The past few weeks I've been on I-195 in NJ, I've noticed that they replaced the mile markers with new signs that also have the direction of travel and the interstate shield. Could they be replacing reassurance signs with this?
Here's an example that is used on I-35 in MO
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cosmos-monitor.com%2Fmo%2Fmain%2Fi35-on-mile-marker-next-to-mo110-reassurance.jpeg&hash=dfb92758cf3c908c1ec6fa28c71df5133feb8ae6)
Those are for every freeway in NJ.
So far they have only really popped up on I-295. Its a new thing for NJDOT. Not a fan of the full size tenth mile markers (I prefer NJDOT's small and discreet ones), but the MUTCD finally standardized on a design.
What are they going to do on multiplex sections? This will pose an issue.
One route in a multiplex rules the day in terms of reference locations. See the MUTCD 2H.05 D10-09.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 23, 2015, 11:10:22 PM
So far they have only really popped up on I-295. Its a new thing for NJDOT. Not a fan of the full size tenth mile markers (I prefer NJDOT's small and discreet ones), but the MUTCD finally standardized on a design.
False. They're up here in droves. I-280, I-80, even NJ 3. As projects roll through, they're being added.
I think I remember seeing one or two on the section of I-95 north of Trenton as well. I don't think they'll replace reassurance shields with these though, but rather complement one another.
Quote from: Alps on June 24, 2015, 12:09:29 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 23, 2015, 11:10:22 PM
So far they have only really popped up on I-295. Its a new thing for NJDOT. Not a fan of the full size tenth mile markers (I prefer NJDOT's small and discreet ones), but the MUTCD finally standardized on a design.
False. They're up here in droves. I-280, I-80, even NJ 3. As projects roll through, they're being added.
They've had them on I-76 and Rt. 42 for at least a few years as well. In the current 295/42/76 construction project, they even used 76E and 76L to denote the express and local lanes. The signs may have been up for no more than a few weeks before they took the dividing barrier away! I know 76L signs still exist; not sure if there's any 76E signs out there.
Quote from: jerseyguy on June 23, 2015, 08:58:55 PM
The past few weeks I've been on I-195 in NJ, I've noticed that they replaced the mile markers with new signs that also have the direction of travel and the interstate shield. Could they be replacing reassurance signs with this?
Here's an example that is used on I-35 in MO
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cosmos-monitor.com%2Fmo%2Fmain%2Fi35-on-mile-marker-next-to-mo110-reassurance.jpeg&hash=dfb92758cf3c908c1ec6fa28c71df5133feb8ae6)
When I first saw that photo on a NJ-related thread, I thought you were going to tell me that it was on NJ 35. At least they didn't goof up that badly!
Quote from: Rothman on June 23, 2015, 11:40:51 PM
One route in a multiplex rules the day in terms of reference locations. See the MUTCD 2H.05 D10-09.
And the freeway higher up in the hierarchy takes precedence (eg Interstate over US Route over State Route).
Massachusetts installed these enhanced reference markers on most of their Interstates and freeways, with the exception of the Mass. Turnpike and parts of I-95 (128) , in 2008 and 2009. Although the MUTCD calls for both the even milepoint and intermediate milepoint markers to be of the same design, MassHighway got concurrence from the local FHWA office to omit the cardinal direction and the route shield from the intermediate signs, which are placed at 2/10th mile intervals.
Personally, I'd like to see the Massachusetts style intermediate reference marker design included in the next edition of the MUTCD. As others have stated, placing the cardinal direction and route shield on every sign is severe overkill.
Pennsylvania has been doing something similar to this. Shields only on whole number mileposts and the first milepost at the start of a freeway. I agree that there's no need to have a shield every 1/10 of a mile.
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 24, 2015, 10:54:55 AM
Pennsylvania has been doing something similar to this. Shields only on whole number mileposts and the first milepost at the start of a freeway. I agree that there's no need to have a shield every 1/10 of a mile.
Actually, there is. Those mileposts are to help in the case of a breakdown, accident, etc. Most people aren't familiar with exactly where they are. If they need help, they can say "I see a mile post that says East Route 76, 347.4", or they can say "I think I passed Harrisburg, but I don't know where I am".
There currently tends to be a variation of sorts. I've seen some
enhanced mile markers with a blue background (as opposed to the more standard green), others that just list the first letter of the direction cardinal (vs. spelling it out) and I-shields that neutered the
INTERSTATE listing in them.
