AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The next forum trivia night will take place on OCTOBER 30, 2019 at 8:15 PM Eastern.

Author Topic: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project  (Read 9784 times)

ixnay

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 873
  • Location: U.S. East Coast
  • Last Login: November 13, 2019, 07:08:29 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #25 on: June 20, 2016, 08:09:56 PM »

Maryland was certainly the poster child of how to do Clearview wrong. Quite a few examples on the FHWA Clearview errors site were from the state.

Can we have the link to that site?  I tried to Google it without luck.

ixnay
Logged

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10412
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: November 13, 2019, 03:34:02 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #26 on: June 20, 2016, 09:01:05 PM »

Maryland was certainly the poster child of how to do Clearview wrong. Quite a few examples on the FHWA Clearview errors site were from the state.

Can we have the link to that site?  I tried to Google it without luck.

ixnay

Scroll down to the bottom. I recognize several signs from Northern Virginia and several from Maryland:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/index.htm
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

jcn

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 88
  • Location: United States
  • Last Login: August 29, 2019, 12:02:41 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #27 on: October 16, 2016, 02:45:14 PM »

I spoke to MDTA about this a while ago actually, and they said that they plan on keeping New York as the northbound control city and the reason for that is because New York starts to become the control city at Canton Ave which is outside the project limits, so they want to keep it consistent.  Also, they said that they don't plan on alternating control cities because it would confuse drivers.

We should only worry about the northbound control city if the I-95 flyover ramps in PA causes most northeast through traffic to start traveling on I-95 through Philly.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10331
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: November 12, 2019, 10:43:43 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #28 on: October 16, 2016, 09:29:15 PM »

I spoke to MDTA about this a while ago actually, and they said that they plan on keeping New York as the northbound control city and the reason for that is because New York starts to become the control city at Canton Ave which is outside the project limits, so they want to keep it consistent.  Also, they said that they don't plan on alternating control cities because it would confuse drivers.

We should only worry about the northbound control city if the I-95 flyover ramps in PA causes most northeast through traffic to start traveling on I-95 through Philly.

New York is signed on I-95 in Prince George's County as well in Fairfax County, Virginia. 

Once the Bristol, Pennsylvania project is completed, I hope that MDTA will consider signing Wilmington and Philadelphia, at least on mileage signs, and perhaps on the mainline, since their use of New York will become inconsistent with the way  that Delaware and Pennsylvania sign northbound I-95.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

epzik8

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 908
  • Alive Since Ninety-Five

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Maryland, USA
  • Last Login: November 12, 2019, 02:49:19 PM
    • The Epzik8 Roadpage
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #29 on: October 17, 2016, 03:24:58 PM »

I spoke to MDTA about this a while ago actually, and they said that they plan on keeping New York as the northbound control city and the reason for that is because New York starts to become the control city at Canton Ave which is outside the project limits, so they want to keep it consistent.  Also, they said that they don't plan on alternating control cities because it would confuse drivers.

We should only worry about the northbound control city if the I-95 flyover ramps in PA causes most northeast through traffic to start traveling on I-95 through Philly.
It's actually spelled Caton Avenue. Sorry, I'm not being mean! Just saying.
Logged
From the land of red, white, yellow and black.

Washington Capitals, 2018 Stanley Cup CHAMPIONS!!!
____________________________

My clinched highways: http://tm.teresco.org/user/?u=epzik8
My clinched counties: http://mob-rule.com/user-gifs/epzik8.gif

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6814
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: November 13, 2019, 04:59:12 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #30 on: October 17, 2016, 05:05:02 PM »

The Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) is soliticting bids to replace much of the signage along JFK Highway (I-95) in Baltimore, Harford and Cecil Counties (details here).

All well and good - except - no mention of Wilmington or Philadelphia as control cities on I-95 northbound.  With the PTC and PennDOT actually making progress on getting enough of the interchange at Bristol done to complete I-95, I think it is time for Maryland to show Wilmington and especially Philadelphia as control cities on its signs north of Baltimore (and between the Capital Beltway and Baltimore as well).

