AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Phoenix Area Highways  (Read 60540 times)

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10498
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: February 21, 2020, 10:45:01 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: Phoenix Area Highways
« Reply #425 on: January 30, 2020, 09:57:52 AM »

For those of you who drive on the valley freeways, would you rather see ADOT continue with rubberized asphalt or go back to concrete? Maybe it's because of the heavy traffic, or weather, or end of life cycle on some freeway pavement, but I personally wouldn't mind if ADOT rolled back the use of rubberized asphalt.

The rubberized asphalt seems to go bad within a few years. I wouldn't mind if ADOT rolled back its use but I don't see that happening, especially with all of the urban freeways near residential areas.

I’m not a fan of its poor quality regarding maintenance but as someone who owned a house a couple hundred feet from AZ 101 it made a huge difference with the noise.

kdk

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 97
  • Location: Scottsdale AZ
  • Last Login: February 17, 2020, 06:56:32 PM
Re: Phoenix Area Highways
« Reply #426 on: February 05, 2020, 07:17:50 PM »

Now that the SMF is open, I saw some recent news about the massive "Broadway Curve" project along I-10 getting started later this year.  The news reports were vague and the ADOT site seems about 6 months behind, still talking about hearings.  https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/interstate-10-broadway-curve-interstate-17-split-loop-202-santan
I'm glad they'll finally clean up the mess of the AZ 143/1-10/US 60 interchanges that back up now already at 2pm for evening rush hour.
Logged

Sonic99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 213
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Prescott, AZ
  • Last Login: February 06, 2020, 01:27:48 AM
Re: Phoenix Area Highways
« Reply #427 on: February 06, 2020, 12:59:09 AM »

Now that the SMF is open, I saw some recent news about the massive "Broadway Curve" project along I-10 getting started later this year.  The news reports were vague and the ADOT site seems about 6 months behind, still talking about hearings.  https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/interstate-10-broadway-curve-interstate-17-split-loop-202-santan
I'm glad they'll finally clean up the mess of the AZ 143/1-10/US 60 interchanges that back up now already at 2pm for evening rush hour.

The widening they're proposing would mean rebuilding pretty much every interchange, along with a significant overhaul of the Superstition interchange, right? I don't think many, if any, of the current overpasses/underpasses have the space to accommodate that many new lanes. And during construction this is going to be a complete clusterfuck the likes of which the Valley hasn't seen in a long time. Really the biggest "rebuild" of any of the Valley freeways I can ever remember. Everything else has been adding a lane here and a lane their, outside of the "new construction" obviously.
Logged
If you used to draw freeways on your homework and got reprimanded by your Senior English teacher for doing so, you might be a road geek!

Zonie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 83
  • Location: Phoenix, Arizona
  • Last Login: February 21, 2020, 11:57:49 AM
Re: Phoenix Area Highways
« Reply #428 on: February 06, 2020, 06:33:20 PM »

At least from this planning doc a few years ago, there weren't major changes to the Superstition interchange itself (page 7).  However, the exits south of US 60 could use a rebuild, particularly Warner.

http://azmag.gov/Portals/0/Documents/I-10%20I-17%20Spine%20Study/2017-09_MAG_Spine_ASTR_Chap_06_Recommendation.pdf
Logged

Pink Jazz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1423
  • Real Men Wear Pink

  • Age: 32
  • Location: Queen Creek, AZ
  • Last Login: February 21, 2020, 02:17:23 PM
Re: Phoenix Area Highways
« Reply #429 on: February 07, 2020, 08:16:53 PM »

It appears that Queen Creek is going back to Clearview, although new signage has been inconsistent. Mesa and Gilbert on the other hand are sticking with FHWA.
Logged

Exit58

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 90
  • Location: Phoenix, AZ
  • Last Login: February 14, 2020, 05:18:20 PM
Re: Phoenix Area Highways
« Reply #430 on: February 10, 2020, 01:01:12 PM »

Ok what's up with ADOT's new optional exit signs? I've been noticing a lot of new signs are erroneously using 'EXIT ONLY' signage at the gore points for lanes that continue straight and are optional exits. These signs are so new that Google Maps doesn't yet have them on Street View but I noticed them at the 202-10 interchange in Chandler and where I-8 ends at I-10 in Casa Grande.



The two right lanes are exit only but the left lane should be a white arrow, correct? The advance signage correctly reflects this.



Here's I-8's terminus as I-10 in Casa Grande. All the advance signage is fine but it's the gore point signage that's bothering me. It shouldn't be 'EXIT ONLY'. Compare it to the older signage, which is viewable on Google Street View.

