I-195 (NJ) replacement of reassurance shields w/ mile marker/reassurance signs?

[jerseyguy]

The past few weeks I've been on I-195 in NJ, I've noticed that they replaced the mile markers with new signs that also have the direction of travel and the interstate shield. Could they be replacing reassurance signs with this?

Here's an example that is used on I-35 in MO

[Alps]

Those are for every freeway in NJ.

[NJRoadfan]

So far they have only really popped up on I-295. Its a new thing for NJDOT. Not a fan of the full size tenth mile markers (I prefer NJDOT's small and discreet ones), but the MUTCD finally standardized on a design.

[Brian556]

What are they going to do on multiplex sections? This will pose an issue.

[Rothman]

One route in a multiplex rules the day in terms of reference locations.  See the MUTCD 2H.05 D10-09.

[Alps]

So far they have only really popped up on I-295. Its a new thing for NJDOT. Not a fan of the full size tenth mile markers (I prefer NJDOT's small and discreet ones), but the MUTCD finally standardized on a design.

False. They're up here in droves. I-280, I-80, even NJ 3. As projects roll through, they're being added.

[Zeffy]

I think I remember seeing one or two on the section of I-95 north of Trenton as well. I don't think they'll replace reassurance shields with these though, but rather complement one another.

[jeffandnicole]

So far they have only really popped up on I-295. Its a new thing for NJDOT. Not a fan of the full size tenth mile markers (I prefer NJDOT's small and discreet ones), but the MUTCD finally standardized on a design.

False. They're up here in droves. I-280, I-80, even NJ 3. As projects roll through, they're being added.

They've had them on I-76 and Rt. 42 for at least a few years as well. In the current 295/42/76 construction project, they even used 76E and 76L to denote the express and local lanes.  The signs may have been up for no more than a few weeks before they took the dividing barrier away!  I know 76L signs still exist; not sure if there's any 76E signs out there.

[dgolub]

The past few weeks I've been on I-195 in NJ, I've noticed that they replaced the mile markers with new signs that also have the direction of travel and the interstate shield. Could they be replacing reassurance signs with this?

Here's an example that is used on I-35 in MO

When I first saw that photo on a NJ-related thread, I thought you were going to tell me that it was on NJ 35.  At least they didn't goof up that badly!

[ekt8750]

One route in a multiplex rules the day in terms of reference locations.  See the MUTCD 2H.05 D10-09.

And the freeway higher up in the hierarchy takes precedence (eg Interstate over US Route over State Route).

[roadman]

Massachusetts installed these enhanced reference markers on most of their Interstates and freeways, with the exception of the Mass. Turnpike and parts of I-95 (128) , in 2008 and 2009.  Although the MUTCD calls for both the even milepoint and intermediate milepoint markers to be of the same design, MassHighway got concurrence from the local FHWA office to omit the cardinal direction and the route shield from the intermediate signs, which are placed at 2/10th mile intervals.

Personally, I'd like to see the Massachusetts style intermediate reference marker design included in the next edition of the MUTCD.  As others have stated, placing the cardinal direction and route shield on every sign is severe overkill.

[ekt8750]

Pennsylvania has been doing something similar to this. Shields only on whole number mileposts and the first milepost at the start of a freeway. I agree that there's no need to have a shield every 1/10 of a mile.

[jeffandnicole]

Pennsylvania has been doing something similar to this. Shields only on whole number mileposts and the first milepost at the start of a freeway. I agree that there's no need to have a shield every 1/10 of a mile.

Actually, there is.  Those mileposts are to help in the case of a breakdown, accident, etc.  Most people aren't familiar with exactly where they are.  If they need help, they can say "I see a mile post that says East Route 76, 347.4", or they can say "I think I passed Harrisburg, but I don't know where I am".

[PHLBOS]

There currently tends to be a variation of sorts.  I've seen some enhanced mile markers with a blue background (as opposed to the more standard green), others that just list the first letter of the direction cardinal (vs. spelling it out) and I-shields that neutered the INTERSTATE listing in them.

Massachusetts installed these enhanced reference markers on most of their Interstates and freeways, with the exception of the Mass. Turnpike and parts of I-95 (128) , in 2008 and 2009.

I've seen them along both I-95 (at least north of the Pike) and MA 128 (beyond I-95).

Although the MUTCD calls for both the even milepoint and intermediate milepoint markers to be of the same design, MassHighway got concurrence from the local FHWA office to omit the cardinal direction and the route shield from the intermediate signs, which are placed at 2/10th mile intervals.