The bulk of those signs were replaced in 2012 to show Clearview font. Adjustments were made to mileage signs during that time, and a few control points where changed too. Are they swapping out signs again because of the end of Clearview?

Looks like they're installing bigger guide signs with larger legends on them. The drawings make it seem like they'll still be in Clearview, but given how this happens after Clearview isn't allowed anymore, it may see a return to Highway Gothic for these signs.
When one looks at the detail sheets, towards the back; it appears that the only Clearview font displayed is where it should be (per prior FHWA guidelines); mixed-case lettering on dark backgrounds.

One thing I don't like about Maryland interchange signs (and such has existed long before the Clearview font came to light) is that they seem to vary in size at multi-ramp interchanges (cloverleafs & so forth).  The BGS at the first ramp is larger than the BGS displaying the message for the subsequent ramp.

While the intent may be to highlight the immediate exit; the size mixture just looks off & disjointed IMHO.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

epzik8

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 908
  • Alive Since Ninety-Five

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Maryland, USA
  • Last Login: November 12, 2019, 02:49:19 PM
    • The Epzik8 Roadpage
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #32 on: December 02, 2016, 06:40:32 PM »

Can they maybe change the Exit 85 signs (MD-22 Aberdeen) to Clearview already???
Logged
From the land of red, white, yellow and black.

Washington Capitals, 2018 Stanley Cup CHAMPIONS!!!
____________________________

My clinched highways: http://tm.teresco.org/user/?u=epzik8
My clinched counties: http://mob-rule.com/user-gifs/epzik8.gif

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10331
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: November 12, 2019, 10:43:43 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #33 on: December 04, 2016, 08:43:08 AM »

It's actually spelled Caton Avenue. Sorry, I'm not being mean! Just saying.
I spoke to MDTA about this a while ago actually, and they said that they plan on keeping New York as the northbound control city and the reason for that is because New York starts to become the control city at Canton Ave which is outside the project limits, so they want to keep it consistent.  Also, they said that they don't plan on alternating control cities because it would confuse drivers.

We should only worry about the northbound control city if the I-95 flyover ramps in PA causes most northeast through traffic to start traveling on I-95 through Philly.
It's actually spelled Caton Avenue. Sorry, I'm not being mean! Just saying.

To make matters interesting, in addition to Caton Avenue, there's also an entire part of Baltimore City know as Canton.  And there is a Canton Court in the Canton part of Baltimore, in addition to the crumbling (and not signed and due for replacement sometime soon) Canton Viaduct on I-895. 
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10331
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: November 12, 2019, 10:43:43 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #34 on: July 19, 2017, 09:53:51 PM »

MDTA has posted a invitation for bids (IFB) on the Maryland Marketplace site for the replacement of signs along I-95 (JFK Highway) from MD-24 (Exit 77) in the south to the "Newark Toll Plaza" (in Delaware) in the north including the intermediate interchanges up to and including MD-279 (Exit 109).

Quote
The work to be performed under this contract is located along I-95 John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway, I-95 On ramps and I-95 Off ramps from MD 24 to the Newark Toll Plaza in Harford and Cecil Counties. Signing along this section of I-95 will be upgraded and replaced to meet the latest requirements in the Maryland Manual of Uniform Traffic Devices (MdMUTCD) and the Authority’s current policies. The project will include replacing overhead sign structures and ground mounted signs, upgrading sign lighting, and adding w-beam traffic barrier in specific areas.

Annoyingly (to me), it seems that the control city for the northbound side appears to remain New York, with no mention of Wilmington and no mention of Philadelphia, which I think should be changed since the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's Bristol interchange project is supposed to be sufficiently completed to complete I-95 in 2018, meaning that a contiguous I-95 will serve Wilmington, Philadelphia and New York.

