Maryland

[ixnay]

1995hoo or anyone, those signs in that 1965 photo look like they have fully reflective, non-button copy lettering.  When was reflective lettering on freeway signs first developed?

ixnay

I disagree, those look like button copy.

You're right, I can (barely) make out the button lines in the workmen's shadows.

ixnay

[ixnay]

1995hoo or anyone, those signs in that 1965 photo look like they have fully reflective, non-button copy lettering.  When was reflective lettering on freeway signs first developed?

ixnay

Beats me, although Maryland did use button copy for years.

The MdTA was still using buttons in the '90s on I-95 within Baltimore City (the whole stretch of 95 in the city is under MdTA jurisdiction, not just the FMcHT and its toll plaza and ventilators).

I just love being among fellow button copy lovers...

ixnay

[mrsman]

On I-270 south yesterday I saw a VMS say something like:

Crash Ahead

Past Exit 4 MD 927

Expect Delays

I don't recall all it said precisely.  But the MD 927 stood out.  Since it's an unsigned route, who is going to know that Montrose Road is MD 927 @ I-270 besides roadgeeks like us.

Absolutely correct.

It reminds me of references to Md. 295 on the Capital Beltway part of I-95.  It should read Baltimore-Washington Parkway (or B-W Pkwy), not Md. 295.

I agree.  No reference to highway numbers, unless they are regularly signed.

With regards to BW Pkwy-Kenilworth-Anacostia Freeway, I believe the entire road should be signed as 295 to some degree.  MD 295 north of MD 175.  DC 295 south of US 50.  I-295 south of I-695.  And for the portion under NPS jurisdiction between US 50 and MD 175, maybe some NPS-295.  I'm imagining a shield shaped like the NPS arrowhead:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-NationalParkService-ShadedLogo.svg

FWIW, it would be easy to refer to this one roadway by one number, even though multiple jurisdictions control it.

(And similar shields should be employed where other highways go through NPS property and are not signed as state or US highways.)

[1995hoo]

2 other photos from this location. First one obviously predates the above Washingtonian photo, and can be no earlier than the mid-November 1963 opening of this stretch of road. Second photo is apparently the same sign as posted by 1995hoo, yet has different arrows; because both below sets of arrows are pointing generally upwards, I think both of the below predate the Washingtonian photo posted yesterday; the year in the original caption on that photo isn't readable, but I think says 1965? However, I believe all 3 photos show button copy signs.

The photo I posted from the magazine says 1965.

[Alps]

2 other photos from this location. First one obviously predates the above Washingtonian photo, and can be no earlier than the mid-November 1963 opening of this stretch of road. Second photo is apparently the same sign as posted by 1995hoo, yet has different arrows; because both below sets of arrows are pointing generally upwards, I think both of the below predate the Washingtonian photo posted yesterday; the year in the original caption on that photo isn't readable, but I think says 1965? However, I believe all 3 photos show button copy signs.

My opinion is that this is the same sign as the Washingtonian photo, and taken well after 1965. Those are the same down arrows, rotated into up arrows. Either something in the MUTCD told Maryland that up arrows were better to denote the direction of the road split, or there was something operational (accidents, confusion) that spurred it.

[NJRoadfan]

(And similar shields should be employed where other highways go through NPS property and are not signed as state or US highways.)

They already do it in NJ:

[1995hoo]

2 other photos from this location. First one obviously predates the above Washingtonian photo, and can be no earlier than the mid-November 1963 opening of this stretch of road. Second photo is apparently the same sign as posted by 1995hoo, yet has different arrows; because both below sets of arrows are pointing generally upwards, I think both of the below predate the Washingtonian photo posted yesterday; the year in the original caption on that photo isn't readable, but I think says 1965? However, I believe all 3 photos show button copy signs.

My opinion is that this is the same sign as the Washingtonian photo, and taken well after 1965. Those are the same down arrows, rotated into up arrows. Either something in the MUTCD told Maryland that up arrows were better to denote the direction of the road split, or there was something operational (accidents, confusion) that spurred it.

Notice the trees in the median are bigger than they were in the 1965 photo. To me that's the best evidence that it was probably a good number of years later.

[davewiecking]

My opinion is that this is the same sign as the Washingtonian photo, and taken well after 1965. Those are the same down arrows, rotated into up arrows. Either something in the MUTCD told Maryland that up arrows were better to denote the direction of the road split, or there was something operational (accidents, confusion) that spurred it.

Notice the trees in the median are bigger than they were in the 1965 photo. To me that's the best evidence that it was probably a good number of years later.

