Please move my post to another existing thread if so desired. Here are pics of North Carolina's 1st Toll Road: The Triangle Expressway. The first 3.5 mile segment opened today. As usual, NCDOT produces decent looking signage.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Fmsgsign.png&hash=859203bc93c5dd66058c6e0ce278e43760790565)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Ftriex-1.png&hash=641b9f2321fda5ddc2ad6aef689d83553c103366)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Fschedule.png&hash=e1e761a584532e7995b9a4dbabe00b7bb29c0ba2)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Fncquick.png&hash=f5fe75015aad85638ee606a3411df2d861526ae8)
Here's the local news report:
http://www.wral.com/traffic/video/10476599/#/vid10476599
On the toll rates sign, am I correct in seeing the toll rates and NC Quick Pass logo being bolt on signs?
This is more of a nitpick. I would say this is NC's first MODERN toll road. There probably were toll roads back in colonial days and the early days of the U.S. as there were in most areas.
Quote from: mightyace on December 08, 2011, 07:50:45 PM
There probably were toll roads back in colonial days and the early days of the U.S. as there were in most areas.
The first U.S. turnpike was in the 1780s (Snicker's Gap Turnpike in Virginia), and some lasted into the 1920s (Florida's Conners Highway was a latecomer, lasting from 1924 to 1930).
At least they don't charge a $5 extra for bill-by-mail like in Canada.
Is the NC QuickPass compatible with E-ZPass?
Any idea of what's supposed to fill the right side of the BGS in the 2nd photo?
Quote from: hbelkins on December 08, 2011, 08:56:08 PM
Is the NC QuickPass compatible with E-ZPass?
Yes. The WRAL news report states that the transponder is compatible "up and down" the East Coast.
Quote from: Takumi on December 08, 2011, 11:08:02 PM
Any idea of what's supposed to fill the right side of the BGS in the 2nd photo?
It will probably say, "To NC55", "To US-1 South" or some other intersecting route with the southern portion of Raleigh's outer loop. I hate that it must be designated as NC540 rather than I-540 (full loop will eventually be I-640/NC640)
Quote from: hbelkins on December 08, 2011, 08:56:08 PM
Is the NC QuickPass compatible with E-ZPass?
According to the Quick Pass website, the answer is "not yet." (https://www.myncquickpass.com/en/home/index.shtml) It says that currently non—North Carolina transponders won't work in North Carolina, and the NC Quick Pass won't work outside North Carolina, but they're negotiating with SunPass and E-ZPass to try to achieve some sort of interoperability. Based on what the transponder looks like in the depictions on their website, I'd wager SunPass interoperability will come first because the device looks like a SunPass Mini. The problem is that many of the E-ZPass facilities still use tollgate arms when they converted the old "Toll Machine" lanes to E-ZPass, and the SunPass (or similar device) won't cause the arm to raise.
Why didn't they just go ez-pass? With VA being ez-pass, they're right on the border!
Quote from: deanej on December 09, 2011, 12:14:38 PM
Why didn't they just go ez-pass? With VA being ez-pass, they're right on the border!
"mtantillo" could give you a better explanation than I can, but from what he told me once before, I gather the SunPass Mini—style transponder is ultimately less of a cost for the toll agency because it doesn't rely on a battery the way E-ZPass does and so it need not be replaced every four to five years like an E-ZPass. He and I had a discussion about it in another forum and he said that most of the toll agencies outside of the Northeast have opted for the SunPass Mini—style devices in part for that very reason and that the E-ZPass style device is "old technology" (he didn't use those precise words, the quotation marks are mine). The sticking point on the E-ZPass states changing technology would be the cost and the hassle and the disruption. Of course, in my mind that doesn't necessarily address why Florida uses two different SunPass devices, one of them a hard plastic thing that looks more similar to (but not the same as) an E-ZPass and the other the Mini that looks like a Transcore gate opener (the complex where my wife lived before we got married used those). The "standard" white plastic SunPass looks to me like it would face the same issue about battery life as the E-ZPass, given that it has lights that come on to confirm you paid. The Mini is not supposed to be transferrable between cars because they want you to affix it permanently to your windshield, but that's bollocks; I can confirm from personal experience that it works fine if you just use Scotch tape to attach it.
