MA Turnpike (I-90) Exit Numbering System?
Kml0224
Turnpike (I-90)? Here's what I understand:
1- West Stockbridge (MA 41)
2- Lee (US 20/to US 7)
3- Westfield (MA 10/US 202)
4- West Springfield (I-91/US 5)
5- {I'm very rarely on this part of the Mass Pike.}
6- Chicopee (I-291 W)
7- Ludlow {?}
8- Palmer (MA 32)
9- Sturbridge (I-84/to US 20)
10- Auburn (I-290/I-395/MA 12)
10A- Millbury (to US 20/MA 122A/MA 146)
11- Millbury (MA 122)
11A- Hopkinton (I-495)
12- Framingham (MA 9)
13- Framingham (MA 30)
14- Weston (I-95/MA 128) [Eastbound Only]
15- Weston (I-95/MA 128/MA 30) [Westbound Only]
16- Newton (MA 16)
17- Newton
22- Boston (Prudential Center/Fenway Park) [Eastbound Only]
Exits 18 to 20 in Boston only seem to have two ramps. Where is the third exit?
This same exit cluster is only signed as "Exit 20" westbound. Also, where are
Exits 21, 23 and 24? (How can an ON-RAMP be an exit?) Is Exit 24 technically
the split for I-93/US 1 by South Station? What will the exit numbers be for the
new section of I-90 once it opens up?
Was the Mass Pike designed by the same guy who excluded Exit 1 on I-95 in
Greenwich, CT? (LOL)
SPUI
"Kml0224" <kml...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020531032247...@mb-co.aol.com...
> What is with the exit numbers in the Boston portion of the Massachusetts
> Turnpike (I-90)? Here's what I understand:
>
> 15- Weston (I-95/MA 128/MA 30) [Westbound Only]
> 16- Newton (MA 16)
> 17- Newton
> 22- Boston (Prudential Center/Fenway Park) [Eastbound Only]
>
> Exits 18 to 20 in Boston only seem to have two ramps. Where is the third
exit?
> This same exit cluster is only signed as "Exit 20" westbound. Also, where
are
> Exits 21, 23 and 24? (How can an ON-RAMP be an exit?) Is Exit 24
technically
> the split for I-93/US 1 by South Station? What will the exit numbers be
for the
> new section of I-90 once it opens up?
Every toll booth or interchange gets a number. 14-15 has two booths, and
18-19-20 three. 21 is the onramp from Mass Ave, 22 includes the Clarendon
onramp (which used to be from St James) and 23 is the Marginal onramp. 24 is
the terminus at the Artery.
>
> Was the Mass Pike designed by the same guy who excluded Exit 1 on I-95 in
> Greenwich, CT? (LOL)
>
Exit 1 on the CT Tpk was for the connection into NY, and was probably shown
that way in official maps.
Pete from Boston
> "Kml0224" <kml...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020531032247...@mb-co.aol.com...
> > What is with the exit numbers in the Boston portion of the Massachusetts
> > Turnpike (I-90)? Here's what I understand:
> >
> > 14- Weston (I-95/MA 128) [Eastbound Only]
> > 15- Weston (I-95/MA 128/MA 30) [Westbound Only]
> > 16- Newton (MA 16)
> > 17- Newton
> > 22- Boston (Prudential Center/Fenway Park) [Eastbound Only]
[snip]
> Every toll booth or interchange gets a number. 14-15 has two booths, and
> 18-19-20 three. 21 is the onramp from Mass Ave, 22 includes the Clarendon
> onramp (which used to be from St James) and 23 is the Marginal onramp. 24 is
> the terminus at the Artery.
Interesting. I had always thought 19 was the unbuilt connection to the Inner Belt.
Daniel Salomon
> 24 is
> the terminus at the Artery.
My somewhat AAA map of Boston says "Toll Plaza" at exit 24 but doesn't
show the toll barrier symbol that appears at all other tolls. Was
there once a toll there? It doesn't make sense for there to be one,
unless there used to be eastbound entrances or westbound exits to the
east of the Allston tolls.
The same map has a box describing the "Mayor's Pedestrian Lifesaving
Campaign". In an outdated font it gives safety tips, including "Cross
only when the signal is red-yellow, when it says walk or with the
green light." This red-yellow reference indicates that this map is
not devoid of vestiges. The map also shows the old elevated City
Square ramps to the Tobin Bridge.