Good catch on the trees. As to the arrows, this split has seen a fair number of accidents thru the years-the second lane from the left was an option lane in all 3 of these photographs, but the split was striped 2 lanes each way by the time I started driving in the early 70's (and is now 3 lanes each way). I think the change from downward arrows to angled upwards arrows was an attempt to get drivers to stop going straight (especially at night).
Another question on these photos for anyone who might know-another big difference between hoo's photo and the cop photo is the handrail on the gantry (which wouldn't be terribly effective if the guy slips off his step ladder). Would it have been common place for the maintenance crew to bring those handrail sections along with them, and install them before starting any actual work? I can see OSHA or someone having all kinds of fits nowadays if someone even tried to insert handrail sections with traffic continuing underneath. If the handrails were permanent, I think they'd potentially obscure part of the sign (but not the lights mounted at the bottom).

[ixnay]

(And similar shields should be employed where other highways go through NPS property and are not signed as state or US highways.)

They already do it in NJ:

Was that taken in Delaware Water Gap NRA?

ixnay

[NJRoadfan]

Yes, Old Mine Road. Formerly CR-615.

[cpzilliacus]

Notice the trees in the median are bigger than they were in the 1965 photo. To me that's the best evidence that it was probably a good number of years later.

This image was taken sometime after 1965, but before about 1975, when I-70S became I-270 and I-270 became I-270 Spur.

Shortly after the Capital Beltway was completed in 1964, Maryland SRC replaced all of the BGS panels on its part of the Beltway with what you see above.  These signs were installed 1964 or maybe 1965.

[cpzilliacus]

I disagree, those look like button copy.

It was all buttoncopy except the shields.  Maryland SRC did not like to use button copy on shields then. Maryland SRC used some button copy on shields for a while in the 1970's.

All of the Capital Beltway had button copy signs from about 1965 to sometime in the late 1970's or early 1980's.

[TheOneKEA]

I passed through the Essex area of MD a while back and crossed over the Back River on the Beltway, and as I did so I wondered to myself why the SRC felt that three road crossings of the Back River were necessary. Had the Outer Back River Crossing been constructed and linked to the Beltway near Sparrows Point, I think there would have been an excess of road capacity in this area even if the steel plant site at the Point was still in use at its fullest extent.

Are there any online resources that have info on why so much road capacity was considered for this river crossing?

[noelbotevera]

They gotta fix the I-70/I-270/US 15/US 40/US 340 bottleneck in Frederick. Some of the movements on I-70 to US 15/40/340 aren't there, and if you want to head on US 15 South/US 340 West from I-270 North, you have to make a hard weave onto i-70 to take exit 52A. Also, the lanes for I-70 at exits 52-53 could be exit only as there aren't option lanes and the signs don't quite match the lanes. I-70 through Frederick needs more work too.

[TheOneKEA]

They gotta fix the I-70/I-270/US 15/US 40/US 340 bottleneck in Frederick. Some of the movements on I-70 to US 15/40/340 aren't there, and if you want to head on US 15 South/US 340 West from I-270 North, you have to make a hard weave onto i-70 to take exit 52A. Also, the lanes for I-70 at exits 52-53 could be exit only as there aren't option lanes and the signs don't quite match the lanes. I-70 through Frederick needs more work too.

If you are traveling from I-270 north to US 15 south/US 340 west I believe you're supposed to continue straight ahead past the changeover from I-270 to US 40, then exit at Jefferson Street and turn left onto US 15/US 340.

I'd rather they construct a flyover to carry US 15 north through the interchange and onto the Frederick Freeway at the existing grade separation, and widen the ramps carrying US 15 south in the opposite direction to allow for free-flowing traffic on US 15.

[ixnay]

They gotta fix the I-70/I-270/US 15/US 40/US 340 bottleneck in Frederick. Some of the movements on I-70 to US 15/40/340 aren't there, and if you want to head on US 15 South/US 340 West from I-270 North, you have to make a hard weave onto i-70 to take exit 52A. Also, the lanes for I-70 at exits 52-53 could be exit only as there aren't option lanes and the signs don't quite match the lanes. I-70 through Frederick needs more work too.

If you are traveling from I-270 north to US 15 south/US 340 west I believe you're supposed to continue straight ahead past the changeover from I-270 to US 40, then exit at Jefferson Street and turn left onto US 15/US 340.

So it was signed in July 2012...