Compare both of those to the Superstition Freeway's western terminus, who's signage was replaced in late 18-early 19 as well when ADOT changed the lane configuration to allow for optional exit from lane #2 onto I-10 East. This one correctly reflects the fact that the number 2 lane is an optional exit lane.


I can see this being quite confusing to some, at least the ones in the Metro Area. The one on I-8 doesn't matter as much since there's no decel lane.

For those of you who drive on the valley freeways, would you rather see ADOT continue with rubberized asphalt or go back to concrete? Maybe it's because of the heavy traffic, or weather, or end of life cycle on some freeway pavement, but I personally wouldn't mind if ADOT rolled back the use of rubberized asphalt.

I saw on the Loop 202/Santan EB that there is a test section of 'Quiet Concrete'. It's on the EB side prior to Dobson. I haven't been able to drive it myself, all I saw was a sign from the EB Dobson Onramp saying 'END QUIET CONCRETE TEST SECTION' or something to that effect.
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5532
  • Last Login: Today at 12:06:35 AM
Re: Phoenix Area Highways
« Reply #431 on: February 10, 2020, 01:20:05 PM »

NYSDOT has done this as well at Exit 17 (Bridge St) on I-690 EB.

Wonder if it's a trend.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2042
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:35:31 AM
Re: Phoenix Area Highways
« Reply #432 on: February 10, 2020, 03:55:35 PM »

On I-20 multiple overhead advance signs for I-30 have a big yellow "Exit Only" bar along the bottom. The left 3 lanes are "exiting" while 2 lanes of I-20 veer off to the right.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7258938,-97.5846435,3a,75y,112.19h,92.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx1Byql2lTMlaAgt6JagJ0g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Maybe this is indeed a new trend or regulation. The EB I-20 signs leading to the I-30 split were installed sometime between mid 2015-16.
Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3876
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: February 21, 2020, 11:13:45 AM
Re: Phoenix Area Highways
« Reply #433 on: February 11, 2020, 10:58:04 AM »

Ok what's up with ADOT's new optional exit signs? I've been noticing a lot of new signs are erroneously using 'EXIT ONLY' signage at the gore points for lanes that continue straight and are optional exits. These signs are so new that Google Maps doesn't yet have them on Street View but I noticed them at the 202-10 interchange in Chandler and where I-8 ends at I-10 in Casa Grande.



The two right lanes are exit only but the left lane should be a white arrow, correct? The advance signage correctly reflects this.



Here's I-8's terminus as I-10 in Casa Grande. All the advance signage is fine but it's the gore point signage that's bothering me. It shouldn't be 'EXIT ONLY'. Compare it to the older signage, which is viewable on Google Street View.

Compare both of those to the Superstition Freeway's western terminus, who's signage was replaced in late 18-early 19 as well when ADOT changed the lane configuration to allow for optional exit from lane #2 onto I-10 East. This one correctly reflects the fact that the number 2 lane is an optional exit lane.


I can see this being quite confusing to some, at least the ones in the Metro Area. The one on I-8 doesn't matter as much since there's no decel lane.

For the first: This might depend on where the sign is located. If the above sign is replacing the one in this Street View, then the depiction is accurate based on the 2009 MUTCD. The sign structure is located at or just downstream of the theoretical/painted gore point, so 2009 MUTCD indicates it should be marked as exit only. (Not a change I agreed with...I think this a bit confusing.)

I also think it is not necessary to sign this as "Exit 161 A-B", as there's only a single exit from the mainline. In the street view, Exit 161A and 161B are not distinguished downstream.


For the second: The ramp to I-10 west definitely shouldn't be signed as exit only, since there's not a separate dedicated lane to that ramp. Also, the all-yellow left exit tab is not MUTCD spec. I wouldn't mark the through lanes to I-10 east with an exit tab, and wouldn't show them as exit only either.


On I-20 multiple overhead advance signs for I-30 have a big yellow "Exit Only" bar along the bottom. The left 3 lanes are "exiting" while 2 lanes of I-20 veer off to the right.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7258938,-97.5846435,3a,75y,112.19h,92.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx1Byql2lTMlaAgt6JagJ0g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Maybe this is indeed a new trend or regulation. The EB I-20 signs leading to the I-30 split were installed sometime between mid 2015-16.