-Dan
Brian ten Siethoff
Exit 19 (or 18 or 20, pick one) could also refer to the Pike entrance
that's directly from the Storrow Drive eastbound frontage road. That,
or the Inner Belt explanation, makes more sense than assigning the
Mass Pike mainline toll plaza an "exit" number. I would understand if
the toll plaza was at either end of the Pike (because then you are
technically "exiting" the pike) but since the mainline plaza at Weston
(distinct from Exit 15 because the two don't share any lanes) doesn't
have an exit number, I don't see why the plaza at the
Brighton/Cambridge exit would have a number.
Regards,
Brian ten Siethoff
Brian ten Siethoff
Okay, I stand corrected. "Exit" 19 is indeed the Allston-Brighton
toll plaza. Unfortunately I wasn't able to cancel my previous post.
From the Mass Pike web site:
"Interchanges 18, 19, and 20 are commonly referred to as the
Allston-Brighton tolls. Eastbound traffic on the Boston Extension may
exit into Allston, Brighton or Cambridge at Interchange 18.
Through traffic on the Boston Extension must pass through Interchange
19.
Interchange 20 is an exit into Allston, Brighton and Cambridge for
westbound traffic on the Boston Extension."
Link:
>http://www.massturnpike.com/t_traveler/tt_bos_interchanges.html
Garrett Wollman
Brian ten Siethoff <bt...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>or the Inner Belt explanation, makes more sense than assigning the
>Mass Pike mainline toll plaza an "exit" number.
Whether it makes sense to you or not, that's the way it is. Every
toll barrier has a number.
Every toll has a name as well; 19 is ``Beacon Park'', named after the
nearby CSX (ex-CR, ex-B&A) rail yards. Both number and name are shown
on my E-ZPASS statements for every toll passed.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | [G]enes make enzymes, and enzymes control the rates of
wol...@lcs.mit.edu | chemical processes. Genes do not make ``novelty-
Opinions not those of| seeking'' or any other complex and overt behavior.
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002)
Tony Matt
>> > news:20020531032247...@mb-co.aol.com...
>> > > What is with the exit numbers in the Boston portion of the Massachusetts
>> > > Turnpike (I-90)? Here's what I understand:
>> > >
>> > > 14- Weston (I-95/MA 128) [Eastbound Only]
The original eastern terminus of the turnpike.
http://www.masspike.com/t_traveler/tt_interchanges.html
>> > > 15- Weston (I-95/MA 128/MA 30) [Westbound Only]
Newton; includes the barrier tolls in both directions.
Considered part of the Boston Extension.
http://www.masspike.com/t_traveler/tt_bos_interchanges.html
>Exit 19 (or 18 or 20, pick one) could also refer to the Pike entrance
>that's directly from the Storrow Drive eastbound frontage road.
Not according to MassPike. Exit 19 is the barrier toll.
>[...] but since the mainline plaza at Weston (distinct from
>Exit 15 because the two don't share any lanes) doesn't
>have an exit number,
It does (Exit 15) - see above.
>I don't see why the plaza at the Brighton/Cambridge exit
>would have a number.
You'd have to ask MassPike about their motivations. Exit 15
makes more sense because the Turnpike and the Extension (part
of the Metropolitan Highway System) are considered two different
highways (even though they are both I-90 and have contiguous
exit numbers). "The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority owns and
manages both sets of roadways [MassPike and MHS] as separate
cost centers." See http://www.masspike.com/about/faq.html
Tony Matt
--
Anti-spam sig:
tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
ab...@msn.com ab...@sprintmail.com ab...@earthlink.net u...@ftc.gov
SPUI
"Pete from Boston" <mass...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:b282e3e6.02053...@posting.google.com...
> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
news:<iEFJ8.30772$%J4.4...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> > 18-19-20 three. 21 is the onramp from Mass Ave, 22 includes the
Clarendon
> > onramp (which used to be from St James) and 23 is the Marginal onramp.
24 is
> > the terminus at the Artery.
>
> Interesting. I had always thought 19 was the unbuilt connection to the
Inner Belt.
>
toll booth. http://members.aol.com/netransit8/inbelt4.jpg
SPUI
"Brian ten Siethoff" <bt...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:9858348b.02053...@posting.google.com...
