I noticed that in Florida that FDOT does not want WB US 92 through motorists to travel through Downtown DeLand, FL. At the intersection of US 17 and US 92 (Woodland Boulevard and Intenational Speedway Boulevard outside the DeLand City Limits) there is no sign to inform motorists that US 92 turns left from WB International Speedway to SB Woodland to join its long duplex with US 17.
FDOT informed me in the snail mail days, that this is false because there is a Downtown DeLand sign for SB US 17 & WB US 92 and a "TO US 92 WEST sign pointing toward continuing International Speedway Boulevard. International Speedway meets FL 15A, that is a by-pass of DeLand in a form of a half beltway to the west of the city. At FL 15A on WB Speedway there are more "TO US 92 WEST" signs that lead motorists south on FL 15A back to later on US 17 & 92 on the far side of the city.
So basically a suggested bypass and letting motorists think that International Speedway Boulevard and SR 15A are US 92 through DeLand and US 92 through the Business District is "A road into town.'
The former signage on the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel for SB Traffic to SB MD 2 purposely left off information for SB MD 2 at its exit to keep traffic off the streets of Brooklyn, MD. It was signed "EXIT 13-Brooklyn" and the next exit after that for present day I-895 SPUR was signed for MD 2 as "MD 2- MD 3 Bay Bridge- Annapolis" instead. I-895 SPUR, as we all know, terninates at MD 2 south of Brooklyn, so they were trying to get all those bound for all points on MD 2 south of Brooklyn to bypass the area.
Now with I-97 in place carrying all traffic that MD 2 once did, the current signs do display MD 2 SOUTH for its exit.
Looked at Street View on Google Maps. WB on Intl Speedway Blvd before Woodland, there is a BGS that specifies a TRUCK BYPASS for US 92 W and US 17 S, TO FL15A heading down Intl Speedway Blvd.
On SB US 17/Woodland before Intl Speedway, there's a JCT US 92, then an overhead BGS for US 92 E - but nothing for US 92 W until you see the markers on Woodland south of Intl Speedway for US 17 S and US 92 W. There is no "TRUCK BYPASS" signage on US 17 S prior to Intl Speedway.
Seems to be more a poorly signed intersection overall, with the "suggested" bypass actually being a signed truck bypass.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on November 12, 2011, 02:34:18 PM
There is no "TRUCK BYPASS" signage on US 17 S prior to Intl Speedway.
There is back at the SR 15A intersection.
Now it is a Truck Bypass. It was changed sometime recently or in the past few years. The letter I got from DOT was back in the 90's before internet was popular or at least before I got into it. The chief engineer wrote me a letter to that effect, but not in the exact words.
Northbound, the New Jersey Turnpike signs the western spur for the George Washington Bridge and the eastern spur for the Lincoln Tunnel... despite the fact that the former can be accessed just as easily from either.
Southbound, similarly, the western spur is signed as the turnpike itself and the eastern spur is signed as an exit (!) for the Lincoln Tunnel.
The intent is of course to route through traffic around tunnel traffic. Most of the time this works fine, but when there's an event at the meadowlands you'd actually want to route through traffic the other way...
Quote from: Duke87 on November 13, 2011, 12:25:53 AM
The intent is of course to route through traffic around tunnel traffic. Most of the time this works fine, but when there's an event at the meadowlands you'd actually want to route through traffic the other way...
Aren't those signs changeable?
Quote from: NE2 on November 13, 2011, 12:29:16 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 13, 2011, 12:25:53 AM
The intent is of course to route through traffic around tunnel traffic. Most of the time this works fine, but when there's an event at the meadowlands you'd actually want to route through traffic the other way...
Aren't those signs changeable?
Yes they are.
Quote from: NE2 on November 13, 2011, 12:29:16 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 13, 2011, 12:25:53 AM
The intent is of course to route through traffic around tunnel traffic. Most of the time this works fine, but when there's an event at the meadowlands you'd actually want to route through traffic the other way...
Aren't those signs changeable?
Yes, and now that you mention it, I do believe I've seen the signs at the northern end changed to direct stadium traffic one way and all other traffic the other way. Haven't seen similar on the southern end, but I have seen portable VMSs northbound directing Meadowlands traffic to use exit 16E (rather than 16W which is more direct). Northbound you can't just direct all non-Meadolands traffic to the eastern spur since you can't get to 280 from the eastern spur northbound.