Quote from: roadman on June 24, 2015, 10:35:25 AM
Massachusetts installed these enhanced reference markers on most of their Interstates and freeways, with the exception of the Mass. Turnpike and parts of I-95 (128) , in 2008 and 2009.
I've seen them along
both I-95 (at least north of the Pike) and MA 128 (beyond I-95).
Quote from: roadman on June 24, 2015, 10:35:25 AMAlthough the MUTCD calls for both the even milepoint and intermediate milepoint markers to be of the same design, MassHighway got concurrence from the local FHWA office to omit the cardinal direction and the route shield from the intermediate signs, which are placed at 2/10th mile intervals.
MassDPW/Highway/DOT has certainly come a long way from the small diamond (in either yellow or light gray) 2/10th mile markers of old.
Quote from: roadman on June 24, 2015, 10:35:25 AMPersonally, I'd like to see the Massachusetts style intermediate reference marker design included in the next edition of the MUTCD. As others have stated, placing the cardinal direction and route shield on every sign is severe overkill.
Agree 100%.
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 24, 2015, 10:54:55 AM
Pennsylvania has been doing something similar to this. Shields only on whole number mileposts and the first milepost at the start of a freeway. I agree that there's no need to have a shield every 1/10 of a mile.
For PennDOT roads, yes; for PA Turnpike roads, no. The Turnpike is presently still old-school in terms of mile markers and 1/10th markers (the latter is on small, plastic tubes). It's encouraging to see PennDOT using
some level of discretion regarding those 1/10th mile markers.
Does all of this change (not only in NJ, but nationwide) have to do with people becoming more ignorant of roads that people have to be reminded of the route number that they are on?
It is a good idea to have and I do remember it (or something similar to it) in Hunterdon County along CR 523 except with tiny stand alone shields above the mile marker back in the 80's and thought it was cool then. Therefore I am not knocking this new trend in the MUTCD, but just curious to know why the feds have implemented this.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 24, 2015, 11:28:05 AM
Does all of this change (not only in NJ, but nationwide) have to do with people becoming more ignorant of roads that people have to be reminded of the route number that they are on?
It is a good idea to have and I do remember it (or something similar to it) in Hunterdon County along CR 523 except with tiny stand alone shields above the mile marker back in the 80's and thought it was cool then. Therefore I am not knocking this new trend in the MUTCD, but just curious to know why the feds have implemented this.
I don't think so. It's just better use of modern technology.
Remember that many highways had call boxes to report an issue. Motorists would know to walk to the nearest call box, because they had no other choice and other than truckers, most people didn't have a way to communicate the issue.
Today, most people have cell phones. It's easier to use a cell phone to report an incident, and easier for transportation departments to post enhanced milemarkers so that motorists can convey that information.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 24, 2015, 11:09:16 AM
There currently tends to be a variation of sorts. I've seen some enhanced mile markers with a blue background (as opposed to the more standard green), others that just list the first letter of the direction cardinal (vs. spelling it out) and I-shields that neutered the INTERSTATE listing in them.
Quote from: roadman on June 24, 2015, 10:35:25 AM
Massachusetts installed these enhanced reference markers on most of their Interstates and freeways, with the exception of the Mass. Turnpike and parts of I-95 (128) , in 2008 and 2009.
I've seen them along both I-95 (at least north of the Pike) and MA 128 (beyond I-95).
Quote from: roadman on June 24, 2015, 10:35:25 AMAlthough the MUTCD calls for both the even milepoint and intermediate milepoint markers to be of the same design, MassHighway got concurrence from the local FHWA office to omit the cardinal direction and the route shield from the intermediate signs, which are placed at 2/10th mile intervals.
MassDPW/Highway/DOT has certainly come a long way from the small diamond (in either yellow or light gray) 2/10th mile markers of old.
Quote from: roadman on June 24, 2015, 10:35:25 AMPersonally, I'd like to see the Massachusetts style intermediate reference marker design included in the next edition of the MUTCD. As others have stated, placing the cardinal direction and route shield on every sign is severe overkill.
Agree 100%.
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 24, 2015, 10:54:55 AM
Pennsylvania has been doing something similar to this. Shields only on whole number mileposts and the first milepost at the start of a freeway. I agree that there's no need to have a shield every 1/10 of a mile.
For PennDOT roads, yes; for PA Turnpike roads, no. The Turnpike is presently still old-school in terms of mile markers and 1/10th markers (the latter is on small, plastic tubes). It's encouraging to see PennDOT using some level of discretion regarding those 1/10th mile markers.