> Exit 19 (or 18 or 20, pick one) could also refer to the Pike entrance
> that's directly from the Storrow Drive eastbound frontage road. That,
> or the Inner Belt explanation, makes more sense than assigning the
> Mass Pike mainline toll plaza an "exit" number. I would understand if
> the toll plaza was at either end of the Pike (because then you are
> technically "exiting" the pike) but since the mainline plaza at Weston
> (distinct from Exit 15 because the two don't share any lanes) doesn't
> have an exit number, I don't see why the plaza at the
> Brighton/Cambridge exit would have a number.
Many turnpikes number mainline plazas rather than exits. Exits fall out as a
secondary benefit. On the New Jersey Turnpike, the north end toll plazas are
clearly signed as 18E and 18W.
ke...@nospace.com
what the fare is now as I'm arriving tomorrow night.
Kevin
Brian Colby
the mile marker system, i.e. Exit 1 in Stockbridge would be renumbered
2, and the end of the Pike in Boston would be 134. The very end of
the turnpike at Logan Airport would be 137.
Here's how the exits would look like post renumbering:
Stockbridge old 1 new 2
Lee old 2 new 10
Westfield old 3 new 40
West Springfield old 4 new 53
Chicopee old 5 new 55
Springfield old 6 new 57
Ludlow old 7 new 65
Palmer old 8 new 74
Sturbridge old 9 new 85
Auburn I-290/I-395/MA 12 old 10 new 94
Worcester Airport/MA 146 old 10A new 96
Millbury/MA 122 old 11 new 98
Westboro/I-495 old 11A new 106
Framingham/MA 9 old 12 new 114
Natick/MA 30 old 13 new 120
Weston/I-95 old 14/15 new 123A-B
West Newton/MA 16 old 16 new 125
Newton Corner old 17 new 128
Brighton old 18/19/20 new 131A-B-C
Mass Ave old 21 new 132
Prudential Ctr old 22 new 133A-B
Arlington St old 23 new 133C
I-93 old 24 new 134
Haul Road new 135
Airport new 137
SPUI
(mileages from observation of mileposts, hence I don't have west of I-84).
"Brian Colby" <orio...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cf482e5e.02060...@posting.google.com...
Pete from Boston
> The same map has a box describing the "Mayor's Pedestrian Lifesaving
> Campaign". In an outdated font it gives safety tips, including "Cross
> only when the signal is red-yellow, when it says walk or with the
> green light." This red-yellow reference indicates that this map is
> not devoid of vestiges. The map also shows the old elevated City
> Square ramps to the Tobin Bridge.
I've seen this red-yellow combination someplace, but I can't remember
where. What does it mean, and at what point in the cycle does it
occur? I always assumed it was a local peculiarity, like flashing
green, or that the light was malfunctioning.
Pete from Boston
OK, that's all I need to hear. It's jibberish like this that has to
prompt the question of just who exactly the Mass Pike thinks it's in
business for. After having wasted so much time trying to explain the
exit numbers on the extension to out-of-towners ("you're just going to
have to trust me that 22 is two exits after 17") I'm all too aware
that the exit numbering is clearly not for the benfit of travelers
using the highway. My suspicion is that if one were to ask for an
explanation it would be either "It's too late now," or "Each toll
plaza represents a specific individual cost subcenter, and there's
absolutely no way for us to maintain our accounts without this
inconvenience to the motorist. It just can't be done."
Perhaps I wil go ask and see if I'm right.
Sandy Smith
Pete from Boston wrote:
>
[explanation of the Allston/Brighton/Cambridge interchange(s) and mainline toll
barrier at Beacon Park Yard on the Mass. Pike Boston Extension deleted]
> OK, that's all I need to hear. It's jibberish like this that has to
> prompt the question of just who exactly the Mass Pike thinks it's in
> business for. After having wasted so much time trying to explain the
> exit numbers on the extension to out-of-towners ("you're just going to
> have to trust me that 22 is two exits after 17") I'm all too aware
> that the exit numbering is clearly not for the benfit of travelers
> using the highway. My suspicion is that if one were to ask for an
> explanation it would be either "It's too late now," or "Each toll
> plaza represents a specific individual cost subcenter, and there's
> absolutely no way for us to maintain our accounts without this
> inconvenience to the motorist. It just can't be done."