Apparently the holdup on SunPass/E-ZPass interoperability is what I noted before about gate opening. From what I understand, the transponder won't necessarily work on the other agency's roads; rather, you'll be tolled by plate in that if, say, you're an E-ZPass user and you drive on the Bee Line in Florida, it looks up your license plate in the E-ZPass database, sees you're a customer, and bills your E-ZPass account (without the normal toll-by-plate surcharge, from what I've heard). Of course that underscores the importance of keeping your car and plate info up-to-date with your E-ZPass issuer.
Like 1995hoo said, EZ-Pass is outdated, expensive technology, and the fact that multiple states are members make it difficult politically to do anything about that.
As for the full white SunPass, the older variants did need a battery. The newer ones look the same but don't need batteries, don't beep, and don't flash. I wouldn't be surprised if they just stuck a standard mini on the inside of the plastic case to make it movable!
Quote from: architect77 on December 08, 2011, 07:34:59 PM
Please move my post to another existing thread if so desired. Here are pics of North Carolina's 1st Toll Road: The Triangle Expressway. The first 3.5 mile segment opened today. As usual, NCDOT produces decent looking signage.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Ftriex-1.png&hash=641b9f2321fda5ddc2ad6aef689d83553c103366)
Here's the local news report:
http://www.wral.com/traffic/video/10476599/#/vid10476599
On the BGS, I'm curious as to why there's so much space between the top of the panel and the cardinal direction/TO line. Arrow per lane signs are already large enough without adding additional and unnecessary dead space.
Please clip excess images
On the EZPass interoperability note, my understanding is that there's also a legal barrier to it in terms of privacy laws. It's been firm EZPass policy for years that transaction records are confidential and may only be released to the account holder or by subpoena, and some states in the network have laws requiring this. North Carolina, meanwhile, has no law regarding privacy of toll transactions and since the system is operated by a public agency the current legal interpretation is that the data falls under FOIA and therefore must be provided to anyone upon request - a glaring conflict with EZPass policy. So unless North Carolina passes legislation changing this, the two systems cannot be integrated.
Quote from: roadman on December 09, 2011, 05:01:36 PM
On the BGS, I'm curious as to why there's so much space between the top of the panel and the cardinal direction/TO line. Arrow per lane signs are already large enough without adding additional and unnecessary dead space.
Please clip excess images
I know. It looks like they aren't supersizing the text on these "turnpike" signs, which doesn't match the gigantic letters on the rest of the roads. For that matter, I also don't like these Texas-style gantry posts either. When I drove past a different segment still under construction a few weeks ago, I was shocked at how skinny the concrete columns were under the new overpasses. I mean they are noticeably different from the norm. I guess every dollar counts when a project is financed in this way.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 09, 2011, 01:12:26 PM
Quote from: deanej on December 09, 2011, 12:14:38 PM
Why didn't they just go ez-pass? With VA being ez-pass, they're right on the border!
"mtantillo" could give you a better explanation than I can, but from what he told me once before, I gather the SunPass Mini—style transponder is ultimately less of a cost for the toll agency because it doesn't rely on a battery the way E-ZPass does and so it need not be replaced every four to five years like an E-ZPass. He and I had a discussion about it in another forum and he said that most of the toll agencies outside of the Northeast have opted for the SunPass Mini—style devices in part for that very reason and that the E-ZPass style device is "old technology" (he didn't use those precise words, the quotation marks are mine). The sticking point on the E-ZPass states changing technology would be the cost and the hassle and the disruption. Of course, in my mind that doesn't necessarily address why Florida uses two different SunPass devices, one of them a hard plastic thing that looks more similar to (but not the same as) an E-ZPass and the other the Mini that looks like a Transcore gate opener (the complex where my wife lived before we got married used those). The "standard" white plastic SunPass looks to me like it would face the same issue about battery life as the E-ZPass, given that it has lights that come on to confirm you paid. The Mini is not supposed to be transferrable between cars because they want you to affix it permanently to your windshield, but that's bollocks; I can confirm from personal experience that it works fine if you just use Scotch tape to attach it.
Apparently the holdup on SunPass/E-ZPass interoperability is what I noted before about gate opening. From what I understand, the transponder won't necessarily work on the other agency's roads; rather, you'll be tolled by plate in that if, say, you're an E-ZPass user and you drive on the Bee Line in Florida, it looks up your license plate in the E-ZPass database, sees you're a customer, and bills your E-ZPass account (without the normal toll-by-plate surcharge, from what I've heard). Of course that underscores the importance of keeping your car and plate info up-to-date with your E-ZPass issuer.