I don't know if I'd call them "erroneous" so much as I might suggest they're "intentionally misleading." Here in the DC area, I-95 is routed around the eastern side of the Beltway and most of the thru traffic goes that way. Signs also affirmatively direct people to go that way. Like the New Jersey Turnpike scenario noted above, of course, people can go around the western side of the Beltway and wind up in exactly the same place, but the signs never mention this. There are a few good reasons for it, some of them permanent (a twisty segment of the western part of the Beltway in Maryland where it passes through Rock Creek Park; a narrow segment just west of there; heavy traffic in Tysons Corner) and some temporary (massive construction due to a widening project in Virginia). Once upon a time I rather liked the idea of signing the Beltway as I-95E and I-95W to clarify that you could go either way (recognizing this would require an exception to the numbering rules, of course).
The example of this I've always found interesting is I-90 eastbound (NY Thruway)approaching Albany. Prior to the I-90/I-87 interchange, the control city for the I-87 signs is Boston, and there are trailblazer signs directing traffic bound for the Massachusetts Turnpike to use I-87 south, not I-90 east.
Quote from: roadman on November 14, 2011, 02:07:42 PM
The example of this I've always found interesting is I-90 eastbound (NY Thruway)approaching Albany. Prior to the I-90/I-87 interchange, the control city for the I-87 signs is Boston, and there are trailblazer signs directing traffic bound for the Massachusetts Turnpike to use I-87 south, not I-90 east.
This is common at bypasses, and not erronious [sic] in any way.
I-95 exits 22, 25, and 33 used to (up to early 80s) not mention US 301 on the BGS's to keep non-local traffic off of US 301 between Lumberton and Fayetteville.
An error of commission instead of omission:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Fredericksburg,+VA&hl=en&ll=38.29125,-77.485607&spn=0.000034,0.01781&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=44.25371,72.949219&vpsrc=6&hnear=Fredericksburg,+Virginia&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=38.291149,-77.485642&panoid=-gst7dcTSptmGVd5ZFdDAw&cbp=12,339.48,,0,1.18
the side street (Beverly Ave) can be used to get to VA 3 west of US 1. However, the yellow sign says either Dead End or No Outlet (forget which) and a sign underneath says "No thru traffic"
Clearly the yellow sign is erroneous on purpose to keep people from cutting through the neighborhood...
Mapmikey
There are plenty of No Outlet examples to throw non-locals off the cut-through trail, I don't know that I'd start naming specific examples.
Another "error": VT 9 is signed to use I-91 around Brattleboro, although it actually goes through town on US 5.
Quote from: NE2 on November 14, 2011, 04:02:35 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 14, 2011, 02:07:42 PM
The example of this I've always found interesting is I-90 eastbound (NY Thruway)approaching Albany. Prior to the I-90/I-87 interchange, the control city for the I-87 signs is Boston, and there are trailblazer signs directing traffic bound for the Massachusetts Turnpike to use I-87 south, not I-90 east.
This is common at bypasses, and not erronious [sic] in any way.
Correct. I wasn't meaning to imply that this signing is erroneous. But the intent seems pretty clear to me - to keep through traffic on the longer toll road route instead of the more direct routing via the I-90 free section.
Although I will admit that placing Boston on the I-87 signs, which is likely what the original signs said before "free" I-90 was completed through Albany in the early 1970s, works very well from a "sign balance" perspective.
Not being totally familiar with that area, what are the tolling practices for a straight shot west on the Berkshire Extension and then north on I-87/west on I-90? Are there any booths such as what you encounter when you stay on I-90 and exit the Berkshire, and then re-enter the Thruway at that mess of an interchange?
Seems to be it would be easier and less time-consuming to stay on the Thruway if heading east on I-90, rather than be caught up in the traffic jam at the toll booth at the 90/87 interchange.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 15, 2011, 08:42:12 PM
Not being totally familiar with that area, what are the tolling practices for a straight shot west on the Berkshire Extension and then north on I-87/west on I-90? Are there any booths such as what you encounter when you stay on I-90 and exit the Berkshire, and then re-enter the Thruway at that mess of an interchange?
That part of the Thruway is ticket system, so there are no toll booths on the route around Albany. It costs an extra $1.65 to stay on the Thruway.
Interestingly getting off at I-88 and U-turning saves you 60-65 cents no matter where you're going (because of the agreement to end I-88 at the Thruway; it's free between I-88 and several nearby exits). So if you're up for saving money at the expense of time, you should not only stay on I-90 through Albany but also detour via the I-88 toll booth.
And also the I-890/NY 5S one too.
Huh?
I just drove through Albany last weekend and passed through a toll booth when I went from I-87 southbound to I-90 westbound.
A few weeks ago, I drove I-88 east and after passing through the toll booth, I went west on I-90 and then exited onto I-890. Passed through a toll booth, then passed through another toll booth when I got back on I-90. I stayed on the Thruway because I then wanted to clinch I-787, but I noticed a huge backup at the toll booth where you exit the Thruway to either stay on I-90 west or take I-87 north.