>
> Perhaps I wil go ask and see if I'm right.
You may well be, although I suspect they won't use the term "individual cost
subcenter" in their explanation.
The Kansas Turnpike had numbered toll barriers from the day it opened in 1956.
The numbers were not posted on exit signs, but were printed on the toll
tickets. When an interchange was inserted in between the South Topeka and
Emporia interchanges at K-177 near Cassoday, it was given the next number in the
sequence -- thus Interchange 13 came between Interchanges 7 and 8.
[When the Kansas Turnpike adopted milepost-based interchange numbering, the exit
numbers were added to the signs. This now introduces a different discontinuity
-- that in the exit numbering along I-70 in the state, which joins the Turnpike
at somewhwere around I-70 mile 370 and Turnpike mile 185.
--
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
Pennsylvania Current, yadda yadda http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/
This is the condensed version of my .sig. I'm too tired to put a quote in.
N. W. Perry
orio...@yahoo.com (Brian Colby) wrote:
> I would suggest that the entire Turnpike system be renumbered using
> the mile marker system, i.e. Exit 1 in Stockbridge would be renumbered
> 2, and the end of the Pike in Boston would be 134. The very end of
> the turnpike at Logan Airport would be 137.
>
> Here's how the exits would look like post renumbering:
>
> Stockbridge old 1 new 2
<etc.>
Besides the absurdity, obvious to anyone who knows Yankees, of changing
a staid old numbering system, I'll just point out that Interchange 1 is
at West Stockbridge, rather than Stockbridge. Big difference (James
Taylor lyrics notwithstanding).
John F. Carr
Pete from Boston <mass...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I've seen this red-yellow combination someplace, but I can't remember
>where. What does it mean, and at what point in the cycle does it
>occur? I always assumed it was a local peculiarity, like flashing
>green, or that the light was malfunctioning.
It used to indicate an exclusive pedestrian phase. I think that
meaning was unique to Massachusetts, and possibly to eastern
Massachusetts.
Around the 1970s the federal government required traffic signals to
follow national standards. Since then red+yellow means "this signal
is malfunctioning". I stop or go based on my judgement, considering
traffic conditions.
Signals showing simultaneous red and yellow can be found in the center
of Dedham and near Inman Square close to the Cambridge/Somerville line.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Kml0224
Exit 2 in Lee (US 20/to US 7) is at Mile 11.
Exit 9 in Sturbridge (I-84/to US 20) is at Mile 78. [Mile 80 is the
Charlton-East Rest Stop.]
Exit 10 in Auburn (I-290/I-395/MA 12) is at Mile 90.
Exit 16 in Newton is at Mile 125.
The Allston/Brighton Toll (Exits 18 to 20) is near Mile 132.
The current terminus at I-93/US 1/MA 3 (unsigned Exit 24) is just after Mile
134. The Mile 134 marker is just west of the Washington Street bridge. Fenway
is bewteen Mile 132 and 133 just west of the Prudential Center Tunnel. (Exit 22
for Fenway Park and Copley Square is in this tunnel heading east.)
Marc Dashevsky
says...
> In article <b282e3e6.02060...@posting.google.com>,
> Pete from Boston <mass...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >I've seen this red-yellow combination someplace, but I can't remember
> >where. What does it mean, and at what point in the cycle does it
> >occur? I always assumed it was a local peculiarity, like flashing
> >green, or that the light was malfunctioning.
>
> It used to indicate an exclusive pedestrian phase. I think that
> meaning was unique to Massachusetts, and possibly to eastern
> Massachusetts.
I grew up with red-yellow meaning pedxing in Springfield during
the '50s and '60s. Even when we started to get separate pedxing
signals, the red-yellow continued to display on the traffic lights.
> Around the 1970s the federal government required traffic signals to
> follow national standards. Since then red+yellow means "this signal
> is malfunctioning". I stop or go based on my judgement, considering
> traffic conditions.
>
> Signals showing simultaneous red and yellow can be found in the center
> of Dedham and near Inman Square close to the Cambridge/Somerville line.
I could swear I saw them in Reading center a year or two ago.
--
Marc Dashevsky -- Remove '_' from address if replying by e-mail.