You need some kind of way to make them portable. This August, Dad had to borrow my car to go on a business trip in Albany. I kept the ez-pass since he needed receipts to get reimbursed for the tolls on the Thruway. That would not have been possible if I had a tag like the SunPass mini.
Also, there's a good chance I'll need my windshield replaced next year (there's a five inch crack in it), which would result in me having no transponder if I had something like the SunPass mini. Since I have ez-pass, all I'll need to do is buy new mounting strips.
I'm not sure why you can't set up the booths to read both.
If the toll agencies would sell transponders rather than lease them cost wouldn't be as much of an issue.
Quote from: deanej on December 10, 2011, 12:45:38 AM
Also, there's a good chance I'll need my windshield replaced next year (there's a five inch crack in it), which would result in me having no transponder if I had something like the SunPass mini. Since I have ez-pass, all I'll need to do is buy new mounting strips.
I'm not sure why you can't set up the booths to read both.
If the toll agencies would sell transponders rather than lease them cost wouldn't be as much of an issue.
Buy mounting strips? ISTHA gives them away for free at the toll plazas.
There be a single national (international, including Canada) electronic toll collection standard. Better cars should have the device built in, with proper (or improper) functioning indicated by a dashboard light or something in the multi-display center common in most cars. Those who live in areas w/o toll roads could simply never establish an account and leave the device dormant.
Quote from: SP Cook on December 10, 2011, 07:30:16 AM
There be a single national (international, including Canada) electronic toll collection standard. Better cars should have the device built in, with proper (or improper) functioning indicated by a dashboard light or something in the multi-display center common in most cars. Those who live in areas w/o toll roads could simply never establish an account and leave the device dormant.
Of course that would raise the price of new vehicles by about $2,000 or cause the unions to demand a $5 per hour wage increase. :bigass:
Quote from: deanej on December 10, 2011, 12:45:38 AM
....
You need some kind of way to make them portable. This August, Dad had to borrow my car to go on a business trip in Albany. I kept the ez-pass since he needed receipts to get reimbursed for the tolls on the Thruway. That would not have been possible if I had a tag like the SunPass mini.
Also, there's a good chance I'll need my windshield replaced next year (there's a five inch crack in it), which would result in me having no transponder if I had something like the SunPass mini. Since I have ez-pass, all I'll need to do is buy new mounting strips.
....
As I noted before, using Scotch tape to mount the SunPass Mini (which means it's portable) works just fine, regardless of what their instructions say. When I asked about it this past June, other folks on this forum recommended using tape and it worked perfectly well on our trip this summer.
When I had the windshield replaced on my previous car, the windshield installer used a razor blade to pull off the E-ZPass strips; he then stuck them on the new windshield and it worked fine. (More importantly to me as a Virginia resident, he was able to do the same with the county sticker and the inspection sticker.)
Quote from: deanej on December 10, 2011, 12:45:38 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 09, 2011, 01:12:26 PM
Quote from: deanej on December 09, 2011, 12:14:38 PM
Why didn't they just go ez-pass? With VA being ez-pass, they're right on the border!
"mtantillo" could give you a better explanation than I can, but from what he told me once before, I gather the SunPass Mini—style transponder is ultimately less of a cost for the toll agency because it doesn't rely on a battery the way E-ZPass does and so it need not be replaced every four to five years like an E-ZPass. He and I had a discussion about it in another forum and he said that most of the toll agencies outside of the Northeast have opted for the SunPass Mini—style devices in part for that very reason and that the E-ZPass style device is "old technology" (he didn't use those precise words, the quotation marks are mine). The sticking point on the E-ZPass states changing technology would be the cost and the hassle and the disruption. Of course, in my mind that doesn't necessarily address why Florida uses two different SunPass devices, one of them a hard plastic thing that looks more similar to (but not the same as) an E-ZPass and the other the Mini that looks like a Transcore gate opener (the complex where my wife lived before we got married used those). The "standard" white plastic SunPass looks to me like it would face the same issue about battery life as the E-ZPass, given that it has lights that come on to confirm you paid. The Mini is not supposed to be transferrable between cars because they want you to affix it permanently to your windshield, but that's bollocks; I can confirm from personal experience that it works fine if you just use Scotch tape to attach it.