MassDPW/Highway/DOT has certainly come a long way from the small diamond (in either yellow or light gray) 2/10th mile markers of old.

Personally, I'd like to see the Massachusetts style intermediate reference marker design included in the next edition of the MUTCD.  As others have stated, placing the cardinal direction and route shield on every sign is severe overkill.

Agree 100%.

Pennsylvania has been doing something similar to this. Shields only on whole number mileposts and the first milepost at the start of a freeway. I agree that there's no need to have a shield every 1/10 of a mile.

For PennDOT roads, yes; for PA Turnpike roads, no.  The Turnpike is presently still old-school in terms of mile markers and 1/10th markers (the latter is on small, plastic tubes).  It's encouraging to see PennDOT using some level of discretion regarding those 1/10th mile markers.

[roadman65]

Does all of this change (not only in NJ, but nationwide) have to do with people becoming more ignorant of roads that people have to be reminded of the route number that they are on? 

It is a good idea to have and I do remember it (or something similar to it) in Hunterdon County along CR 523 except with tiny stand alone shields above the mile marker back in the 80's and thought it was cool then.  Therefore I am not knocking this new trend in the MUTCD, but just curious to know why the feds have implemented this.

[jeffandnicole]

Does all of this change (not only in NJ, but nationwide) have to do with people becoming more ignorant of roads that people have to be reminded of the route number that they are on? 

It is a good idea to have and I do remember it (or something similar to it) in Hunterdon County along CR 523 except with tiny stand alone shields above the mile marker back in the 80's and thought it was cool then.  Therefore I am not knocking this new trend in the MUTCD, but just curious to know why the feds have implemented this.

I don't think so.  It's just better use of modern technology. 

Remember that many highways had call boxes to report an issue.  Motorists would know to walk to the nearest call box, because they had no other choice and other than truckers, most people didn't have a way to communicate the issue. 

Today, most people have cell phones.  It's easier to use a cell phone to report an incident, and easier for transportation departments to post enhanced milemarkers so that motorists can convey that information. 

[ekt8750]

There currently tends to be a variation of sorts.  I've seen some enhanced mile markers with a blue background (as opposed to the more standard green), others that just list the first letter of the direction cardinal (vs. spelling it out) and I-shields that neutered the INTERSTATE listing in them.

Massachusetts installed these enhanced reference markers on most of their Interstates and freeways, with the exception of the Mass. Turnpike and parts of I-95 (128) , in 2008 and 2009.

I've seen them along both I-95 (at least north of the Pike) and MA 128 (beyond I-95).

Although the MUTCD calls for both the even milepoint and intermediate milepoint markers to be of the same design, MassHighway got concurrence from the local FHWA office to omit the cardinal direction and the route shield from the intermediate signs, which are placed at 2/10th mile intervals.

MassDPW/Highway/DOT has certainly come a long way from the small diamond (in either yellow or light gray) 2/10th mile markers of old.

Personally, I'd like to see the Massachusetts style intermediate reference marker design included in the next edition of the MUTCD.  As others have stated, placing the cardinal direction and route shield on every sign is severe overkill.

Agree 100%.

Pennsylvania has been doing something similar to this. Shields only on whole number mileposts and the first milepost at the start of a freeway. I agree that there's no need to have a shield every 1/10 of a mile.

For PennDOT roads, yes; for PA Turnpike roads, no.  The Turnpike is presently still old-school in terms of mile markers and 1/10th markers (the latter is on small, plastic tubes).  It's encouraging to see PennDOT using some level of discretion regarding those 1/10th mile markers.

Mmmhmmm. The rebuilt portion of the Blue Route is reflective of this. Weird part is and I guess it's a matter of reducing redundancy, when they replaced those mile posts they didn't also replace the SR segment markers.

[PHLBOS]

Weird part is and I guess it's a matter of reducing redundancy, when they replaced those mile posts they didn't also replace the SR segment markers.

Since those SR segment markers are a state specification/requirement as opposed to federal; replacing such was likely not included in the contract documents that erected those enhanced mile marker signs.

[roadman]

I've seen them along both I-95 (at least north of the Pike) and MA 128 (beyond I-95).

Correct.  The section of I-95 (128) where enhanced reference markers were not installed as part of the 2008/2009 project was between Canton and Wellesley.  The markers along this section will be installed as roadway segments are completed under the "Add-a-Lane" widening project.

[cpzilliacus]

Pennsylvania has been doing something similar to this. Shields only on whole number mileposts and the first milepost at the start of a freeway. I agree that there's no need to have a shield every 1/10 of a mile.

Maryland (MdTA) is doing this - but only on the toll-maintained system.

