Cryptic word messages on traffic signs

[NE2]

"Trafficway" is a generic term for a high-type road--it isn't really restricted to a particular category of road and it is actually a regional term, not purely a Kansas Cityism.  Greater Kansas City has a number of Trafficways which are signalized surface arterials, while around Lawrence the proposed South Lawrence Trafficway is a full freeway.  Topeka (50 miles west of Kansas City) has Trafficways too.  I think "Trafficway" is primarily a northeast Kansas/Kansas City term because it seems to have penetrated a much smaller distance east of the state line.

Springfield has them too.

[kphoger]

Regarding the abbreviation 'Tfy' and the word 'trafficway' in general.....

Seeing the abbreviation on a sign shouldn't be very confusing/cryptic.  If your directions say 'Exit at Oak Trafficway', and you see a sign for 'Oak Tfy', one would hope you'd put two and two together.

[empirestate]

I've seen "Turnpike" abbreviated as "Tpke," "Tnpk," "Trpk," and "Trnpk," all on various signs within about a five-mile radius here in Northern Virginia. They refer to Little River Turnpike. Once upon a time the BGSs typically used "Tnpk" and the street sign blades used "Tpke," but lately it's varied a bit more. "Trpk" is unique to one sign on I-395. It's a strange abbreviation, but I suppose it's still reasonably clear what it means....although I guess I'm not the best person to say because I've lived here for almost 40 years and so of course I know the road's name.

I am not particularly fond of any of these abbreviations--here we use "Tpk" (one more letter saved compared to any of the examples used in northern Virginia, and still unambiguous and easily understood).

An extremely common variation not yet mentioned would simply be "Pike". The Massachusetts Turnpike is frequently, in fact usually, referred to as the Mass Pike. Interestingly, that's the only modern toll road I can think of that takes the abbreviation (NJ Turnpike never does, for example), but old turnpikes all over New England, Pennsylvania, etc. are often called "pikes".

[Ian]

While we're on the topic of odd abbreviations, how about PennDOT's use of Plymouth Meeting for I-476?

[agentsteel53]

While we're on the topic of odd abbreviations, how about PennDOT's use of Plymouth Meeting for I-476?

at my work, "mtg" is used fairly often.  more so than "mtng" - if we're gonna abbreviate, we may as well save a keystroke.

[Scott5114]

"Trafficway" is a generic term for a high-type road--it isn't really restricted to a particular category of road and it is actually a regional term, not purely a Kansas Cityism.  Greater Kansas City has a number of Trafficways which are signalized surface arterials, while around Lawrence the proposed South Lawrence Trafficway is a full freeway.  Topeka (50 miles west of Kansas City) has Trafficways too.  I think "Trafficway" is primarily a northeast Kansas/Kansas City term because it seems to have penetrated a much smaller distance east of the state line.

Springfield has them too.

Not really–there is a Trafficway Street, but that's the only one in town to my knowledge. It's not a "high-type" road, either, just a two-lane downtown-ish street.

[NE2]

You're right, though it used to continue east on Chestnut Expressway: http://www.modot.org/newsandinfo/publications/documents/1971_back.pdf The latter may have been formerly named Chestnut Trafficway: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22chestnut+trafficway%22+springfield

[Kacie Jane]

http://goo.gl/maps/LjUj7

I-5 Exit 164B for E Martinez Dr.  E is for Edgar, not East.

[kphoger]

Regarding the abbreviation 'Tfy' and the word 'trafficway' in general.....

Seeing the abbreviation on a sign shouldn't be very confusing/cryptic.  If your directions say 'Exit at Oak Trafficway', and you see a sign for 'Oak Tfy', one would hope you'd put two and two together.

He he he...   Just drove through KC, and saw that the exit on I-29 is actually abbreviated 'Oak Trfwy', which is even less cryptic.

[kphoger]

S.O.P. around here for construction zones seems to include 'DO NOT PASS' signs–even when there isn't even any head-to-head traffic.  A prime example that comes to mind is when they redid the I-135/Kellogg interchange.  I-135 had 'DO NOT PASS' signs, even though it's an elevated freeway without even the possibility of head-to-head traffic.  So how, exactly, is one supposed to obey that? by not going by someone in the fast lane??

[kphoger]

OMG!  How has the Deer Lady not made it onto this forum yet???

Please, please, if you haven't heard of this lady, listen to the YouTube.  Then, if you like, listen to the follow-up interview.

[empirestate]

S.O.P. around here for construction zones seems to include 'DO NOT PASS' signs–even when there isn't even any head-to-head traffic.  A prime example that comes to mind is when they redid the I-135/Kellogg interchange.  I-135 had 'DO NOT PASS' signs, even though it's an elevated freeway without even the possibility of head-to-head traffic.  So how, exactly, is one supposed to obey that? by not going by someone in the fast lane??