Apparently the holdup on SunPass/E-ZPass interoperability is what I noted before about gate opening. From what I understand, the transponder won't necessarily work on the other agency's roads; rather, you'll be tolled by plate in that if, say, you're an E-ZPass user and you drive on the Bee Line in Florida, it looks up your license plate in the E-ZPass database, sees you're a customer, and bills your E-ZPass account (without the normal toll-by-plate surcharge, from what I've heard). Of course that underscores the importance of keeping your car and plate info up-to-date with your E-ZPass issuer.
You need some kind of way to make them portable. This August, Dad had to borrow my car to go on a business trip in Albany. I kept the ez-pass since he needed receipts to get reimbursed for the tolls on the Thruway. That would not have been possible if I had a tag like the SunPass mini.
Also, there's a good chance I'll need my windshield replaced next year (there's a five inch crack in it), which would result in me having no transponder if I had something like the SunPass mini. Since I have ez-pass, all I'll need to do is buy new mounting strips.
I'm not sure why you can't set up the booths to read both.
If the toll agencies would sell transponders rather than lease them cost wouldn't be as much of an issue.
The SunPass Mini costs a whole $5 and comes with a $5 toll credit, so buying a new one is essentially free. And they sell a non-mini SunPass for $25 that mounts to the windshield with suction cups if someone really needs portability.
As for reimbursability, I don't know about EZ-Pass, but I can log in to the SunPass website and print toll receipts, airport parks receipts, etc.. At least with my company, I've had no problem submitting those for reimbursement if I'm traveling for work with my personal car (usually to/from the airport).
Quote from: architect77 on December 09, 2011, 07:11:14 PM
Quote from: roadman on December 09, 2011, 05:01:36 PM
On the BGS, I'm curious as to why there's so much space between the top of the panel and the cardinal direction/TO line. Arrow per lane signs are already large enough without adding additional and unnecessary dead space.
Please clip excess images
I know. It looks like they aren't supersizing the text on these "turnpike" signs, which doesn't match the gigantic letters on the rest of the roads. For that matter, I also don't like these Texas-style gantry posts either. When I drove past a different segment still under construction a few weeks ago, I was shocked at how skinny the concrete columns were under the new overpasses. I mean they are noticeably different from the norm. I guess every dollar counts when a project is financed in this way.
As far as I can tell from the photo, the legends and shields on the BGS appear to conform to current MUTCD standards for overhead signs (36" shields, 16"/12" destinations), with the exception of the oversized (looks like 15" high) "TO" legends. Which still leaves the question - why so much blank space at the top of the sign?
As for the support structures, I agree - they look awfuly thin to me for the panel area. I have to wonder if the project contractor was given specific detail drawings for fabricating these structures by NCDOT, or if (as the practice is in many states) they were allowed to develop their own design provided the design met applicable AASHTO loading and wind speed requirements and was approved by NCDOT.
Quote from: roadman on December 09, 2011, 05:01:36 PM
Quote from: architect77 on December 08, 2011, 07:34:59 PM
Please move my post to another existing thread if so desired. Here are pics of North Carolina's 1st Toll Road: The Triangle Expressway. The first 3.5 mile segment opened today. As usual, NCDOT produces decent looking signage.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Ftriex-1.png&hash=641b9f2321fda5ddc2ad6aef689d83553c103366)
Here's the local news report:
http://www.wral.com/traffic/video/10476599/#/vid10476599
On the BGS, I'm curious as to why there's so much space between the top of the panel and the cardinal direction/TO line. Arrow per lane signs are already large enough without adding additional and unnecessary dead space.
Please clip excess images
Where is the "TOLL" Designation that should be above the cardinal sirection?
I think you have the answer (it's not toll until next year).
Quote from: Takumi on December 08, 2011, 11:08:02 PM
I hate that it must be designated as NC540 rather than I-540 (full loop will eventually be I-640/NC640)
I hate that as well. The loop construction got speeded up because the Damn Yankees in Cary got tired of driving 55 to RTP back and forth to work. They wanted their section of the loop built now, so it had to be a toll road which in turn means it can't have an Interstate designation. Which, by the way, I do not understand given that there are Interstate shields on other toll roads in other parts of the country. I have no reason to drive on the loop anyway, but even if I did I will avoid it because 1. I don't want to pay a toll to use it and 2. the difference in the designation between the North and South sides is a glaring embarrassment.