Mmmhmmm. The rebuilt portion of the Blue Route is reflective of this. Weird part is and I guess it's a matter of reducing redundancy, when they replaced those mile posts they didn't also replace the SR segment markers.
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 24, 2015, 12:25:37 PMWeird part is and I guess it's a matter of reducing redundancy, when they replaced those mile posts they didn't also replace the SR segment markers.
Since those SR segment markers are a
state specification/requirement as opposed to federal; replacing such was likely
not included in the contract documents that erected those enhanced mile marker signs.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 24, 2015, 11:09:16 AM
I've seen them along both I-95 (at least north of the Pike) and MA 128 (beyond I-95).
Correct. The section of I-95 (128) where enhanced reference markers were not installed as part of the 2008/2009 project was between Canton and Wellesley. The markers along this section will be installed as roadway segments are completed under the "Add-a-Lane" widening project.
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 24, 2015, 10:54:55 AM
Pennsylvania has been doing something similar to this. Shields only on whole number mileposts and the first milepost at the start of a freeway. I agree that there's no need to have a shield every 1/10 of a mile.
Maryland (MdTA) is doing this - but only on the toll-maintained system.
On the SHA ("free") network, you are fortunate to get a mile marker every mile.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 24, 2015, 11:02:52 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 24, 2015, 10:54:55 AM
Pennsylvania has been doing something similar to this. Shields only on whole number mileposts and the first milepost at the start of a freeway. I agree that there's no need to have a shield every 1/10 of a mile.
Actually, there is. Those mileposts are to help in the case of a breakdown, accident, etc. Most people aren't familiar with exactly where they are. If they need help, they can say "I see a mile post that says East Route 76, 347.4", or they can say "I think I passed Harrisburg, but I don't know where I am".
I respectfully disagree with your implication that every enhanced reference marker needs to be identical in design. Even if people aren't familiar as to their exact location on a roadway at any given time, one would hope they would remember
the route they are traveling on without the need for "in your face" reminders every 1/10th of a mile. And, providing route and direction information only at the even milepoints should be a sufficent reminder to those who are still "what route am I on" challenged.
As I noted in a previous post, FHWA alllowed Massachusetts to install their intermediate markers with just the milepoint information. To my knowledge, this hasn't created any issues for either drivers reporting incidents or for emergency crews responding to such incidents.
Quote from: Alps on June 24, 2015, 12:09:29 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 23, 2015, 11:10:22 PM
So far they have only really popped up on I-295. Its a new thing for NJDOT. Not a fan of the full size tenth mile markers (I prefer NJDOT's small and discreet ones), but the MUTCD finally standardized on a design.
False. They're up here in droves. I-280, I-80, even NJ 3. As projects roll through, they're being added.
Also 78EB, past Exit 41.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 24, 2015, 11:02:52 AM
Those mileposts are to help in the case of a breakdown, accident, etc. Most people aren't familiar with exactly where they are. If they need help, they can say "I see a mile post that says East Route 76, 347.4", or they can say "I think I passed Harrisburg, but I don't know where I am".
Apropos of this, at least on I-195, two identical signs are mounted back-to-back every 2/10 mile on both sides of the highway, facing both oncoming traffic and the opposite direction...which is good, because if you happen to break down just beyond a marker, you don't have to walk back along the highway to see which marker it is.
I agree that the enhanced signs every tenth of a mile are a bit overkill. I dn't see anything in the MUTCD that says you can't use a D10-4 every mile (with the route and direction) and just have a standard D10-1a, D10-2a, or D10-3a for the tenth mile posts.
Quote from: roadman on June 24, 2015, 01:52:49 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 24, 2015, 11:02:52 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 24, 2015, 10:54:55 AM
Pennsylvania has been doing something similar to this. Shields only on whole number mileposts and the first milepost at the start of a freeway. I agree that there's no need to have a shield every 1/10 of a mile.
Actually, there is. Those mileposts are to help in the case of a breakdown, accident, etc. Most people aren't familiar with exactly where they are. If they need help, they can say "I see a mile post that says East Route 76, 347.4", or they can say "I think I passed Harrisburg, but I don't know where I am".
I respectfully disagree with your implication that every enhanced reference marker needs to be identical in design. Even if people aren't familiar as to their exact location on a roadway at any given time, one would hope they would remember the route they are traveling on without the need for "in your face" reminders every 1/10th of a mile. And, providing route and direction information only at the even milepoints should be a sufficent reminder to those who are still "what route am I on" challenged.