You have to pass through two toll booths if you stay on I-90 in the Albany area. You don't pass through any toll booths if you stay on the Thruway and then take the Berkshire instead of taking I-90 through Albany.
In times of heavy traffic with long backups at the Albany toll booth, it would be worth it to me to stay on the Thruway to the Berkshire rather than get held up in the Albany toll plaza and then go through the toll plaza again where I-90 rejoins the Thruway.
Traveling between I-88 (exit 25A) and exit 25 or 24 will indeed result in passing through two toll booths, but will not result in paying a toll. Your EZPass statement should register a charge of $0.00 for this.
The toll booths still exist because there is a toll if you travel further.
I will have to check my statement for my September trip. On that trip, I went from I-88 to I-90 west, got off and used I-890 east through Schenectady and back to I-90, then stayed on the Thruway and got off at I-787. Don't know the exit numbers to match up with what you posted.
This past weekend, I went from I-87 south to I-90 west and got off on I-88.
States that don't sign US Routes where multiplexed with Interstates (e.g. NM, CO, UT)
Quote from: hbelkins on November 16, 2011, 09:04:05 PM
I will have to check my statement for my September trip. On that trip, I went from I-88 to I-90 west, got off and used I-890 east through Schenectady and back to I-90, then stayed on the Thruway and got off at I-787. Don't know the exit numbers to match up with what you posted.
This past weekend, I went from I-87 south to I-90 west and got off on I-88.
Had you gone east from 88 to 890, you wouldn't have paid. West to 890 and from 890 to 787 will both give you tolls. This past weekend, you were untolled.
I-88 to/from either I-890 exit and I-90/I-87 is not tolled. However, between the I-890 exits and I-890-I-90/I-87 is. You only avoid the toll if going to/from I-88.
Quote from: deanej on November 18, 2011, 09:24:13 AM
I-88 to/from either I-890 exit and I-90/I-87 is not tolled. However, between the I-890 exits and I-890-I-90/I-87 is. You only avoid the toll if going to/from I-88.
I was under the impression you had to go to the eastern I-890. But you're right.
I was too until I actually went that way. I'm not sure why they did that.
Quote from: deanej on November 19, 2011, 10:48:06 AM
I was too until I actually went that way. I'm not sure why they did that.
I think it was so the federally-funded I-88 could end at the Thruway (instead of the original plan for a parallel I-88).
The western I-890 junction is to the west of that corridor. Since I-88 enters the Thruway between the I-890 exits, shouldn't only one of them be toll free?
Quote from: deanej on November 20, 2011, 11:22:17 AM
The western I-890 junction is to the west of that corridor. Since I-88 enters the Thruway between the I-890 exits, shouldn't only one of them be toll free?
Perhaps federal funding was used to build all the ramps at the end, so they had to include a free movement to use them.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan was instrumental is having Interstate 88 end at a new Thruway Exit 25A. As part of the Federal funding used for the end of Interstate 88, the 10 miles of Thruway was widened with Federal funds from Exits 24 to 25A from four to six lanes by 1989. The justification for the use of Federal money to widen the toll road was that New York was never "paid" for incorporating Interstate highways and their signage onto toll roads like the Thruway. The "price" for Thruway Authority acceptance of Federal funds was no tolls imposed if entering or exiting the Thruway at Exits 24 and 25A only, nominally it would have been a 35-cent toll.
The widening and upgrade of this particular 10-mile section of the Thruway was way, way overdue. The Thruway had remained an overburdened four-lane badly worn section of original concrete roadbed from the mid 1950's. The six miles between Exits 24 and 25 (then, just a 20-cent toll) were often clogged with traffic. Exit 24, in particular, has long been the busiest interchange outside of the City of New York.
Prior to completion of the missing link of SR-2 around Huron, OH, ODOT had signed westbound traffic in Elyria to Cedar Point Amusement Park to stay on I-90 and use the Ohio Turnpike (for then one exit) to US-250, rather than stay on SR-2 to the "East Entrance" to Cedar Point.
Despite the drive through Huron with 6 or 7 traffic lights -- and usually one or two speed traps -- staying on SR 2 was still shorter time-wise by about 10 minutes and at least $1.00 cheaper in round-trip tolls.