Correct, if doing so would require you changing lanes. Around here (NYC) they phrase it as "STAY IN LANE", accompanied by single or double solid lines.

[kphoger]

S.O.P. around here for construction zones seems to include 'DO NOT PASS' signs–even when there isn't even any head-to-head traffic.  A prime example that comes to mind is when they redid the I-135/Kellogg interchange.  I-135 had 'DO NOT PASS' signs, even though it's an elevated freeway without even the possibility of head-to-head traffic.  So how, exactly, is one supposed to obey that? by not going by someone in the fast lane??

Correct, if doing so would require you changing lanes. Around here (NYC) they phrase it as "STAY IN LANE", accompanied by single or double solid lines.

How sure are you that that's what it means?  Without solid white lines, without any discouragement of changing lanes by the police or anything else....I think it unlikely, and it's certainly not adhered to.

[1995hoo]

Regarding the abbreviation 'Tfy' and the word 'trafficway' in general.....

Seeing the abbreviation on a sign shouldn't be very confusing/cryptic.  If your directions say 'Exit at Oak Trafficway', and you see a sign for 'Oak Tfy', one would hope you'd put two and two together.

This is a reasonable point, but on the other hand, if I hadn't been given directions and I saw that abbreviation, I'd ask what in the world that meant.

I showed this thread to my wife and her immediate reaction was, "What's a trafficway?"

[empirestate]

S.O.P. around here for construction zones seems to include 'DO NOT PASS' signs–even when there isn't even any head-to-head traffic.  A prime example that comes to mind is when they redid the I-135/Kellogg interchange.  I-135 had 'DO NOT PASS' signs, even though it's an elevated freeway without even the possibility of head-to-head traffic.  So how, exactly, is one supposed to obey that? by not going by someone in the fast lane??

Correct, if doing so would require you changing lanes. Around here (NYC) they phrase it as "STAY IN LANE", accompanied by single or double solid lines.

How sure are you that that's what it means?  Without solid white lines, without any discouragement of changing lanes by the police or anything else....I think it unlikely, and it's certainly not adhered to.

Well, I'm as sure as I would be if I saw the sign on a two-way road with a dashed yellow centerline. If the sign is posted in a work zone situation, I would assume it to be temporary and to override the lack of restriction indicated by the pavement marking, but I would likewise be more confused than if the pavement markings were also temporarily changed to reflect the restriction.

I guess the question is whether "pass" means "intentionally and actively overtake" or "just happen to be going faster than". That's why I take a cue from the two-way road application, where it could only reasonably mean the former. In a same-direction situation, I'd apply it the same way.

[roadman]

S.O.P. around here for construction zones seems to include 'DO NOT PASS' signs—even when there isn't even any head-to-head traffic.  A prime example that comes to mind is when they redid the I-135/Kellogg interchange.  I-135 had 'DO NOT PASS' signs, even though it's an elevated freeway without even the possibility of head-to-head traffic.  So how, exactly, is one supposed to obey that? by not going by someone in the fast lane??

Correct, if doing so would require you changing lanes. Around here (NYC) they phrase it as "STAY IN LANE", accompanied by single or double solid lines.

Massachusetts also uses "Stay In Lane" signs, along with single solid white lane lines, when they don't want single direction traffic passing within freeway work zones.  The current median barrier work on Interstate 95 (aka MA 128) in Burlington and Woburn, which also involves a lane shift (all four lanes shift to the right, and the right shoulder (breakdown lane) becomes a travel lane through the work zone), is a good example of this treatment.

Based on my observations, overall compliance seems to be pretty good, except for trucks in the right center lane, who always seem to cross to the left center lane when the shift begins and then stay in that lane once it shifts back for at least a couple of miles before moving back into the right center lane (note that Mass regs don't allow large trucks to travel in the far left or left center lanes on four-lane freeways like I-95 - and there are no signs indicating this restriction is lifted within the work zone).

[formulanone]

I showed this thread to my wife and her immediate reaction was, "What's a trafficway?"

I was advised to take a "trafficway" go to a certain restaurant when in Kansas City last April, and my immediate thought was "How can I bypass that? It doesn't sound like a type of road in which I'd get anywhere fast."

[deathtopumpkins]

S.O.P. around here for construction zones seems to include 'DO NOT PASS' signs–even when there isn't even any head-to-head traffic.  A prime example that comes to mind is when they redid the I-135/Kellogg interchange.  I-135 had 'DO NOT PASS' signs, even though it's an elevated freeway without even the possibility of head-to-head traffic.  So how, exactly, is one supposed to obey that? by not going by someone in the fast lane??

Correct, if doing so would require you changing lanes. Around here (NYC) they phrase it as "STAY IN LANE", accompanied by single or double solid lines.