On the SHA ("free") network, you are fortunate to get a mile marker every mile.

[roadman]

Pennsylvania has been doing something similar to this. Shields only on whole number mileposts and the first milepost at the start of a freeway. I agree that there's no need to have a shield every 1/10 of a mile.

Actually, there is.  Those mileposts are to help in the case of a breakdown, accident, etc.  Most people aren't familiar with exactly where they are.  If they need help, they can say "I see a mile post that says East Route 76, 347.4", or they can say "I think I passed Harrisburg, but I don't know where I am".

I respectfully disagree with your implication that every enhanced reference marker needs to be identical in design.  Even if people aren't familiar as to their exact location on a roadway at any given time, one would hope they would remember the route they are traveling on without the need for "in your face" reminders every 1/10th of a mile.  And, providing route and direction information only at the even milepoints should be a sufficent reminder to those who are still "what route am I on" challenged.

As I noted in a previous post, FHWA alllowed Massachusetts to install their intermediate markers with just the milepoint information.  To my knowledge, this hasn't created any issues for either drivers reporting incidents or for emergency crews responding to such incidents.

[storm2k]

So far they have only really popped up on I-295. Its a new thing for NJDOT. Not a fan of the full size tenth mile markers (I prefer NJDOT's small and discreet ones), but the MUTCD finally standardized on a design.

False. They're up here in droves. I-280, I-80, even NJ 3. As projects roll through, they're being added.

Also 78EB, past Exit 41.

[hubcity]

Those mileposts are to help in the case of a breakdown, accident, etc.  Most people aren't familiar with exactly where they are.  If they need help, they can say "I see a mile post that says East Route 76, 347.4", or they can say "I think I passed Harrisburg, but I don't know where I am".

Apropos of this, at least on I-195, two identical signs are mounted back-to-back every 2/10 mile on both sides of the highway, facing both oncoming traffic and the opposite direction...which is good, because if you happen to break down just beyond a marker, you don't have to walk back along the highway to see which marker it is.

[storm2k]

I agree that the enhanced signs every tenth of a mile are a bit overkill. I dn't see anything in the MUTCD that says you can't use a D10-4 every mile (with the route and direction) and just have a standard D10-1a, D10-2a, or D10-3a for the tenth mile posts.

[jeffandnicole]

Pennsylvania has been doing something similar to this. Shields only on whole number mileposts and the first milepost at the start of a freeway. I agree that there's no need to have a shield every 1/10 of a mile.

Actually, there is.  Those mileposts are to help in the case of a breakdown, accident, etc.  Most people aren't familiar with exactly where they are.  If they need help, they can say "I see a mile post that says East Route 76, 347.4", or they can say "I think I passed Harrisburg, but I don't know where I am".

I respectfully disagree with your implication that every enhanced reference marker needs to be identical in design.  Even if people aren't familiar as to their exact location on a roadway at any given time, one would hope they would remember the route they are traveling on without the need for "in your face" reminders every 1/10th of a mile.  And, providing route and direction information only at the even milepoints should be a sufficent reminder to those who are still "what route am I on" challenged.

As I noted in a previous post, FHWA alllowed Massachusetts to install their intermediate markers with just the milepoint information.  To my knowledge, this hasn't created any issues for either drivers reporting incidents or for emergency crews responding to such incidents.

You will be surprised.  Ask our friend who works on the NJTA how many people say they are on the New Jersey Parkway, or the Garden State Turnpike, or on the New York Parkway. 

Remember, there's over 200 million drivers.  Many of them took a single test to become licensed drivers for life.  They only had to score an 80% or better on their test.  Doesn't matter if they got "T/F: The threshold of impairment is .15" wrong in 1947, or if they missed "What do you do when you encounter a red, 8 sided sign with the word STOP".  As long as they can answer 80% of the questions correctly, then take a driving test where the most important thing is to not hit a tree at 25 mph, then they are allowed to drive anywhere and everywhere, forever.

Some of them are visiting from other countries.  They barely understand English.  They know that they want to go from point A to point B.  They have to remember to stay on the correct side of the road, and look for signs with their destination on it.  If the sign says "New York City", and they want to go to New York City, they take that route.  They have no clue what route they are on.

And no matter how familiar they are with a route, if they are in an accident and disoriented, they may have forgotten exactly where they are. 

Talk to any first responder. I'm sure they can tell you numerous stories where they are searching for someone that gave incomplete information. 

You are thinking like a roadgeek.  Think like an average person who drives the roads.  There's a reason why those enhanced mile markers are preferred.