I think the "no interstate designation if it's a toll road" crap is a 21st century development (though I could easily be wrong). Most of the interstate toll roads elsewhere are older, many being turnpikes that predated the interstate system.
There's no such rule; see the extension of I-185 in SC. It's just that there's no real point in applying to FHWA/AASHTO for an Interstate designation if you're not getting anything for it.
Quote from: NE2 on December 22, 2011, 12:48:37 AM
There's no such rule; see the extension of I-185 in SC. It's just that there's no real point in applying to FHWA/AASHTO for an Interstate designation if you're not getting anything for it.
What I've been trying tell some of these folks for a while. It's NCDOT, not FHWA or AASHTO that's preventing this from being posted as an interstate.
Quote from: Brandon on December 22, 2011, 07:00:39 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 22, 2011, 12:48:37 AM
There's no such rule; see the extension of I-185 in SC. It's just that there's no real point in applying to FHWA/AASHTO for an Interstate designation if you're not getting anything for it.
What I've been trying tell some of these folks for a while. It's NCDOT, not FHWA or AASHTO that's preventing this from being posted as an interstate.
I chose the word "development" because I knew this was a voluntary case. I just don't like it. Even VA 895 is slated to become an interstate once ownership is transferred back to the state (currently slated for the early 22nd century).
^^^
Right, gentlemen.
In IL, the N-S tollway has always been I-355 and wasn't built all that long ago. The E-W tollway was converted from IL 5 to I-88. And, both I-39 and US 51 have been added to the NW tollway from Rockford to the WI line.
And, just this year, PA TOLL 60 became I-376. (also a relatively new facility)
Quote from: Brandon on December 22, 2011, 07:00:39 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 22, 2011, 12:48:37 AM
There's no such rule; see the extension of I-185 in SC. It's just that there's no real point in applying to FHWA/AASHTO for an Interstate designation if you're not getting anything for it.
What I've been trying tell some of these folks for a while. It's NCDOT, not FHWA or AASHTO that's preventing this from being posted as an interstate.
I don't understand. Do you mean that NCDOT chose not to pursue an Interstate designation because it was to their benefit not to? Would there have been no additional federal maintenance money coming to NC to reflect the increased mileage created by the southern half of the loop?
Quote from: architect77 on December 08, 2011, 07:34:59 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Fncquick.png&hash=f5fe75015aad85638ee606a3411df2d861526ae8)
This reminds me of the new toll signs going up on SR-520 in Washington state.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi205.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb153%2FKEK_INC%2FSR-520TOLL.png&hash=9130a3a126df2ad0c74a06b87ec7a306e9bd1c0b)
(A render I made, but for the interest of comparison it's fairly accurate.) Interesting, yet not really surprising, how many D.O.T.s are phasing into fully automated tolling.
[Edited to remove unnecessary formatting. -S.]
Paying salaries for toll collectors indefinitely and having to stop to pay (and subsequent congestion) probably would have been 2 factors too distasteful for North Carolinians to accept.
By 2014 the toll to cross the GWB, Lincoln and Holland Tunnels will rise from $12 to $15. Absolutely hard to believe! They were $4 to cross back when I moved to NYC in 2000. I wonder how much those toll collectors make, grabbing fistfuls of money literally about every 10 seconds.
Quote from: NE2 on December 22, 2011, 12:48:37 AM
There's no such rule; see the extension of I-185 in SC. It's just that there's no real point in applying to FHWA/AASHTO for an Interstate designation if you're not getting anything for it.
Is not the I-49 freeway near Belle Vista, AR to be a toll road if this interstate ever gets built this far north?
Quote from: broadhurst04 on December 22, 2011, 10:18:47 PMI don't understand. Do you mean that NCDOT chose not to pursue an Interstate designation because it was to their benefit not to? Would there have been no additional federal maintenance money coming to NC to reflect the increased mileage created by the southern half of the loop?
There are multiple issues here.