As I noted in a previous post, FHWA alllowed Massachusetts to install their intermediate markers with just the milepoint information. To my knowledge, this hasn't created any issues for either drivers reporting incidents or for emergency crews responding to such incidents.
You will be surprised. Ask our friend who works on the NJTA how many people say they are on the New Jersey Parkway, or the Garden State Turnpike, or on the New York Parkway.
Remember, there's over 200 million drivers. Many of them took a single test to become licensed drivers for life. They only had to score an 80% or better on their test. Doesn't matter if they got "T/F: The threshold of impairment is .15" wrong in 1947, or if they missed "What do you do when you encounter a red, 8 sided sign with the word STOP". As long as they can answer 80% of the questions correctly, then take a driving test where the most important thing is to not hit a tree at 25 mph, then they are allowed to drive anywhere and everywhere, forever.
Some of them are visiting from other countries. They barely understand English. They know that they want to go from point A to point B. They have to remember to stay on the correct side of the road, and look for signs with their destination on it. If the sign says "New York City", and they want to go to New York City, they take that route. They have no clue what route they are on.
And no matter how familiar they are with a route, if they are in an accident and disoriented, they may have forgotten exactly where they are.
Talk to any first responder. I'm sure they can tell you numerous stories where they are searching for someone that gave incomplete information.
You are thinking like a roadgeek. Think like an average person who drives the roads. There's a reason why those enhanced mile markers are preferred.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 24, 2015, 02:55:42 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 24, 2015, 01:52:49 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 24, 2015, 11:02:52 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 24, 2015, 10:54:55 AM
Pennsylvania has been doing something similar to this. Shields only on whole number mileposts and the first milepost at the start of a freeway. I agree that there's no need to have a shield every 1/10 of a mile.
Actually, there is. Those mileposts are to help in the case of a breakdown, accident, etc. Most people aren't familiar with exactly where they are. If they need help, they can say "I see a mile post that says East Route 76, 347.4", or they can say "I think I passed Harrisburg, but I don't know where I am".
I respectfully disagree with your implication that every enhanced reference marker needs to be identical in design. Even if people aren't familiar as to their exact location on a roadway at any given time, one would hope they would remember the route they are traveling on without the need for "in your face" reminders every 1/10th of a mile. And, providing route and direction information only at the even milepoints should be a sufficent reminder to those who are still "what route am I on" challenged.
As I noted in a previous post, FHWA alllowed Massachusetts to install their intermediate markers with just the milepoint information. To my knowledge, this hasn't created any issues for either drivers reporting incidents or for emergency crews responding to such incidents.
You will be surprised. Ask our friend who works on the NJTA how many people say they are on the New Jersey Parkway, or the Garden State Turnpike, or on the New York Parkway.
Remember, there's over 200 million drivers. Many of them took a single test to become licensed drivers for life. They only had to score an 80% or better on their test. Doesn't matter if they got "T/F: The threshold of impairment is .15" wrong in 1947, or if they missed "What do you do when you encounter a red, 8 sided sign with the word STOP". As long as they can answer 80% of the questions correctly, then take a driving test where the most important thing is to not hit a tree at 25 mph, then they are allowed to drive anywhere and everywhere, forever.
Some of them are visiting from other countries. They barely understand English. They know that they want to go from point A to point B. They have to remember to stay on the correct side of the road, and look for signs with their destination on it. If the sign says "New York City", and they want to go to New York City, they take that route. They have no clue what route they are on.
And no matter how familiar they are with a route, if they are in an accident and disoriented, they may have forgotten exactly where they are.
Talk to any first responder. I'm sure they can tell you numerous stories where they are searching for someone that gave incomplete information.
You are thinking like a roadgeek. Think like an average person who drives the roads. There's a reason why those enhanced mile markers are preferred.
From what I have read, the idea of having the route shield on them was to assist people either in accidents who may be so flustered or injured that they lost the ability to know where they are at that time. And remember, you may know what road you are on, but if you wipe out and are incapacitated somewhere, you've got to hope the person calling EMS knows it, too.
I wish Massachusetts had 80% as a threshold to pass for a learner's permit, it's 70% (out of 20), and once you get number 14 correct the test shuts off so you can't get more than 14 of the 20 right.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 24, 2015, 02:55:42 PM
You will be surprised. Ask our friend who works on the NJTA how many people say they are on the New Jersey Parkway, or the Garden State Turnpike, or on the New York Parkway.
......or that they are are mile marker Z 1000.