Massachusetts also uses "Stay In Lane" signs, along with single solid white lane lines, when they don't want single direction traffic passing within freeway work zones.  The current median barrier work on Interstate 95 (aka MA 128) in Burlington and Woburn, which also involves a lane shift (all four lanes shift to the right, and the right shoulder (breakdown lane) becomes a travel lane through the work zone), is a good example of this treatment.

Based on my observations, overall compliance seems to be pretty good, except for trucks in the right center lane, who always seem to cross to the left center lane when the shift begins and then stay in that lane once it shifts back for at least a couple of miles before moving back into the right center lane (note that Mass regs don't allow large trucks to travel in the far left or left center lanes on four-lane freeways like I-95 - and there are no signs indicating this restriction is lifted within the work zone).

Based on my experience commuting on 128 between Peabody and Lexington this summer, compliance with the stay in lane signs in that work zone is TERRIBLE. Probably because it is several miles long and many people presumably don't realize that it covers several interchanges. Perhaps a "NEXT # MILES" sign under the stay in lane sign would be helpful. Many people will make it all the way from the left lane to the right lane by the end of the work zone because they don't realize the lane changing restriction doesn't end before their exit.

That whole setup was a terrible idea. There's no reason to prohibit lane changes anywhere other than the two points where the lanes shift, and they should have done something different with the onramps, because people coming off them don't always realize that they have no acceleration lane now. I always specifically avoid the right lane through there so I don't have to fear for my life.

[theline]

There's no reason to prohibit lane changes anywhere other than the two points where the lanes shift

I haven't seen the setup there, but I can think of another very good reason to prohibit lane changes: if there is little or no provision for shoulders during construction. Shoulders are what give an alert driver an escape path to avoid an accident if some yahoo makes an ill-advised lane change. Preventing lane changes is a good idea if there's no shoulder.

[Special K]

There's no reason to prohibit lane changes anywhere other than the two points where the lanes shift

I haven't seen the setup there, but I can think of another very good reason to prohibit lane changes: if there is little or no provision for shoulders during construction. Shoulders are what give an alert driver an escape path to avoid an accident if some yahoo makes an ill-advised lane change. Preventing lane changes is a good idea if there's no shoulder.

Agreed.  Weaving breeds conflict.

[deathtopumpkins]

There's no reason to prohibit lane changes anywhere other than the two points where the lanes shift

I haven't seen the setup there, but I can think of another very good reason to prohibit lane changes: if there is little or no provision for shoulders during construction. Shoulders are what give an alert driver an escape path to avoid an accident if some yahoo makes an ill-advised lane change. Preventing lane changes is a good idea if there's no shoulder.

Correct, the right lane has been shifted onto the shoulder, but that's not all that uncommon for Massachusetts. Even the MassPike doesn't have shoulders on the eastern half. And the shoulder argument only applies to traffic in the right lane in the first place. Traffic in one of the center lanes has cars on either side regardless.

And I've seen enough roads with no shoulders in my life to think that that is no excuse for a several-miles-long no passing zone.

[theline]

There's no reason to prohibit lane changes anywhere other than the two points where the lanes shift

I haven't seen the setup there, but I can think of another very good reason to prohibit lane changes: if there is little or no provision for shoulders during construction. Shoulders are what give an alert driver an escape path to avoid an accident if some yahoo makes an ill-advised lane change. Preventing lane changes is a good idea if there's no shoulder.

Correct, the right lane has been shifted onto the shoulder, but that's not all that uncommon for Massachusetts. Even the MassPike doesn't have shoulders on the eastern half. And the shoulder argument only applies to traffic in the right lane in the first place. Traffic in one of the center lanes has cars on either side regardless.

And I've seen enough roads with no shoulders in my life to think that that is no excuse for a several-miles-long no passing zone.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. If the road is built to interstate standards and there are no shoulders, I think a ban on passing is justified.

Authorities could make it more likely for motorists to obey the ban if they limit the length of the restriction. I've seen plenty of construction zones that appear to be much too long. Perhaps the job could be broken down to segments, so the length of the zone could be limited.

[kphoger]

I'm still not convinced that 'DO NOT PASS' means the same thing as 'KEEP YOUR LANE' on a freeway.  Is that relation written in code somewhere?

[NE2]

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2b.htm#section2B28
The Do Not Pass (R4-1) sign (see Figure 2B-10) may be used in addition to pavement markings (see Section 3B.02) to emphasize the restriction on passing.

But 3B.02 is about two-way roads.

(Incidentally, 3B.04 20-30 gives the 'discouraged for not prohibited' meaning for a single solid white line. Do any states use it differently in their MUTCD?)

[kphoger]

But 3B.02 is about two-way roads.

Precisely.  Passing is a term that refers to two-way traffic.  I can see posting DO NOT PASS signs in construction zones where there's two-way traffic, or on divided highways where traffic might be temporarily directed onto the other side, but it makes no sense to me on an elevated freeway any more than W14-3 would.