* The part of the Raleigh loop that is now signed as NC 540 was originally intended to be built as I-540. I think the deal is somewhat similar to SR 895 in Virginia, which was originally supposed to be I-895, and for which VDOT received some money from FHWA early in the planning process. If the state DOT accepts money during the planning and design phase from FHWA for a proposed Interstate that is later built as a toll road with a state-route designation, then the toll road cannot be signed as an Interstate until it is later made into a free road or the state DOT pays back the money received from FHWA during the planning and design phases--whichever happens first. (I think other presumptive counterexamples like I-355 got their Interstate designations because they were planned, designed, and built without federal funding.)
* Under current rules, in order for a state DOT to get IM money for a non-chargeable Interstate, the Interstate designation has to have been in place before a certain cutoff date in 2003. I don't know how this applies to Interstates which were planned but not built when this cutoff lapsed in 2003. In the case of I-795 (also in North Carolina), which was originally planned and built as a US 117 bypass but received the Interstate designation in 2007, it means that the road is not eligible for IM funding and indeed the designation was not pursued for that reason.
Here is toll "warning" signage on some secondary road that is junctioning with NC's new toll road. Sorry for the blurriness:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Fncquik.png&hash=3a661d951754c26b2ac70b7d89bd20e7d43d3f50)
Quote from: broadhurst04 on December 21, 2011, 09:18:26 PM
Quote from: Takumi on December 08, 2011, 11:08:02 PM
I hate that it must be designated as NC540 rather than I-540 (full loop will eventually be I-640/NC640)
I hate that as well. The loop construction got speeded up because the Damn Yankees in Cary got tired of driving 55 to RTP back and forth to work. They wanted their section of the loop built now, so it had to be a toll road which in turn means it can't have an Interstate designation. Which, by the way, I do not understand given that there are Interstate shields on other toll roads in other parts of the country. I have no reason to drive on the loop anyway, but even if I did I will avoid it because 1. I don't want to pay a toll to use it and 2. the difference in the designation between the North and South sides is a glaring embarrassment.
NCDOT's dragging of feet on widening NC-55 is also responsible. Traffic is horrible from the Holly Springs Bypass into Apex since the road goes from divided expressway, to undivided 4-lane arterial with center turn lane to a 2-lane road with center turn lane and then back to 4 lanes just south of US-64. If that section through Apex was widened to 4 lanes, it would go a long way to reducing congestion. The section north of US-64 to RTP is 4 lanes only because Cary financed its construction.
Quote from: architect77 on December 29, 2011, 03:12:09 PM
Here is toll "warning" signage on some secondary road that is junctioning with NC's new toll road. Sorry for the blurriness:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Fncquik.png&hash=3a661d951754c26b2ac70b7d89bd20e7d43d3f50)
I feel like there's a fairly blatant error on that sign. I'm assuming the shield on the right is supposed to be for NC/I-540?
Quote from: Kacie Jane on December 31, 2011, 12:03:00 AM
Quote from: architect77 on December 29, 2011, 03:12:09 PM
Here is toll "warning" signage on some secondary road that is junctioning with NC's new toll road. Sorry for the blurriness:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Fncquik.png&hash=3a661d951754c26b2ac70b7d89bd20e7d43d3f50)
I feel like there's a fairly blatant error on that sign. I'm assuming the shield on the right is supposed to be for NC/I-540?
Nope. This is for NC 147 Toll northbound at Hopson/Davis Driive, which goes to I 40 and becomes NC 147. What is odd is that signage on NC 147 Toll treats NC 147 (nontoll) as a separate highway. There is even an END NC 147 Toll/ Begin NC 147 sign at the I 40 interchange.
Quote from: dfilpus on December 31, 2011, 10:06:53 AM
Nope. This is for NC 147 Toll northbound at Hopson/Davis Driive, which goes to I 40 and becomes NC 147. What is odd is that signage on NC 147 Toll treats NC 147 (nontoll) as a separate highway. There is even an END NC 147 Toll/ Begin NC 147 sign at the I 40 interchange.
Do any other states do this, treat a partially-tolled highway as two distinct routes?
PA has separate Turnpike routes for the tolled portion of state highways. NYSDOT likes to pretend the toll portions of I-90 don't exist on reference markers.
I believe the same situation exists in Broward County, Florida with FL 869 having specially toll-signed on the Sawgrass Expressway (north/south, despite almost half the road traveling east/west) and NW 10 Street in Deerfield Beach having a regular state map-shield (entirely east/west). Please correct this information if it is not so.