Daniel Salomon
> I've seen this red-yellow combination someplace, but I can't remember
> where. What does it mean, and at what point in the cycle does it
> occur? I always assumed it was a local peculiarity, like flashing
> green, or that the light was malfunctioning.
It's an outdated Massachusetts-ism that means it's a pedestrian walk
phase for signals without dedicated pedestrian WALK or pictorial
lights. Supposedly during the yellow+red phase right turns on red are
prohibited. See the ne.transportation Google Groups archives for more
discussions about this.
-Dan
Brian ten Siethoff
Off topic, regarding the map link: What a huge detour for traffic from
the Mass Pike to the south/east bound Inner Belt! Reminds me of the
present-day Tobin Bridge or Mass Pike connections to I-93, but worse.
It would hardly be worth it to build the Inner Belt between the Mass
Pike and SE Expressway even if the SW Expressway had been built,
because it would be shorter to go to the end of the Mass Pike and go
south on I-93 (and I-95, had it been built). Even with today's
traffic I don't see the Inner Belt saving more than a few minutes
between the Mass Pike and the SE or SW Expressways.
Brian ten Siethoff
John McLachlan
> I would suggest that the entire Turnpike system be renumbered using
> the mile marker system,
Actually, the feds beat you to it....
--
<<remove nospam for correct e-mail replies>>
John McLachlan
Draper Laboratory
Cambridge, MA 02139-3563
jmcla...@draper.com
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/johnmc
Brian Connors
You're forgetting that the Inner Belt was an integral part of the
highway design; the Big Dig is just an upgrade to a system that was not
too well thought out to begin with, and wound up horribly broken because
it could never be finished.
The Inner Belt's placement aside, the logic behind it was pretty
straightforward: the Central Artery was never designed for through
traffic. It has too many exits and would never have been built the way
it was if the master plan had been built with community input. The big
problem was that I-95, being essentially the Interstate replacement for
US-1, needed to get through somehow, so that if you were coming through
but not stopping in Boston it would have made much more sense to simply
avoid the Artery altogether.
The same problem applies coming off the Mass Pike Extension (which, in
its original incarnation, was supposed to end at the Inner Belt anyway
(in Cambridge, on the wrong side of the river)). Yes, you can go
straight through. But as someone who lives on the Cape and returns to
Boston sometimes twice a week, I can say that the southern loop of the
Belt would be a great thing to have. The 90/93 interchange is better now
than it was, but the fact remains that it would still be a lot better
simply to bypass the whole mess and get onto the Southeast Expressway at
Exit 18, which is where most of the mess winds up thinning out anyway.
Most of the time, anyway.
That said, the Belt was a bad idea for plenty of other reasons, and I
think MassHighway knew it at the time even though they went ahead with a
lot of the demolition. The South End bypass, for example; it doesn't fit
in anywhere in the original plans, but if you go to Southwest Corridor
park it ends at Dartmouth St. in the South End, not in Roxbury. The
simple existence of that stretch of road/parkland/whatever tells me that
the beltway plan wasn't all it was cracked up to be, and the Powers that
Were knew it. IMHO if everything hadn't come to a crashing halt in '74,
the SW Expressway would have been finished, but the Inner Belt would
never have seen the light of day.
Looking back, a smarter way to design all of that would have gone
something like this:
-Southwest Expressway along planned route. It should have been built
anyway, the plans had been modified extensively to make it less
offensive to the neighbors, and it would have wound up not being much
different aesthetically from what's there now. Though I understand the
abutters' skittishness -- this was two generations ago and a lot of them
were still licking their wounds from the fight over the Central Artery
and the Pike Extension not long before that.
-The Central Artery should have been built underground from the get-go.
They figured that much out halfway through the project when they decided
to build the South Station Tunnel.
-I-95 should have been built while Route 1 (i.e. US-1 in Saugus) was
simply a blight and not a historic white elephant. Failing that, either
I-93 and I-95 perhaps share ROW as far as Reading, or MA-128 becomes
I-95 as now and the Southwest Corridor becomes US-1 (which, honestly, it
probably would have eventually become anyway).
-The US-3 expressway may or may not have been necessary (existing US-3
is a pretty fast road once you get past Arlington Center, and it even
goes more-or-less-freeway for about a mile in Winchester and Woburn). I
hold no opinion on whether it would have been a good idea or not, but at
least as a 4-lane road the way it was designed it could be made
inoffensive (at least after piecing together the shattered wreckage of
Arlington Center around it). Better, perhaps, to turn Pleasant St. in
Arlington into a parkway, though that would trash Arlington's historical
district...