The proposed new signs on MD-279 at least have a TOLL banner for on the ramps leading to I-95 northbound (and the Delaware Turnpike barrier).   

All of the sign plans are in a (large) .pdf document that can be captured from Maryland Marketplace site.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2017, 10:48:26 PM by cpzilliacus »
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6814
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: November 13, 2019, 04:59:12 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #35 on: July 20, 2017, 11:04:38 AM »

All of the sign plans are in a (large) .pdf document that can be captured from Maryland Marketplace site.
Given that the plans are dated March of 2017; one has to wonder whether or not the Clearview references & graphics for the signs shown in the plans & details will be replaced with Highway Gothic via addendum/change order or in the shop drawing process.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10331
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: November 12, 2019, 10:43:43 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #36 on: July 20, 2017, 12:26:38 PM »

All of the sign plans are in a (large) .pdf document that can be captured from Maryland Marketplace site.
Given that the plans are dated March of 2017; one has to wonder whether or not the Clearview references & graphics for the signs shown in the plans & details will be replaced with Highway Gothic via addendum/change order or in the shop drawing process.

Good question. 

Given that this part of I-95 (JFK Highway in Maryland from Exit 67 (MD-43)  to Exit 109 (MD-279) and then the Delaware border) has never gotten one cent of funding from any federal program (administered by BPR or FHWA) ever, I  suppose they could probably get away with keeping Clearview if they really want to do that, though generally, MDTA adheres to MUTCD standards for everything in their system.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2017, 12:28:58 PM by cpzilliacus »
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6814
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: November 13, 2019, 04:59:12 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #37 on: July 20, 2017, 01:22:40 PM »

Given that this part of I-95 (JFK Highway in Maryland from Exit 67 (MD-43)  to Exit 109 (MD-279) and then the Delaware border) has never gotten one cent of funding from any federal program (administered by BPR or FHWA) ever, I  suppose they could probably get away with keeping Clearview if they really want to do that, though generally, MDTA adheres to MUTCD standards for everything in their system.

From your earlier-posted Invitations For Bids link:
Quote from: Project Bulletin Description
Signing along this section of I-95 will be upgraded and replaced to meet the latest requirements in the Maryland Manual of Uniform Traffic Devices (MdMUTCD) and the Authority?s current policies. The project will include replacing overhead sign structures and ground mounted signs, upgrading sign lighting, and adding w-beam traffic barrier in specific areas.

I guess the question here is, does the latest version of MdMUTCD differ from the Federal MUTCD in terms of allowing usage of the Clearview font?

And while this stretch of I-95 is a tolled facility; the recent sign changes along both the Garden State Parkway & the New Jersey Turnpike to more MUTCD-style/compliant signage seems to indicate that toll facilities are being mandated to conform regardless of whether or not federal funding was received.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10331
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: November 12, 2019, 10:43:43 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #38 on: July 20, 2017, 09:08:17 PM »

I guess the question here is, does the latest version of MdMUTCD differ from the Federal MUTCD in terms of allowing usage of the Clearview font?

The Maryland MUTCD makes no mention of fonts at all (I just checked), so presumably what applies at the  federal level also applies in Maryland.

And while this stretch of I-95 is a tolled facility; the recent sign changes along both the Garden State Parkway & the New Jersey Turnpike to more MUTCD-style/compliant signage seems to indicate that toll facilities are being mandated to conform regardless of whether or not federal funding was received.

In the past, MDTA has generally been pretty aggressive about compliance with the federal MUTCD (I  think of a few signs on their system that might not comply, but they are quite rare).  One that comes to mind on I-895 northbound will be gone pretty soon, since it is on the soon-to-be-replaced Canton Viaduct, the first sign informing motorists of Exit 10, Holabird Avenue.  This is a sign that has been copied from its predecessors several times (dating back to the 1960's, maybe earlier) and is of an especially elderly design. Curiously, the second sign is of a much more modern design.