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4039593,-77.4305806,3a,75y,323.59h,80.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spS893kbQsMDvoUz0jbwO9A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Of course, a stoplight awaits you at the top of the ramp.  I guess that's a lesser evil than a "hard weave", huh?...

ixnay

[Bitmapped]

They gotta fix the I-70/I-270/US 15/US 40/US 340 bottleneck in Frederick. Some of the movements on I-70 to US 15/40/340 aren't there, and if you want to head on US 15 South/US 340 West from I-270 North, you have to make a hard weave onto i-70 to take exit 52A. Also, the lanes for I-70 at exits 52-53 could be exit only as there aren't option lanes and the signs don't quite match the lanes. I-70 through Frederick needs more work too.

The interchanges are Frederick are hugely improved over what they used to be until about 2000. All of the major movements are possible now without having to use other roads to go between interchanges. A number of movements (I-70 E to US 15 or US 340, I-270 to I-70 E, US 340 to I-70 W, US 15 to I-70 W, I-70 W to I-270 S) did not exist previously.

[noelbotevera]

They gotta fix the I-70/I-270/US 15/US 40/US 340 bottleneck in Frederick. Some of the movements on I-70 to US 15/40/340 aren't there, and if you want to head on US 15 South/US 340 West from I-270 North, you have to make a hard weave onto i-70 to take exit 52A. Also, the lanes for I-70 at exits 52-53 could be exit only as there aren't option lanes and the signs don't quite match the lanes. I-70 through Frederick needs more work too.

The interchanges are Frederick are hugely improved over what they used to be until about 2000. All of the major movements are possible now without having to use other roads to go between interchanges. A number of movements (I-70 E to US 15 or US 340, I-270 to I-70 E, US 340 to I-70 W, US 15 to I-70 W, I-70 W to I-270 S) did not exist previously.

The remaining movements are I-70 East to US 40 West. It'd be helpful to have that movement since that is also US 15, and probably a good alt route. I-70 West also does not get the US 15 North movement, meaning that I-70 east does not have an alt route to the Frederick Freeway, and I-70 West has no direct access at all. Both movements are pretty important.

[ixnay]

They gotta fix the I-70/I-270/US 15/US 40/US 340 bottleneck in Frederick. Some of the movements on I-70 to US 15/40/340 aren't there, and if you want to head on US 15 South/US 340 West from I-270 North, you have to make a hard weave onto i-70 to take exit 52A. Also, the lanes for I-70 at exits 52-53 could be exit only as there aren't option lanes and the signs don't quite match the lanes. I-70 through Frederick needs more work too.

The interchanges are Frederick are hugely improved over what they used to be until about 2000. All of the major movements are possible now without having to use other roads to go between interchanges. A number of movements (I-70 E to US 15 or US 340, I-270 to I-70 E, US 340 to I-70 W, US 15 to I-70 W, I-70 W to I-270 S) did not exist previously.

The remaining movements are I-70 East to US 40 West. It'd be helpful to have that movement since that is also US 15, and probably a good alt route. I-70 West also does not get the US 15 North movement, meaning that I-70 east does not have an alt route to the Frederick Freeway, and I-70 West has no direct access at all. Both movements are pretty important.

How do you squeeze in another flyover at exit 53 with all that commercial development (not to mention a cemetery) hemming it in?

ixnay

[Mapmikey]

I-70 east to US 40 west is accomplished via Exit 52.  There is nothing one could reach on 40 west via exit 53 that is also not reachable from Exit 52...

Mike

[froggie]

It's as if Noel is counting the short bits of 15/340 and 40 (standalone) north of I-70 as separate freeways that each deserve their own access from I-70.  The reality that he doesn't realize is they don't need their own exits.

I agree with TheOneKEA that improving the US 15 "through connections" where 15/340 meets 40 would be useful, and I've seen rough schematics from SHA (from the I-270 corridor studies) proposing them.  Funding and building them would be another matter, though.

[cpzilliacus]

It's as if Noel is counting the short bits of 15/340 and 40 (standalone) north of I-70 as separate freeways that each deserve their own access from I-70.  The reality that he doesn't realize is they don't need their own exits.

I agree with TheOneKEA that improving the US 15 "through connections" where 15/340 meets 40 would be useful, and I've seen rough schematics from SHA (from the I-270 corridor studies) proposing them.  Funding and building them would be another matter, though.

IIRC, there were some flyover-type ramps proposed. 

Somewhat similar to what was done at the I-95/I-495 and Md. 5 (Exit 7) interchange in Camp Springs, Prince George's County, though I think there is a lot less space at I-270/U.S. 340/U.S. 15/U.S. 40.

[froggie]

Was that intended to be a football article, CP?

[cpzilliacus]

Was that intended to be a football article, CP?

No and corrected.

[vdeane]

IMO movements from one freeway to another should never involve a stoplight.