/Brian
Brian Colby
Sorry about that. (I'm sure James Taylor will I tried to get into the
Mass Pike site and it was down for some reason. I will go back to my
original message and make the necessary corrections.
Brian Colby
> I would suggest that the entire Turnpike system be renumbered using
> the mile marker system, i.e. Exit 1 in Stockbridge would be renumbered
> 2, and the end of the Pike in Boston would be 134. The very end of
> the turnpike at Logan Airport would be 137.
>
Here's how the exits would look like post renumbering, with additional
corrections from other posters regarding this thread:
> West Stockbridge/MA 41-102 old 1 new 2
> Lee/US 7-20 old 2 new 11
> Westfield/MA 10 old 3 new 40
> West Springfield/I-91 old 4 new 53
> Chicopee/MA 33 old 5 new 55
> Springfield/I-291 old 6 new 57
> Ludlow/MA 21 old 7 new 65
> Palmer/MA 32 old 8 new 74
> Sturbridge/I-84 old 9 new 78
> Auburn I-290/I-395/MA 12 old 10 new 90
> Worcester Airport/MA 146 old 10A new 96
> Millbury/MA 122 old 11 new 98
> Westboro/I-495 old 11A new 106
> Framingham/MA 9 old 12 new 114
> Natick/MA 30 old 13 new 120
> Weston/I-95 old 14/15 new 123A-B
> West Newton/MA 16 old 16 new 125
> Newton Corner old 17 new 128
> Brighton old 18/19/20 new 131A-B-C
> Mass Ave old 21 new 133A
> Prudential Ctr old 22 new 133B
> Arlington St old 23 new 133C
> I-93 old 24 new 134
> Haul Road new 135
> Airport new 137
If there is anything else I've missed, let me know.
Pete from Boston
> Signals showing simultaneous red and yellow can be found in the center
> of Dedham and near Inman Square close to the Cambridge/Somerville line.
That's it -- the one I've seen is the one near Inman, on
Beacon/Hampshire, I believe. Thank you.
SPUI
> danielk...@my-deja.com (Daniel Salomon) wrote in message
news:<2261f53b.02053...@posting.google.com>...
> > The same map has a box describing the "Mayor's Pedestrian Lifesaving
> > Campaign". In an outdated font it gives safety tips, including "Cross
> > only when the signal is red-yellow, when it says walk or with the
> > green light." This red-yellow reference indicates that this map is
> > not devoid of vestiges. The map also shows the old elevated City
> > Square ramps to the Tobin Bridge.
A 1999 or 2000 AAA map still shows those ramps :)
>
> I've seen this red-yellow combination someplace, but I can't remember
> where. What does it mean, and at what point in the cycle does it
> occur? I always assumed it was a local peculiarity, like flashing
> green, or that the light was malfunctioning.
>
This phase means that no cars can enter the intersection from any approach,
and pedestrians can cross in any direction. It was implemented before
WALK/DONT WALK signals came about. Normally pedestrians could cross at the
green, but some traffic lights included all-ped phases, signalled by the
red/yellow.
Dedham Center (Washington St and old 135) has a 4-way traffic light in the
middle of the intersection. There are three phases - green for old 135,
green for Washington St, and red/yellow. The red/yellow phase always
happens; there are no push-buttons for pedestrians.
Charles St has several intersections north of Becon St with the red/yellow
phase. The red/yellow phase only comes in if the button is pressed to cross.
I think the red/yellow changes to yellow only before going to the next
phase.
Brian Connors
"SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote:
There's an old traffic signal in Belmont on Concord Ave that still uses
this too. It was there the entire twenty years I lived in Belmont and as
far as I know it has yet to be torn down.
/Brian
Brian Connors
<maggard+nntp-71DA...@brnws01-qfe1.ne.ipsvc.net>,
"Michael F. Maggard" <maggar...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <connorbd-B0C714...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
> Brian Connors <conn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The South End bypass, for example; it doesn't fit
> > in anywhere in the original plans, but if you go to Southwest Corridor
> > park it ends at Dartmouth St. in the South End, not in Roxbury
>
> I'm not sure what you're talking about. The corridor cleared for the SW
> corridor runs from Dartmouth out through to Roxbury. The park only
> covers a portion of route due to cost and decreasing community influence
> the further from downtown. However the land cleared and the resultant
> scar in the local landscape remains clearly visible.