My suggestion upthread that MDTA might not want to comply was speculative at best. 
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

TheOneKEA

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 254
  • Last Login: November 13, 2019, 06:29:11 AM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #39 on: July 21, 2017, 09:36:55 PM »

A lot of the signage along I-95 in this segment is either new or sufficiently recently installed to appear new, so I'm curious as to why they are already scheduled for replacement.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10331
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: November 12, 2019, 10:43:43 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #40 on: July 21, 2017, 10:14:18 PM »

A lot of the signage along I-95 in this segment is either new or sufficiently recently installed to appear new, so I'm curious as to why they are already scheduled for replacement.

MDTA seems to try  to replace all signs about every 10 years.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6814
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: November 13, 2019, 04:59:12 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #41 on: August 21, 2019, 08:47:53 AM »

Thread Bump:

While driving along I-95 in northern MD two weeks ago; I have started seeing some of the newly-erected signs... in many instances, the older signs on separate gantries were still standing.

As per the design plans, the Clearview font is only used per the IA criteria (mixed-case lettering on dark backgrounds).  It's kind of odd seeing the older all-Clearview (except route shield numerals)  font signs being replaced with ones that have limited use of Clearview.

Now that this sign replacement project is now taking place; such means that this unique IMHO unisign at Exit 100's days are numbered.  I'm guessing that this BGS dates back to the mid-to-late 80s.  Its successor will be two separate panels.

Side bar & this applies to all MD BGS' not just those along I-95: I personally am not too fond of MD's current use of off-centered arrows for ramps signs that have the angled arrow placed below the control city legends.  While the intent for such may be to emphasize that the ramp is either a left or right turn movement; such looks amateurish IMHO.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 813
  • Age: 17
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: November 13, 2019, 08:41:44 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #42 on: August 25, 2019, 02:15:22 AM »

Clearview kinda seems childish to use on highway signs.
Logged

storm2k

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 757
  • Age: 38
  • Location: NJ
  • Last Login: November 12, 2019, 03:20:21 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #43 on: September 02, 2019, 01:13:06 PM »

Thread Bump:

While driving along I-95 in northern MD two weeks ago; I have started seeing some of the newly-erected signs... in many instances, the older signs on separate gantries were still standing.

As per the design plans, the Clearview font is only used per the IA criteria (mixed-case lettering on dark backgrounds).  It's kind of odd seeing the older all-Clearview (except route shield numerals)  font signs being replaced with ones that have limited use of Clearview.

Now that this sign replacement project is now taking place; such means that this unique IMHO unisign at Exit 100's days are numbered.  I'm guessing that this BGS dates back to the mid-to-late 80s.  Its successor will be two separate panels.

Side bar & this applies to all MD BGS' not just those along I-95: I personally am not too fond of MD's current use of off-centered arrows for ramps signs that have the angled arrow placed below the control city legends.  While the intent for such may be to emphasize that the ramp is either a left or right turn movement; such looks amateurish IMHO.

I always liked the unisigns you'd see up and down that stretch of roadway back in the day. Kind of sad that they're going away, but not surprising.
Logged

Pink Jazz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1414
  • Real Men Wear Pink

  • Age: 31
  • Location: Queen Creek, AZ
  • Last Login: November 10, 2019, 04:12:41 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #44 on: September 02, 2019, 08:48:49 PM »

Clearview kinda seems childish to use on highway signs.



To me, it looks more feminine than Highway Gothic.
Logged

roadman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3809
  • Age: 58
  • Location: Boston, MA
  • Last Login: November 13, 2019, 05:04:19 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #45 on: September 05, 2019, 03:48:33 PM »

I don't like Wilmington as a control city, only because of possible confusion with Wilmington, NC.

Lets face it...the name Philadelphia is longer, and thus the signs would cost more to make!