I-30 is technically the exit from the "through" route I-20, and is signed as a left exit. So even though I-20 appears to be exiting itself and has fewer lanes, this one is signed correctly.
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 10769
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:58:47 AM
Re: Phoenix Area Highways
« Reply #434 on: February 12, 2020, 03:03:01 AM »

For the second: The ramp to I-10 west definitely shouldn't be signed as exit only, since there's not a separate dedicated lane to that ramp. Also, the all-yellow left exit tab is not MUTCD spec. I wouldn't mark the through lanes to I-10 east with an exit tab, and wouldn't show them as exit only either.

(only quoting the relevant paragraph)

I would obviously agree with you, but the the far left lane of the Exit 161 sign (first image) also does not have a dedicated exit-only lane, but is still required to be signed with an exit-only label as the sign is beyond the point of divergence. Is the Exit 178B sign not following the same standards of marking exits beyond the point of divergence with exit-only signage (irrespective of the number of exiting lanes)?
Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3876
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: February 21, 2020, 11:13:45 AM
Re: Phoenix Area Highways
« Reply #435 on: February 14, 2020, 10:00:25 AM »

For the second: The ramp to I-10 west definitely shouldn't be signed as exit only, since there's not a separate dedicated lane to that ramp. Also, the all-yellow left exit tab is not MUTCD spec. I wouldn't mark the through lanes to I-10 east with an exit tab, and wouldn't show them as exit only either.

(only quoting the relevant paragraph)

I would obviously agree with you, but the the far left lane of the Exit 161 sign (first image) also does not have a dedicated exit-only lane, but is still required to be signed with an exit-only label as the sign is beyond the point of divergence. Is the Exit 178B sign not following the same standards of marking exits beyond the point of divergence with exit-only signage (irrespective of the number of exiting lanes)?

The Exit 161 signage is a situation that follows 2009 MUTCD spec for signing exits with option lanes. With that spec, by definition you would have at least one lane dropping to exit and another lane that carries the option. The Exit 178B situation doesn't have an option lane in this same sense.

I would say to sign it as a split, which typically has one side using exit only banners *if* there is a dedicated lane—again, 178B doesn't have a dedicated lane.

So this situation doesn't really match any of the MUTCD examples. I personally wouldn't sign exit only for this situation at all—I believe the original signage was superior. (I also wouldn't have given this split exit numbers either.)
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 10769
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:58:47 AM
Re: Phoenix Area Highways
« Reply #436 on: February 14, 2020, 03:24:45 PM »

The Exit 161 signage is a situation that follows 2009 MUTCD spec for signing exits with option lanes. With that spec, by definition you would have at least one lane dropping to exit and another lane that carries the option. The Exit 178B situation doesn't have an option lane in this same sense.

I would say to sign it as a split, which typically has one side using exit only banners *if* there is a dedicated lane—again, 178B doesn't have a dedicated lane.

So this situation doesn't really match any of the MUTCD examples. I personally wouldn't sign exit only for this situation at all—I believe the original signage was superior. (I also wouldn't have given this split exit numbers either.)

I understand your point, especially that this is an unusual circumstance, but I need you to think about this pragmatically:

Exit-only lanes with an option lane require signing both the mandatory and option lanes as exit-only lanes beyond the point of divergence. Yes, this means that the non-dedicated exit lane is still signed as an exit-only lane, because the exit sign is positioned over the option lane at a point beyond the point of divergence, where that option lane has formed its own lane.

The Exit 178B sign is identical to situations like this, minus an accompanying exit-only lane: the sign is positioned over the "option lane" at a point beyond the point of divergence, where the option lane has formed its own lane. Yet here, these situations are generally not supposed to be signed with exit-only signage.

Why is it that an accompanying exit-only lane changes how an option-lane exit is signed? It is inconsistent, plain and simple. I cannot blame an engineer for how the Exit 178B sign was designed, because it matches the standards for exit-only option lanes.
Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3876
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: February 21, 2020, 11:13:45 AM
Re: Phoenix Area Highways
« Reply #437 on: February 15, 2020, 04:54:54 PM »

The Exit 161 signage is a situation that follows 2009 MUTCD spec for signing exits with option lanes. With that spec, by definition you would have at least one lane dropping to exit and another lane that carries the option. The Exit 178B situation doesn't have an option lane in this same sense.

I would say to sign it as a split, which typically has one side using exit only banners *if* there is a dedicated lane—again, 178B doesn't have a dedicated lane.

So this situation doesn't really match any of the MUTCD examples. I personally wouldn't sign exit only for this situation at all—I believe the original signage was superior. (I also wouldn't have given this split exit numbers either.)