What they still do to westbound Cedar Point traffic coming via SR-2 is suggest taking either US-250 or US-6 to the Cedar Point Causeway (the "official" entrance to Cedar Point), but ODOT has since taken away all of the signage denoting the East Entrance to the park even though the East Entrance is still a noticeable intersection
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Huron,+OH&hl=en&ll=41.416398,-82.625685&spn=0.004747,0.011448&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=40.681389,93.779297&vpsrc=6&hnear=Huron,+Erie,+Ohio&t=h&z=17
Quote from: thenetwork on November 20, 2011, 11:19:47 PM
Prior to completion of the missing link of SR-2 around Huron, OH, ODOT had signed westbound traffic in Elyria to Cedar Point Amusement Park to stay on I-90 and use the Ohio Turnpike (for then one exit) to US-250, rather than stay on SR-2 to the "East Entrance" to Cedar Point.
Despite the drive through Huron with 6 or 7 traffic lights -- and usually one or two speed traps -- staying on SR 2 was still shorter time-wise by about 10 minutes and at least $1.00 cheaper in round-trip tolls.
What they still do to westbound Cedar Point traffic coming via SR-2 is suggest taking either US-250 or US-6 to the Cedar Point Causeway (the "official" entrance to Cedar Point), but ODOT has since taken away all of the signage denoting the East Entrance to the park even though the East Entrance is still a noticeable intersection
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Huron,+OH&hl=en&ll=41.416398,-82.625685&spn=0.004747,0.011448&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=40.681389,93.779297&vpsrc=6&hnear=Huron,+Erie,+Ohio&t=h&z=17
From the begining of the decade :
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.roadfan.com%2Fcpbrsign.jpg&hash=5676f9707bcef226b7471988bf7b156155ae284e)
The entire collection of phootos dealing with Cedar Point that Marc (Fannin) and I took in 2002/03.
http://www.roadfan.com/cepoint.html
If you're traveling north on Hoes Lane in Piscataway, NJ (the road that will be Route 18), approaching a main E-W road, Centennial Ave., that will take you to I-287 north, intuition dictates that you should make a left onto Centennial and a right on Possumtown Rd. to get to 287 NB (at exit 8 ). However, on Hoes Lane, there is a sign directing all 287 travelers to the right, eventually onto S. Randolphville Rd. (at exit 7). (see map below) This signed detour adds about 2 miles to your journey, but since 287 seems to always be backed up, getting on it further up will save you some time.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg854.imageshack.us%2Fimg854%2F6894%2Fpway287.jpg&hash=d116c1826a02de997549dae7ebefc6c8e5e42cfd)
This is only interesting to me because I've spoken with the mayor and he acknowledged this signing and it's that way because Exit 7 is a "cloverleaf" but I think it's intended more for truck traffic and the fact that it may be hard to make some of those tight turns. He said that once the Route 18 project is complete, it will be signed correctly.
Also discussed with the mayor is the possibility of renaming "Hoes Lane" after that whole Don Imus/Rutgers incident. :)
Quote from: hbelkins on November 16, 2011, 04:17:05 PM
Huh?
I just drove through Albany last weekend and passed through a toll booth when I went from I-87 southbound to I-90 westbound.
Definitely, as you entered from the Adirondack Northway onto the Thruway at Interchange 24 (the same toll barrier where the traffic backups you describe occur).
Quote from: hbelkins on November 16, 2011, 04:17:05 PM
A few weeks ago, I drove I-88 east and after passing through the toll booth, I went west on I-90 and then exited onto I-890. Passed through a toll booth, then passed through another toll booth when I got back on I-90. I stayed on the Thruway because I then wanted to clinch I-787, but I noticed a huge backup at the toll booth where you exit the Thruway to either stay on I-90 west or take I-87 north.
You entered at 25A, exited at 26, re-entered at 25 and headed for 23 (while noticing the backup at that same 24 from your first paragraph). Just translating into interchange numbers for those playing along at home. :-)
Quote from: hbelkins on November 16, 2011, 04:17:05 PM
You have to pass through two toll booths if you stay on I-90 in the Albany area. You don't pass through any toll booths if you stay on the Thruway and then take the Berkshire instead of taking I-90 through Albany.
In times of heavy traffic with long backups at the Albany toll booth, it would be worth it to me to stay on the Thruway to the Berkshire rather than get held up in the Albany toll plaza and then go through the toll plaza again where I-90 rejoins the Thruway.
Yes, unless of course your aim is to clinch I-90. That said, only on one or two occasions have I ever noticed serious traffic backups at Exit 24, and so I frequently opt for free I-90 because it has more "action" (i.e., is less boring). If there isn't traffic (which in my experience is usually the case) and if you have E-ZPass, it's pretty much an even trade whether you go through or around.