With the I-376 conversion in PA, it now has a TOLL section in the middle of two free sections. None of the mainline BGSs treat them as two different routes. I don't know about any approach signage.
Quote from: dfilpus on December 31, 2011, 10:06:53 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on December 31, 2011, 12:03:00 AM
I feel like there's a fairly blatant error on that sign. I'm assuming the shield on the right is supposed to be for NC/I-540?
Nope. This is for NC 147 Toll northbound at Hopson/Davis Driive, which goes to I 40 and becomes NC 147. What is odd is that signage on NC 147 Toll treats NC 147 (nontoll) as a separate highway. There is even an END NC 147 Toll/ Begin NC 147 sign at the I 40 interchange.
Thanks for clarifying. To be honest though, I still just find this odd and confusing.
Quote from: Janko Dialnice on December 31, 2011, 11:21:55 AM
Quote from: dfilpus on December 31, 2011, 10:06:53 AM
Nope. This is for NC 147 Toll northbound at Hopson/Davis Driive, which goes to I 40 and becomes NC 147. What is odd is that signage on NC 147 Toll treats NC 147 (nontoll) as a separate highway. There is even an END NC 147 Toll/ Begin NC 147 sign at the I 40 interchange.
Do any other states do this, treat a partially-tolled highway as two distinct routes?
I-87 in New York in terms of how exit numbers reset when you leave the Thruway in Albany? Route number isn't distinguished, though.
Quote from: xcellntbuy on December 31, 2011, 02:39:03 PM
I believe the same situation exists in Broward County, Florida with FL 869 having specially toll-signed on the Sawgrass Expressway (north/south, despite almost half the road traveling east/west) and NW 10 Street in Deerfield Beach having a regular state map-shield (entirely east/west). Please correct this information if it is not so.
They do on I-95, but they are of course separate shields: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=26.307996,-80.114622&spn=0.017119,0.033023&gl=us&vpsrc=6&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=26.307851,-80.118768&panoid=1Bskabvd6pV9Yvbqv2SHnA&cbp=12,230.64,,2,-8.14
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 31, 2011, 11:41:51 PM
Quote from: Janko Dialnice on December 31, 2011, 11:21:55 AM
Quote from: dfilpus on December 31, 2011, 10:06:53 AM
Nope. This is for NC 147 Toll northbound at Hopson/Davis Driive, which goes to I 40 and becomes NC 147. What is odd is that signage on NC 147 Toll treats NC 147 (nontoll) as a separate highway. There is even an END NC 147 Toll/ Begin NC 147 sign at the I 40 interchange.
Do any other states do this, treat a partially-tolled highway as two distinct routes?
I-87 in New York in terms of how exit numbers reset when you leave the Thruway in Albany? Route number isn't distinguished, though.
Even though the exit numbers change, the reference markers on the northway treat it as one road.
Quote from: deanej on January 01, 2012, 01:43:43 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 31, 2011, 11:41:51 PM
I-87 in New York in terms of how exit numbers reset when you leave the Thruway in Albany? Route number isn't distinguished, though.
Even though the exit numbers change, the reference markers on the northway treat it as one road.
IIRC, I don't think that's entirely true. I know that there is a disparity between the reference markers on the Northway in regards to Region 1 vs Region 7. I can't remember which way it is, but one region's reference markers count the counties up for the entire length of I-87 whereas the other region counts the counties up from the junction with I-90. I'm inclined to think that it's Region 1 that has it wrong, but I don't have notes to back this up but I know for certain that there is a disparity between the two regions.
J.P.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on December 31, 2011, 03:53:11 PMWith the I-376 conversion in PA, it now has a TOLL section in the middle of two free sections. None of the mainline BGSs treat them as two different routes. I don't know about any approach signage.
There are end/begin assemblies where the PennDOT (I-376)/PTC (Turnpike 376) jurisdictions change.
Texas-style posts for NC's first modern toll road. They report that they've sold quadruple the number of transponders as expected.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw102%2Farchitect77%2Ftollcantilever.png&hash=2f799abd0ab6c4168e84b991ea5766a3fbf5852f)
http://www.wral.com/traffic/video/10556286/#/vid10556286