All excellent points jeffandnicole - thanks.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 24, 2015, 01:39:11 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 24, 2015, 10:54:55 AM
Pennsylvania has been doing something similar to this. Shields only on whole number mileposts and the first milepost at the start of a freeway. I agree that there's no need to have a shield every 1/10 of a mile.
Maryland (MdTA) is doing this - but only on the toll-maintained system.
On the SHA ("free") network, you are fortunate to get a mile marker every mile.
On MD's Eastern Shore alone, I've seen mileposts on U.S. 50, U.S. 301, U.S. 13, U.S. 113, and MD 90.
As for multiplexing, 50 gets priority where it shares pavement with 301, but look at these from the Salisbury bypass...
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.393991,-75.564013,3a,21.4y,139.22h,87.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s51GyyNMMzlM3vF4k68ZHcQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
and a few yards further ahead...
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.392719,-75.557544,3a,79.8y,130h,80.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5c-IzE0JFFh9I0qDRCxq_g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
ixnay
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 24, 2015, 05:21:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 24, 2015, 02:55:42 PM
You will be surprised. Ask our friend who works on the NJTA how many people say they are on the New Jersey Parkway, or the Garden State Turnpike, or on the New York Parkway.
......or that they are are mile marker Z 1000.
Or they are blindly following their GPS and so they don't have a clue what the last route they turned onto was.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 24, 2015, 11:09:16 AM
There currently tends to be a variation of sorts. I've seen some enhanced mile markers with a blue background (as opposed to the more standard green), others that just list the first letter of the direction cardinal (vs. spelling it out) and I-shields that neutered the INTERSTATE listing in them.
I've seen a few (very few) larger blue signs on 295 at seemingly random places including on on- and off-ramps. Those say something like "Interstate 295 North Exit X" or something like that. The ones on the mainline have the mile number. Don't remember if the off-ramp ones do too. I wonder why they are there and how it was decided which areas get them.
Quote from: bzakharin on June 25, 2015, 12:35:03 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 24, 2015, 11:09:16 AM
There currently tends to be a variation of sorts. I've seen some enhanced mile markers with a blue background (as opposed to the more standard green), others that just list the first letter of the direction cardinal (vs. spelling it out) and I-shields that neutered the INTERSTATE listing in them.
I've seen a few (very few) larger blue signs on 295 at seemingly random places including on on- and off-ramps. Those say something like "Interstate 295 North Exit X" or something like that. The ones on the mainline have the mile number. Don't remember if the off-ramp ones do too. I wonder why they are there and how it was decided which areas get them.
On I-295 near NJ 73, and around that interchange, it appears NJDOT must've done some testing of various milepost options, including color, size, location, etc. That's where you see most of the unusual mileposts.
Since jeffandnicole brought up ignorance of driving by non road geeks, that is why in DC they need to go back to shielding the three US routes properly as well as some cities that maintain their streets need to also follow suit. As many non road geeks will see that road on a map. Remember you have some people who refuse to go forward and still read maps. Plus in DC's example you have many motorists who are tourists who need to find these routes to get out of town. So yes trailblazing, as in adding them to the said milemarkers on interstates needs to be addressed in urban cities who are careless now. I am not suggesting DC use mile markers on non freeways but keep up with the shields and trailblazers frequently. Even in NJ where NJDOT gave the three counties in northern NJ control over US 202, needs to a better job than they are as signs are still scarce to non and in some areas using the old two digit US route shields that lost their capability to reflect back in the Carter years, leaving you clueless at night. Morris County, although has did a somewhat better job than in the past, but some areas in Passaic and Bergen still need work.
Bottom line non road geeks do not think like us and need the extra signing. Jeff made that point clear and after hearing it and the supporting comments following it I now realize how we as society changed in many ways.
These things aren't to replace reassurance markers, but to aid in emergency response, as countless others have pointed out.
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 24, 2015, 10:16:44 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 23, 2015, 11:40:51 PM
One route in a multiplex rules the day in terms of reference locations. See the MUTCD 2H.05 D10-09.
And the freeway higher up in the hierarchy takes precedence (eg Interstate over US Route over State Route).
Interesting that the OP chose a photo from Missouri, as the Show Me State has been removing Interstate reassurance markers from routes where other route classifications run concurrently with Interstates. In the example shown, the I-35 sign has been removed in favor of a MO 110 (CKC) marker. It's also happened southwest of St. Louis, where US 50 is signed on I-44, but I-44 itself isn't.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 25, 2015, 02:53:57 PM
These things aren't to replace reassurance markers, but to aid in emergency response, as countless others have pointed out.