It's interesting that I rarely run across that Exit 24 traffic, having passed that way regularly all my life, whereas I hear and read that it's a frequent problem, and people who only visit the area once or twice, like H.B., always seem to encounter it. It must be the same situation as I-590's Exit 1, which apparently experiences such horrendous traffic so regularly that they're building a brand-new diverging diamond there; despite which, in over thirty years living just up the road, I have never once seen anything close to bad traffic there!
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 22, 2011, 09:43:28 AMThis signed detour adds about 2 miles to your journey, but since 287 seems to always be backed up, getting on it further up will save you some time.
How does being in a backup longer save time?
Quote from: empirestate on November 22, 2011, 01:05:56 PM
It's interesting that I rarely run across that Exit 24 traffic, having passed that way regularly all my life, whereas I hear and read that it's a frequent problem, and people who only visit the area once or twice, like H.B., always seem to encounter it. It must be the same situation as I-590's Exit 1, which apparently experiences such horrendous traffic so regularly that they're building a brand-new diverging diamond there; despite which, in over thirty years living just up the road, I have never once seen anything close to bad traffic there!
I think it's a rush hour thing.
Speaking of Cedar Point, one time I had to use the Chausee to get back to the hotel I was staying at (as the Causeway was jammed).
Quote from: deanej on November 22, 2011, 05:04:26 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 22, 2011, 09:43:28 AMThis signed detour adds about 2 miles to your journey, but since 287 seems to always be backed up, getting on it further up will save you some time.
How does being in a backup longer save time?
As I read that, You get on the backed up road later, thus avoiding part of the backup & saving time.
Quote from: ftballfan on November 22, 2011, 06:24:38 PM
Speaking of Cedar Point, one time I had to use the Chausee to get back to the hotel I was staying at (as the Causeway was jammed).
When going to Cedar Point with my church youth group back in the late 80s and early 90s, we always took the "back" entrance to Cedar point. It was still signed at that point. I guess all those people with vacation homes along the road got tired of people on it.
Quote from: yakra on November 27, 2011, 01:55:32 PM
Quote from: deanej on November 22, 2011, 05:04:26 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 22, 2011, 09:43:28 AMThis signed detour adds about 2 miles to your journey, but since 287 seems to always be backed up, getting on it further up will save you some time.
How does being in a backup longer save time?
As I read that, You get on the backed up road later, thus avoiding part of the backup & saving time.
But if it's "wrong" that means you must be heading west (wound't you go that way east anyways? Exits 7 and 8 are equally far away from the decision point, and that puts you on the freeway *earlier*, and in the backup longer. Why would the backup magically disappear if you took a minute or two longer to get on the freeway?).
Am I thinking of the wrong area? (nope, I'm not, judging by the picture posted earlier).
Oh gosh, how many STOP signs have I seen in México that just mean "watch out, slow down maybe if you need to". Like at pedestrian crossings, or at merge lanes, or directly below a stoplight (what do you do if it's green??) or in advance of the real stop sign, or....the list goes on....
Quote from: kphoger on December 20, 2011, 04:20:03 PM
Oh gosh, how many STOP signs have I seen in México that just mean "watch out, slow down maybe if you need to". Like at pedestrian crossings, or at merge lanes, or directly below a stoplight (what do you do if it's green??) or in advance of the real stop sign, or....the list goes on....
I saw the 'stop and green light' in some European country (Italy?) and was baffled as to what it meant. I just drove through, figuring green was correct and the stop sign was only for when the light was out.
That's e
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 20, 2011, 04:40:32 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 20, 2011, 04:20:03 PM
Oh gosh, how many STOP signs have I seen in México that just mean "watch out, slow down maybe if you need to". Like at pedestrian crossings, or at merge lanes, or directly below a stoplight (what do you do if it's green??) or in advance of the real stop sign, or....the list goes on....
I saw the 'stop and green light' in some European country (Italy?) and was baffled as to what it meant. I just drove through, figuring green was correct and the stop sign was only for when the light was out.
That's exactly what it means. There's a sign below it which says "A semaforo spento or lampeggiante", meaning "If signal out or flashing". (In NATO areas there will be a sign in English below it, "When traffic light off or yellow blinker on.") Instead of putting one street on flashing red and the other on flashing yellow, they put both streets on flashing yellow.
Here are the realistic meanings of signs in México:
STOP = There may or may not be something nearby you need to yield to, so just be careful.
YIELD (Ceda el paso) = Hit the gas and beat the other guy, no sense in slowing down when you don't need to.
Here are the realistic meanings of signs in the United States:
STOP = No one is coming, but we don't use YIELD signs anymore because, well, no one really remembers.
YIELD = This sign will soon be replaced with a STOP sign for no apparent reason.