Er... yes. That was going to be the South End Bypass... You mean the
park doesn't cover the whole route? That's entirely possible, but it
doesn't really have much to do with my point, and it's just an
interesting bit of information really...
Last time I was by there it was rather weird, actually -- behind the
buildings there are road stubs that loop together in
not-entirely-compatible directions, which then abut directly onto the
parkland. What would have been a highway is sort of the "creamy center"
of the South End now, or at least should be...
> Indeed I was told long ago (when I was working in the then brand new NU
> Snelling Library which required extensive soundproofing on it's train
> side) that NU had *declined* support for decking over the portion
> adjacent to it's campus preferring to keep the barrier. As at the time
> NU viewed the areas to it's south and southwest with great trepidation
> (and not without cause) this isn't unlikely. Indeed even today the
> corridor park is a notorious mugging and theft escape route.
I suppose that's to be expected -- anything to do with why Boston built
the new Police headquarters right in the middle of it?
/Brian
Brian Connors
Brian Connors <conn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <maggard+nntp-71DA...@brnws01-qfe1.ne.ipsvc.net>,
> "Michael F. Maggard" <maggar...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <connorbd-B0C714...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
> > Brian Connors <conn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The South End bypass, for example; it doesn't fit
> > > in anywhere in the original plans, but if you go to Southwest Corridor
> > > park it ends at Dartmouth St. in the South End, not in Roxbury
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're talking about. The corridor cleared for the SW
> > corridor runs from Dartmouth out through to Roxbury. The park only
> > covers a portion of route due to cost and decreasing community influence
> > the further from downtown. However the land cleared and the resultant
> > scar in the local landscape remains clearly visible.
>
> Er... yes. That was going to be the South End Bypass... You mean the
> park doesn't cover the whole route? That's entirely possible, but it
> doesn't really have much to do with my point, and it's just an
> interesting bit of information really...
Oh, wait. Now I see the problem. I'm thinking of the corridor starting
in Canton and ending in the South End, not the other way around... my
original point being that they built the Turnpike Extension as a through
road to South Bay instead of the original route that ended at the Belt
in Cambridge, and were essentially doing the same thing with I-95. I
don't think any part of the Belt other than what is now Melnea Cass Blvd
was ever going to get built.
Though if you ask me that would have only made the Big Dig inevitable
even with the Inner Belt... imagine all that traffic dumping from *US-1
(or whatever it would have wound up being) directly onto the Pike...
/Brian
SPUI
"Michael F. Maggard" <maggar...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:maggard+nntp-71DA...@brnws01-qfe1.ne.ipsvc.net...
> > in anywhere in the original plans, but if you go to Southwest Corridor
>
> I'm not sure what you're talking about. The corridor cleared for the SW
> corridor runs from Dartmouth out through to Roxbury. The park only
> covers a portion of route due to cost and decreasing community influence
> the further from downtown. However the land cleared and the resultant
> scar in the local landscape remains clearly visible.
The Southwest Expwy would have gone from 128 north to the Inner Belt (Melnea
Cass). North of Melnea Cass, the southwest corridor was to be used for the
South End Bypass, a connection to the Pike (possibly not a freeway). I don't
know if anything was cleared for that or if all the land had tracks.
Michael J. Saletnik
> lights. Supposedly during the yellow+red phase right turns on red are
> prohibited. See the ne.transportation Google Groups archives for more
Intesting - I thought the *only* way to prohibit right turns on red
was a "NO TURN ON RED" sign (a real one, not the "no turn on red when
flashing" cruft in Newton at 16 and Comm Ave) ?
--
{michael}
Michael J. Saletnik
> follow national standards. Since then red+yellow means "this signal
> is malfunctioning". I stop or go based on my judgement, considering
> traffic conditions.
Have you ever been pulled over for it and had to prove your point
(since although people have said repeatedly it's not a binding
document, the drivers license manual does document yellow+red)
Followup to my own post: the manual also does *not* state that right
on red is prohibited during the red+yellow phase. Just that vehicles
must yield to pedestrians (which is technically always true for
right-on-red).