I understand your point, especially that this is an unusual circumstance, but I need you to think about this pragmatically:

Exit-only lanes with an option lane require signing both the mandatory and option lanes as exit-only lanes beyond the point of divergence. Yes, this means that the non-dedicated exit lane is still signed as an exit-only lane, because the exit sign is positioned over the option lane at a point beyond the point of divergence, where that option lane has formed its own lane.

The Exit 178B sign is identical to situations like this, minus an accompanying exit-only lane: the sign is positioned over the "option lane" at a point beyond the point of divergence, where the option lane has formed its own lane. Yet here, these situations are generally not supposed to be signed with exit-only signage.

Why is it that an accompanying exit-only lane changes how an option-lane exit is signed? It is inconsistent, plain and simple. I cannot blame an engineer for how the Exit 178B sign was designed, because it matches the standards for exit-only option lanes.

If we're talking pragmatically, we should keep in mind that an option lane refers to an interior travel lane that has the option to exit or stay on—a travel lane on the extreme left or right side of the road is not an option lane.

An "exit only" panel has historically meant to be an indication that a particular lane drops off from the through route and is forced to exit. The MUTCD indicates exit only panels are to be used in cases where a lane is dropped—the signage standards are (unfortunately) different if it's a conventional lane drop versus a lane drop with option lane.

No lane is dropped on the Exit 178B example.


All this would have been much more clear prior to the 2009 MUTCD, as the exit direction signs were forward of the gore point. The adopted strictness of "one arrow per lane" in the manual overall necessitated the new placement of exit direction signs and standards with option lanes, thus muddying the traditional definition of "exit only" considerably...this is the one item in the 2009 MUTCD that I greatly disagreed with and hope is changed in the next manual.
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 10769
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:58:47 AM
Re: Phoenix Area Highways
« Reply #438 on: February 15, 2020, 06:48:26 PM »

I understand your point, especially that this is an unusual circumstance, but I need you to think about this pragmatically:

Exit-only lanes with an option lane require signing both the mandatory and option lanes as exit-only lanes beyond the point of divergence. Yes, this means that the non-dedicated exit lane is still signed as an exit-only lane, because the exit sign is positioned over the option lane at a point beyond the point of divergence, where that option lane has formed its own lane.

The Exit 178B sign is identical to situations like this, minus an accompanying exit-only lane: the sign is positioned over the "option lane" at a point beyond the point of divergence, where the option lane has formed its own lane. Yet here, these situations are generally not supposed to be signed with exit-only signage.

Why is it that an accompanying exit-only lane changes how an option-lane exit is signed? It is inconsistent, plain and simple. I cannot blame an engineer for how the Exit 178B sign was designed, because it matches the standards for exit-only option lanes.

If we're talking pragmatically, we should keep in mind that an option lane refers to an interior travel lane that has the option to exit or stay on—a travel lane on the extreme left or right side of the road is not an option lane.

An "exit only" panel has historically meant to be an indication that a particular lane drops off from the through route and is forced to exit. The MUTCD indicates exit only panels are to be used in cases where a lane is dropped—the signage standards are (unfortunately) different if it's a conventional lane drop versus a lane drop with option lane.

No lane is dropped on the Exit 178B example.

All this would have been much more clear prior to the 2009 MUTCD, as the exit direction signs were forward of the gore point. The adopted strictness of "one arrow per lane" in the manual overall necessitated the new placement of exit direction signs and standards with option lanes, thus muddying the traditional definition of "exit only" considerably...this is the one item in the 2009 MUTCD that I greatly disagreed with and hope is changed in the next manual.

Well, if we were talking pragmatically (how many times can we use this word?), our conclusion would be that any lane that can either continues on, or exits off, would be an "option lane". Option lane = right-most or left-most travel lane (assuming an approaching right or left exit, respectively).

The MUTCD may disagree on what constitutes an option lane (I assume their definition involves there being an accompanying exit-only lane), but from the perspective of a regular driver, option lanes and travel lanes that have exits are one-in-the-same: they both allow the driver to exit or continue on.

No lane is dropped at Exit 178B, but the left-most lane of Exit 161 also does not drop. Despite this, the lanes are signed differently beyond the point of divergence.

Nevertheless, I agree with your assessment on the 2009 MUTCD. I am totally a proponent of arrow-per-lane signs, but I don't feel the FHWA did themselves any favors by muddying the differences that I'm bringing up here, which, from a driver's perspective (mine, you could say, as I'm far less familiar with the MUTCD than you), are basically the same situation (ramp diverges that don't require you to exit should be signed the same, regardless of how many lanes exit).
Logged

 


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.