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 24, 2015, 10:16:44 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 23, 2015, 11:40:51 PM
One route in a multiplex rules the day in terms of reference locations. See the MUTCD 2H.05 D10-09.
And the freeway higher up in the hierarchy takes precedence (eg Interstate over US Route over State Route).
Interesting that the OP chose a photo from Missouri, as the Show Me State has been removing Interstate reassurance markers from routes where other route classifications run concurrently with Interstates. In the example shown, the I-35 sign has been removed in favor of a MO 110 (CKC) marker. It's also happened southwest of St. Louis, where US 50 is signed on I-44, but I-44 itself isn't.
And with toll authorities all bets are off. I-476 has continuous mile markers from the Blue Route to the Northeast extension, whereas the NJ Turnpike does its own thing with both I-95 and I-78.
I just noticed these too for the first time driving on 195 a few days ago. Seemed like overkill to me, but I can understand the points above.
So a different take on this.... If the reason is everyone has cell phones, can we triangulate the location rather than installation of tons of more signs along the highway?
Quote from: DrSmith on June 28, 2015, 11:08:32 AM
So a different take on this.... If the reason is everyone has cell phones, can we triangulate the location rather than installation of tons of more signs along the highway?
that might work for 911, but isn't going to help somebody who's calling Joe's Towing.
Quote from: DrSmith on June 28, 2015, 11:08:32 AM
So a different take on this.... If the reason is everyone has cell phones, can we triangulate the location rather than installation of tons of more signs along the highway?
It's not really installing tons more signs - milemarkers have been in use for a long time. It's just the info contained on them that's different.
And I don't think 911 operators want to be in the business of trying to figure out everyone's location all the time, which isn't an exact science. They take your call and move on to the next call.
Quote from: DrSmith on June 28, 2015, 11:08:32 AM
So a different take on this.... If the reason is everyone has cell phones, can we triangulate the location rather than installation of tons of more signs along the highway?
911 centers (and some others) can determine where you are from the latitude and longitude of your phone if it has GPS capability.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 28, 2015, 08:38:12 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on June 28, 2015, 11:08:32 AM
So a different take on this.... If the reason is everyone has cell phones, can we triangulate the location rather than installation of tons of more signs along the highway?
It's not really installing tons more signs - milemarkers have been in use for a long time. It's just the info contained on them that's different.
And I don't think 911 operators want to be in the business of trying to figure out everyone's location all the time, which isn't an exact science. They take your call and move on to the next call.
I really like having milepost signs every 1/10th of a mile, as the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, the MdTA and some state DOTs (such as Virginia) do on freeway-class roads.
Makes identification of problems (not just freeway emergencies) faster and easier for all involved.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 28, 2015, 09:07:47 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 28, 2015, 08:38:12 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on June 28, 2015, 11:08:32 AM
So a different take on this.... If the reason is everyone has cell phones, can we triangulate the location rather than installation of tons of more signs along the highway?
It's not really installing tons more signs - milemarkers have been in use for a long time. It's just the info contained on them that's different.
And I don't think 911 operators want to be in the business of trying to figure out everyone's location all the time, which isn't an exact science. They take your call and move on to the next call.
I really like having milepost signs every 1/10th of a mile, as the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, the MdTA and some state DOTs (such as Virginia) do on freeway-class roads.
Makes identification of problems (not just freeway emergencies) faster and easier for all involved.
I don't think anyone's arguing that. The debate here is whether there's a need for the highway shield on each post vs one on every whole mile.
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 29, 2015, 01:22:03 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 28, 2015, 09:07:47 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 28, 2015, 08:38:12 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on June 28, 2015, 11:08:32 AM
So a different take on this.... If the reason is everyone has cell phones, can we triangulate the location rather than installation of tons of more signs along the highway?
It's not really installing tons more signs - milemarkers have been in use for a long time. It's just the info contained on them that's different.
And I don't think 911 operators want to be in the business of trying to figure out everyone's location all the time, which isn't an exact science. They take your call and move on to the next call.
I really like having milepost signs every 1/10th of a mile, as the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, the MdTA and some state DOTs (such as Virginia) do on freeway-class roads.
Makes identification of problems (not just freeway emergencies) faster and easier for all involved.
I don't think anyone's arguing that. The debate here is whether there's a need for the highway shield on each post vs one on every whole mile.
Personally, yes. If there's an issue at MM 23.4, you want the person calling for help to be able to inform the 911 operator where the issue is.
