Re: Roadtrip Report: Milwaukee to Utah (8/31/05)
- From: "Mike Tantillo" <mjtantillo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Sep 2005 10:26:55 -0700
argatlam_roads@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> [Mr. Tantillo:]
>
> [Nebraska "(Shield) Town EXIT" signing]
>
> > > Often the distance is quite large--about 10 miles in the case of the
> > > Neb. 370 Bellevue exit signed from eastbound I-80.
> >
> > I like Nebraska's style better...the other method is subject to some
> > ambiguity.
>
> I like Nebraska's approach better, too, if the truth be told.
>
> > For example, one heading from DC towards Baltimore sees a sign like
> > this:
> >
> > Tunnels to Phila/N.Y.
> > --------------------------
> > I-895 Harbor Tunnel 1
> > I-95 Ft. McHenry Tunnel 11
> >
> > That sign mixes and matches, the 1 mile to I-895 is the distance from
> > that point to the EXIT for the Harbor Tunnel, not the tunnel itself,
> > whereas the I-95 distance is to the actual tunnel.
>
> I remember that sign from my time living in suburban Maryland over the
> summers seven years ago. I too would have preferred that it quote the
> distances to the tunnels as measured on a common basis derived from the
> geographical location of the tunnels, e.g. distance from sign location
> to entry portal of the tunnel. However, the distances are in fact
> calculated from a common basis, which is the length of road from the
> sign location to the last point where the motorist can escape paying a
> toll to use the facility. This is 11 miles for the Ft. McHenry Tunnel
> since there are a number of intermediate interchanges before the toll
> plazas for the tunnel where motorists can leave I-95 without paying
> toll. The Harbor Tunnel, however, is part of a larger facility (the
> Harbor Tunnel Thruway) which originally opened as a toll road and is
> designed not to allow motorists in either direction to escape before
> they have paid the toll and gone through the tunnel.
>
Right...I understand the reasoning, after thinking about it for 10
minutes...though the average motorist doesn't have 10 minutes to think
this through before making the decision!
> Also, in its current form the sign suggests that the Harbor Tunnel is
> closer and more convenient than the Fort McHenry Tunnel when in fact it
> is older, has fewer lanes, and uses a slightly lower unit lane width.
> The sign thus operates against motorists' tendency to divert 'en masse'
> to a larger and more modern facility, and may help bring traffic levels
> into better balance between the two tunnels.
>
Could be...though I think a lot of motorists use the Harbor Tunnel
anyway, because its shorter and avoids downtown.
Not sure what the old signage was at this particular split, but at the
north end of the city, the signs used to say "HARBOR TUNNEL, I-895
south, Annapolis, Bay Bridge", and "FORT MCHENRY TUNNEL, I-95 south,
Baltimore, Washington". Now they say: "HARBOR TUNNEL, I-895 south,
Annapolis", and "FORT MCHENRY TUNNEL, I-95 south, Baltimore", with
auxiliary signage stating that either route can be used for
"Washington". So in effect, they are trying to encourage motorists to
use either route, or at least show them that either route works in case
one is backed up (ITS technology can let motorists know of this fact).
> I.S.T.M. that the following sign design would escape the ambiguity.
>
> Toll facilities to Phila & NYC
> ----------------------------
> [I-95] Ft McHenry Tunnel 11
> [I-895] Harbor Tunnel Thruway 1
>
I agree that this would be better, as the toll facility does begin
right at the exit for the HTT, but not until Exit 55 (Key Hwy) for the
FMT.
> Does the advance guide signing for the Harbor Tunnel Thruway exit have
> bottom panels advising motorists that they will be trapped into paying
> toll if they turn onto the Thruway? I can't remember.
Yes: "No Exit Before Toll". Also seen on exits from I-695 and MD 295
to I-895 north. Heading south, no such panel exists as one can still
exit at Moravia Road or Lombard Street. At Lombard St, "Last Exit
Before Toll" is used on the sign.
>
> [Location of K-Tag lanes W.R.T. cash lanes]
>
> > > In most cases the K-Tag lanes have been grafted onto existing toll
> > > plazas, which have received only cosmetic remodelling. It would indeed
> > > be more sensible to have the K-Tag lanes on the left but the speed
> > > differential involved is not that great since K-Tag does not (last I
> > > travelled on the Turnpike) offer high-speed tolling.
> >
> > Perhaps there was a need to "cluster" the cash lanes together, to allow
> > for flexibility in # of lanes per direction. You can't move the K-Tag
> > lane, because of its special signage, etc. But if the K-Tag lanes were
> > in the center, then there would always be X lanes on the EB side, and Y
> > lanes on the WB side. With the lanes on each side, then the cash lanes
> > can be configured in any configuration such that the EB lanes + WB
> > lanes = X+Y. So if you have twice as much traffic going in one
> > direction as the other, you can accommodate them.
>
> That sounds reasonable and I am sure the design would have been guided
> by such considerations. However, the Turnpike in general is not
> particularly busy except on holiday weekends, and the traffic flow on
> it does not have a pronounced tidal character except in the
> Topeka-Lawrence-Kansas City corridor currently being widened. Thus,
> outside this corridor, cash tollbooths are often coned off and left
> vacant at quiet times of the day, instead of being reconfigured to
> serve traffic in the opposite direction. I believe there are also
> combined cash/K-Tag lanes at some rural interchanges.
>
> It has been suggested that tolls should be removed on certain parts of
> the Turnpike to allow it to be used as an urban commuter route. This
> has been done in the Kansas City area, where the K.T.A.-maintained 18th
> St. Expwy. and the mainline Turnpike from Muncie Expwy. westwards have
> been freed of toll and now are important commuter routes. However, the
> Wichita M.P.O. has so far failed to persuade the K.T.A. to do something
> similar in southeastern Wichita, where the Turnpike could theoretically
> form one-quarter of an urban beltway. The K.T.A. is not interested in
> any of the practical options for implementing this, which include
> moving the mainline toll plaza to north of Wichita, building two
> mainline toll plazas in the Wichita area so the length of Turnpike
> between them can be toll-free, etc. Right now the Wichita M.P.O. is
> considering alternatives like building an untolled freeway parallel to
> the Turnpike.
.
- References:
- Re: Roadtrip Report: Milwaukee to Utah (8/31/05)
- From: argatlam_roads
- Re: Roadtrip Report: Milwaukee to Utah (8/31/05)
- From: argatlam_roads
- Re: Roadtrip Report: Milwaukee to Utah (8/31/05)
- Prev by Date: Follow up to "Here we go again..."
- Next by Date: Re: OT - The media reported wrong
- Previous by thread: Re: Roadtrip Report: Milwaukee to Utah (8/31/05)
- Next by thread: Re: Roadtrip Report: Milwaukee to Utah (8/31/05)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
