just as the NYS Thruway will use one set for the whole roadway between Ripley and New York City.
But that's contrary to the MUTCD, which requires mileposts to follow the Interstate.
Wonder if they'd consider numbering the southern Turnpike? 695's available...
Quote from: Steve on December 17, 2013, 08:41:13 PM
But that's contrary to the MUTCD, which requires mileposts to follow the Interstate.
Mileposts can follow both: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7744
Quote from: hubcity on December 17, 2013, 08:53:12 PM
Wonder if they'd consider numbering the southern Turnpike? 695's available...
The irony is that 695 would've provided an alternative to the NJTP for getting to NY (via I-287 North), thus making the Turnpike lose money. But luckily for them, the residents of Mercer / Somerset / Middlesex Counties blocked that freeway from ever getting built and fucked over I-95. But hey, at least the PA Turnpike interchange redesign will finally plug up the dreaded I-95 gap. The Trenton section of I-95 will probably be changed to I-195, and I-295 should be extended into the current routing of I-195. At least that's what I read.
Fun fact: Whoever made this https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?gl=us&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=110931979218146476547.000464dcac0441ca9e76b deserves a gold star.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 16, 2013, 07:07:11 PM
I was cruising GSV and found this.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Dedham,+MA&hl=en&ll=42.209963,-71.14458&spn=0.002614,0.004463&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=6.319638,9.140625&oq=ded&t=h&hnear=Dedham,+Norfolk,+Massachusetts&z=17&layer=c&cbll=42.209963,-71.14458&panoid=A_-xICnp5h0Z5vvjD8NJCA&cbp=12,126.58,,0,0
This shows I-93 and US 1 departing from I-95 & MA 128 SB where I-93 steals the main freeway and I-95 exits for Providence and points south. Really does this qualify as an exit when in reality it is not?
I know the MUTCD requires all left hand exits to be signed as such, which is why I started this thread as it can be used for anyone to discuss one of the many latest trends the Feds have implemented on us.
MassDOT does it again north of Boston...
http://goo.gl/maps/SbZ49
Quote from: SidS1045 on December 18, 2013, 01:08:42 PMMassDOT does it again north of Boston...
http://goo.gl/maps/SbZ49
I indirectly mentioned that interchange earlier. While it does indeed display the same
LEFT exit tab signing as the BGS' in Canton (the Peabody interchange signing is slightly older); that interchange (Peabody) does not have the same operational history and was never originally built as a 4-way interchange like Canton was.
Why the DPW didn't place the through-northbound I-95 lanes on the left side when the Peabody interchange was built in the 80s, I will never know. Since MA 128 was completely re-aligned to the north of its original corridor, placing the two I-95 North lanes to the left could've been done.
The current, 2-lane, through-southbound I-95 ramp in Canton was originally built as a single-lane off-ramp from 128 South. Surprisingly, it was only recently widened to 2-lanes sometime between 2001 and 2005; based on Historical Aerial photos:
Canton Interchange (http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=4&lon=-71.14125976941406&lat=42.20646729795033&year=2001)
Note: the previous 90s-vintage BGS' (w/button-copy I-shields) that the new ones replaced featured only a single arrow for the I-95 South
"through"-movement. This was the first time that a left-justified Exit tab was erected for the I-93(US 1) South BGS.
Photo of the previous BGS':
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F4%2F4f%2F128_south_end.jpg%2F400px-128_south_end.jpg&hash=61f74ceb09370611180c2c9270d835fe483fd01b)
Side bar: The earlier 1977-vintage BGS had no exit tab and simply read:
93 NORTH
Braintree
Cape CodUnfortunately, none of the Blizzard of '78 photos of this area I'm aware of were taken
near/at at that particular BGS.
Well, there is one, but its on 93SB/128NB at 95. Route 128 exit numbering is in use, even though the interstates are signed as they presently are.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-vRd2lGbe2aY/UrJEtLeyY8I/AAAAAAAATWo/TdOwZHEtgOA/s800/SB-Exit%252001-3-Blizzard%2520of%252078.JPG)
Quote from: shadyjay on December 18, 2013, 08:00:47 PM
Well, there is one, but its on 93SB/128NB at 95. Route 128 exit numbering is in use, even though the interstates are signed as they presently are.
I should've used just the word
at rather than the hybrid
near/at (I've since edited my earlier post to reflect such). I'm well aware of that particular photo and posted it, along with its some of its other Bo78 cohorts in other threads. My original point of no
known photo showing the opposite side of the Canton interchange (w/signage) from the Bo78 is still valid.
Those BGS' in the background and the backside of the I-93 shield in the foreground were erected roughly a year before this photo was taken. Those Canton interchange BGS' were the first ones to list I-95 & I-93 for the 128 corridor. I-93 & I-95 reassurance & trailblazer signs started appearing along 128 circa 1975-1976.
The exit number changes for I-93 & I-95 to their current ones didn't occur until the mid-to-late 1980s; the latter when the Peabody Split interchange (Exit 45) was completed.
Well now, the re-alignment of Interstate routes and interchanges different from what was originally planned certainly has caused some weird signing issues both in the Boston area and along the NJ Turnpike.
In the original example the thru lanes technically are an exit, but not a left exit in the usual sense addressed by the MUTCD requirements. So I think the standard mandating the left exit tab has been misapplied in this case as this location just doesn't fit the usual left exit scenario.