I know the argument is "Well, shouldn't the driver know what route their on"? Yes. But that doesn't always happen. Or, the driver is injured, and it's up to a passenger who was sleeping or reading for the past hour to be able to report the location.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 29, 2015, 01:34:46 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 29, 2015, 01:22:03 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 28, 2015, 09:07:47 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 28, 2015, 08:38:12 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on June 28, 2015, 11:08:32 AM
So a different take on this.... If the reason is everyone has cell phones, can we triangulate the location rather than installation of tons of more signs along the highway?
It's not really installing tons more signs - milemarkers have been in use for a long time. It's just the info contained on them that's different.
And I don't think 911 operators want to be in the business of trying to figure out everyone's location all the time, which isn't an exact science. They take your call and move on to the next call.
I really like having milepost signs every 1/10th of a mile, as the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, the MdTA and some state DOTs (such as Virginia) do on freeway-class roads.
Makes identification of problems (not just freeway emergencies) faster and easier for all involved.
I don't think anyone's arguing that. The debate here is whether there's a need for the highway shield on each post vs one on every whole mile.
Personally, yes. If there's an issue at MM 23.4, you want the person calling for help to be able to inform the 911 operator where the issue is.
I know the argument is "Well, shouldn't the driver know what route their on"? Yes. But that doesn't always happen. Or, the driver is injured, and it's up to a passenger who was sleeping or reading for the past hour to be able to report the location.
I can see both sides of the argument and believe more information is better than less but the graphich designer in me believes there is something to be about sign clutter to point where said sign loses its effectiveness and of you're going by MUTCD standards, putting a shield and the cardinal direction on a 1/10 marker could get pretty crowded.
I had read that when NJ went widespread with these enhanced reference mm's, they would do them every 2/10th of a mile, with signs on both front and back. At least it does take away a little sign clutter that way, and they should still be within eyesight of someone. Of course, when they get knocked down, there's now no sign for 4/10th of a mile, or about 2,000 feet, which makes them a little more hard to view if you happen to be in the middle of them.
They recently posted new ones on 295 in the 295/76/42 construction zone area, although they were every 1/10th of a mile, probably to assist with breakdowns and incidents in the construction zone.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 28, 2015, 09:05:22 PM
911 centers (and some others) can determine where you are from the latitude and longitude of your phone if it has GPS capability.
True, but it's not required to be particularly accurate (and getting an accurate lock will take a minute or so if the GPS isn't active, particularly in rural areas where WiFi geolocation is impossible and the nearest cell tower can be miles away).
Even if it someone involved in an incident is the caller, as pointed out above, people who have just suffered head trauma (which includes getting whacked in the face by a deploying airbag) may not actually remember where they are. And even small kids can read a sign and tell an operator what numbers are on it if they're in a car and the adult(s) have been incapacitated.
Besides which, the person calling may not actually be where the incident is anymore. By the time a passing motorist has dialed 911 and gotten through to an operator, they could be a mile away or more from an incident.
If the feds get their way and require all cars to have something like OnStar installed (and subscription-free for emergency usage), at least some of the need will go away - presumably the car will be able to keep a GPS lock at almost all times since the power requirements compared to everything else in the car would be minimal - but not all of it, particularly in the passing motorist scenario or when emergency responders need to give accurate locations to each other over a radio or text link.
While tenth mile markers have been in use in SOME places prior to the enhanced mile markers, the new markers are so huge that Fucillo could do advertising for them. That makes them more expensive and IMO less attractive. At least the standard mile markers look good, and many jurisdictions (like the Thruway) used tenth mile markers that were even smaller than that. Most tenth mile markers in NY were the side of our reference markers (Region 1 being the exception... which is probably one reason why R1 has been so fast to adopt the standard mile markers).
The only state that is doing any "replacements" is Missouri (Why? I do not know. It is rather idiotic.). In the photo, the sign behind the enhanced I-35 marker is a Missouri 110 reassurance sign, without the I-35 sign that should be above it.
The area I am from, Cincinnati, uses these enhanced milemarkers every tenth of a mile. In Lexington, KY, along I-75, the enhanced markers are every two tenths of a mile--a decision I like. You really do not need to see these every tenth of a mile.
I just noticed that the Atlantic City Expressway Westbound has the shield and direction on every mile marker (even 1/10th ones). However, the markers are of the same size as normal mile markers, which is why I only noticed this now. If you don't know the shield, it's impossible to make out "Atlantic City Expressway" from a moving vehicle. Not sure if you're stopped. Eastbound mile markers curiously have this only every full mile, and not on the 1/10ths.
