I found it interesting that the I-84 WB split with CT-72 was diagrammed in the MUTCD 2009 manual. However, the sign doesn't yet exist and CT (so far) doesn't stripe the roads the way it's in the manual. I wonder if it will be in the future?
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/part2e.pdf (Look at page 15)
Alsoon a side note: I don't like the upward pointing arrows. I like the downward facing arrows better . Too bad
Are the downward facing arrows being phased out!??!?!
I'm surprised the authors didn't go with I-47, US 88, Anytown, etc. as in later examples. The 84/72 interchange in real life differs in many ways from the illustration:
- There are 6 WB lanes leading to the split, not 5
- There is no option lane (the main feature being illustrated)
- The exit number is 33, not 49
- The state route marker is square, not circular
I don't mind the upward-pointing pull-through arrows (in fact, I prefer upward over downward when they are slanted), but the arrows shown are IMO too long.
Given the mentioned presence of I-47, US 88, Anytown, etc etc, I would suggest they were going more for visual examples rather than real world examples...
I wonder what AASHO's objection is to the number 47. It is the only two-digit route number that is neither a US nor an interstate highway.
Quote from: kurumi on December 18, 2009, 01:22:51 PM
I'm surprised the authors didn't go with I-47, US 88, Anytown, etc. as in later examples. The 84/72 interchange in real life differs in many ways from the illustration:
- There are 6 WB lanes leading to the split, not 5
- There is no option lane (the main feature being illustrated)
- The exit number is 33, not 49
- The state route marker is square, not circular
I don't mind the upward-pointing pull-through arrows (in fact, I prefer upward over downward when they are slanted), but the arrows shown are IMO too long.
Yes, the westbound interchange is quite wide. It's cool driving through. However, when the DOT widened the EB interchange, I wonder why they didn't take out the left-exits and entrances!?!
Quote from: kurumi on December 18, 2009, 01:22:51 PM
The exit number is 33, not 49
It would be 49 (well... 49A) if Connecticut switched to milepost numbering. ;-)
Quote from: doofy103 on December 18, 2009, 10:58:02 AM
Are the downward facing arrows being phased out!??!?!
No, but the rules governing their use have changed. Chief among the changes is a new requirement that multiple downward-pointing arrows cannot be used to refer to a single lane.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 18, 2009, 11:24:33 PM
Quote from: kurumi on December 18, 2009, 01:22:51 PM
The exit number is 33, not 49
It would be 49 (well... 49A) if Connecticut switched to milepost numbering. ;-)
I kind of hope they don't. For years, I'd refer to exits by the crossroad (eg the 72 west exit) and I finally learned the numbers this century. I'd rather not have to relearn them. (and what if the metric system ever gets adopted? Ooh, boy.)