Assuming the destination on the sign is the 'control' line that determines the overall width of the panel, Wilmington in 16/12 at 85% inter-letter spacing results in a sign 14 feet in width.  Using this design, changing Wilmington to Philadelphia increases the panel width by 1 foot.  For a typical sign panel layout, this increases the overall area by about 7%.  Assuming an average BGS price of $25/s.f., this change increases the panel cost by about $200.  Say you have fifteen signs within the project you'd change Wilmington to Philadelphia on, your overall cost increase for the project would be $3,000.
Quote
By MUTCD, it would have to be shown Wilmington DE anyway because it's in a different state.

There's nothing in the MUTCD that requires the state abbreviation be used for control cities in a different state than the sign location.  It's just a practice that many states have adopted as standard.

Logged
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

KEVIN_224

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1746
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Connecticut
  • Last Login: November 13, 2019, 01:53:57 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #46 on: September 05, 2019, 06:30:18 PM »

There are a couple of signs on I-95 in the Bronx which read "NEW HAVEN CT".
Logged

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6814
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: November 13, 2019, 04:59:12 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #47 on: September 06, 2019, 08:51:03 AM »

There are a couple of signs on I-95 in the Bronx which read "NEW HAVEN CT".
Such listings in that location are relatively recent.  Those replaced older signs the read New England.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2019, 09:11:56 AM by PHLBOS »
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10295
  • Age: 44
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: November 13, 2019, 07:05:33 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #48 on: September 06, 2019, 01:27:15 PM »

Assuming the destination on the sign is the 'control' line that determines the overall width of the panel, Wilmington in 16/12 at 85% inter-letter spacing results in a sign 14 feet in width.  Using this design, changing Wilmington to Philadelphia increases the panel width by 1 foot.  For a typical sign panel layout, this increases the overall area by about 7%.  Assuming an average BGS price of $25/s.f., this change increases the panel cost by about $200.  Say you have fifteen signs within the project you'd change Wilmington to Philadelphia on, your overall cost increase for the project would be $3,000.

Pennies in the grand scheme of things.  If they were concerned with pennies, they would use Baltimore instead. 
Logged

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6814
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: November 13, 2019, 04:59:12 PM
Re: I-95 (JFK Highway) sign replacement project
« Reply #49 on: September 06, 2019, 02:45:55 PM »

I don't like Wilmington as a control city, only because of possible confusion with Wilmington, NC.
Lets face it...the name Philadelphia is longer, and thus the signs would cost more to make!
Assuming the destination on the sign is the 'control' line that determines the overall width of the panel, Wilmington in 16/12 at 85% inter-letter spacing results in a sign 14 feet in width.  Using this design, changing Wilmington to Philadelphia increases the panel width by 1 foot.  For a typical sign panel layout, this increases the overall area by about 7%.  Assuming an average BGS price of $25/s.f., this change increases the panel cost by about $200.  Say you have fifteen signs within the project you'd change Wilmington to Philadelphia on, your overall cost increase for the project would be $3,000.
Quote
By MUTCD, it would have to be shown Wilmington DE anyway because it's in a different state.
There's nothing in the MUTCD that requires the state abbreviation be used for control cities in a different state than the sign location.  It's just a practice that many states have adopted as standard.
Good to know but are you aware that you're replying to 3+ year old post?

Assuming the destination on the sign is the 'control' line that determines the overall width of the panel, Wilmington in 16/12 at 85% inter-letter spacing results in a sign 14 feet in width.  Using this design, changing Wilmington to Philadelphia increases the panel width by 1 foot.  For a typical sign panel layout, this increases the overall area by about 7%.  Assuming an average BGS price of $25/s.f., this change increases the panel cost by about $200.  Say you have fifteen signs within the project you'd change Wilmington to Philadelphia on, your overall cost increase for the project would be $3,000.
Pennies in the grand scheme of things.  If they were concerned with pennies, they would use Baltimore instead. 
I believe the control city discussion was focused on northbound I-95 signage north of Baltimore (JFK Memorial Highway stretch).
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.