That has to be new cause last time I was on the ACE (Memorial Day weekend) I didn't see them at all.
Sorry for the misinformation. The shields are only on full-mile markers, not on the fractions in both directions. I was confused about where I saw what last week.
Thread bump:
(only because I made reference to PTC's approach to mile markers earlier on this thread, Reply #13 from last June)
While traveling to and from Hickory Run State Park yesterday, I noticed along stretches of the Northeast Extension (I-476), north of Landale that the PTC has been installing enhanced mile markers at every whole mile and large mile markers (w/no shield or direction) at every 0.1 mile. These were installed along off the shoulders. The older-style whole-mile markers, located on the median barrier, still remain.
So PTC is indeed moving towards enhanced mile markers (at least for its whole miles) along its roadway system.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 18, 2015, 01:15:15 PM
Thread bump:
(only because I made reference to PTC's approach to mile markers earlier on this thread, Reply #13 from last June)
While traveling to and from Hickory Run State Park yesterday, I noticed along stretches of the Northeast Extension (I-476), north of Landale that the PTC has been installing enhanced mile markers at every whole mile and large mile markers (w/no shield or direction) at every 0.1 mile. These were installed along off the shoulders. The older-style whole-mile markers, located on the median barrier, still remain.
So PTC is indeed moving towards enhanced mile markers (at least for its whole miles) along its roadway system.
Are they the same style ones that PennDOT has been installing?
Quote from: ekt8750 on August 18, 2015, 02:23:40 PMAre they the same style ones that PennDOT has been installing?
Similar (for the whole mile markers). The only differences I see between these and the ones along the Blue Route are that the Turnpike ones feature a bubble 3di-shield with Series C numerals (Series B for direction cardinals) and also display a line below the whole number and its decimal
.0 display. In contrast, the PennDOT whole markers along I-476 do not feature a decinal
.0 display and feature crowded Series D numerals with a standard 3di-shield.
The new decimal mile markers (these do not feature route shields or direction cardinals) along both the Blue Route and Turnpike sections of I-476 are identical.
Looks like the enhanced signs may make to at least some state signed routes. There is a new enhanced MM sign on Rt 3 just past the 17SB onramp (MM 7). I would not be surprised if freeway (and Jersey Freeway) class state roads get them and 2 lane undivided ones don't.
Non-freeways only get markers every half milepost anyway, so no big push there.
Even though we already knew about this, here's an article on NJ.com confirming the reasoning behind it to the general public. And yes, like all comment sections on that website, they're all complaining about Muh Taxes.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/11/why_do_interstate_highways_have_new_mile_marker_si.html
Aren't the regular sized standard markers (like the ones in Vermont) still allowed in the MUTCD? Why not use those? IMO they look MUCH nicer.
NY seems to be based on region. Region 1 does not use enhanced tenths. In fact, the only place we use enhanced markers at all is on the Northway. We haven't been adding tenth mile markers to places that have never had them and I've never seen them back to back either (which seems like a huge waste of money to me). Region 2 doesn't use mile markers at all. Region 7 uses enhanced exclusively, but only on full mile intervals. Region 4 had their own, but hasn't been replacing them recently and there are many places where they're missing completely as a result (they use enhanced for full mile intervals now, though the only place they're installed is on I-490 west of downtown). Region 6 uses standard markers and only at full mile intervals. Region 8 shrunk the standard markers down to the size of the markers they used to use. Regions 3, 5, and 9 appear to be using enhanced tenths for new installs. Regions 10 and 11 don't use mile markers at all, and the Thruway appears to have made no effort at switching anything. Did I forget any?
Let's just say that getting the regions to do anything is like herding cats.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 24, 2015, 02:55:42 PM
You will be surprised. Ask our friend who works on the NJTA how many people say they are on the New Jersey Parkway, or the Garden State Turnpike, or on the New York Parkway.
You (or our NJTA friend) forgot the New York Turnpike.
Way back during Palm Sunday week in 1979, my HS senior class (30 strong, plus 2 teacher chaperones [we were a private school near Philly]) went to Niagara Falls for our 3-night class trip. We rode a chartered Trailways bus for the overnight ride over the PA TPK NE Extension, then up I-81, picking up what one of my classmates, seeing the toll booth, thought was the New York Turnpike on the other side of the 'Cuse. (I don't think I-390 existed in its entirety back then, and NY 17 hadn't begun morphing into I-86 yet.) But I-690 existed IIRC, but our driver may not have known about it, otherwise he might have saved us a few cents.
ixnay