And as long as we're on the subject, is there a legal difference
between a "turn only on green arrow" in the absence of *any* red
vs. the use of a red arrow?
The intersection of 16 east (Mt Auburn) and Aberdeen is one of
these. Usually I turn left whenever I please, since I have no red
indications anywhere, ignoring the sign as irrelevant in the absence
of any red. Am I right? (nb: I drive this around midnight so
pedestrian and traffic concerns are nil, as well as my desire to wait
for said for green arrow)
--
{michael}
John F. Carr
Michael J. Saletnik <mic...@ties.org> wrote:
>j...@mit.edu (John F. Carr) writes:
>> follow national standards. Since then red+yellow means "this signal
>> is malfunctioning". I stop or go based on my judgement, considering
>> traffic conditions.
>
>Have you ever been pulled over for it and had to prove your point
No.
>Followup to my own post: the manual also does *not* state that right
>on red is prohibited during the red+yellow phase.
Right on red was the exception, not the rule, when red+yellow was
introduced. I think the legal abolition of red+yellow precedes
the federal mandate to allow right on red.
>Just that vehicles must yield to pedestrians (which is technically
>always true for right-on-red).
Only if the pedestrian is crossing legally. Otherwise he has no
more rights than a car running a red light. With typical phasing,
this means right on red must yield during the exclusive pedestrian
phase but not when the cross street has a green light.
The new MUTCD adds an option to prohibit turns on red "WHEN
PEDESTRIANS ARE PRESENT".
MUTCD meaning. Massachusetts state law says signals have the meaning
given by the MUTCD. Proposed MUTCD revision 2 will prohibit states
from assigning different meanings to signals. Three significant
requirements imposed by this change are (1) right on red arrow is
prohibited except as signed, (2) yellow means "red is coming", not
"stop", (3) red means "do not enter", not "you must have already
exited the intersection".
>And as long as we're on the subject, is there a legal difference
>between a "turn only on green arrow" in the absence of *any* red
>vs. the use of a red arrow?
If a turn is prohibited during only part of the cycle a red signal
must be displayed. MUTCD 4D.06.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
cloud8
bedfellow.mit.edu:
>
> It [flashing green] used to indicate an exclusive pedestrian
> meaning was unique to Massachusetts, and possibly to eastern
> Massachusetts.
Certainly unique to Massachusetts. The only other place I ever
saw the flashing green was on U.S. 7 on the south side of Pittsfield.
--Bill
Arlington, Mass.
John F. Carr
John F. Carr <j...@mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <83u1ojnq...@Milo.michael.ties.org>,
>
>>Just that vehicles must yield to pedestrians (which is technically
>>always true for right-on-red).
>
>Only if the pedestrian is crossing legally. Otherwise he has no
>more rights than a car running a red light. With typical phasing,
>this means right on red must yield during the exclusive pedestrian
>phase but not when the cross street has a green light.
I must correct myself -- I was thinking only of turning conflicts
and missed the obvious case of a pedestrian walking directly in
front of your stopped car when non-exclusive walk is used. You
aren't supposed to run over pedestrians directly in front of you
in this situation.
(In practice, this isn't a problem except when (1) people neglect
the "stop first" rule when making right on red, or (2) the approach
has two or more lanes and a tall vehicle is in the left lane.)
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Michael J. Saletnik
> Only if the pedestrian is crossing legally. Otherwise he has no
> more rights than a car running a red light.
I wish more pedestrians knew that...
:-)
> from assigning different meanings to signals. Three significant
> requirements imposed by this change are (1) right on red arrow is
> prohibited except as signed, (2) yellow means "red is coming", not
> "stop", (3) red means "do not enter", not "you must have already
> exited the intersection".
Sorry for the long quote, but of these which are the current MA
meanings, and which are the current MUTCD meanings?
> If a turn is prohibited during only part of the cycle a red signal
> must be displayed. MUTCD 4D.06.
Woo-hoo! Gonna keep that noted in the car.
--
{michael}
Michael Moroney
>Here's how the exits would look like post renumbering, with additional
>corrections from other posters regarding this thread:
>> Haul Road new 135
Since Haul Road is commercial vehicles only, and I hope this exit would be
open to all, I hope it is signed as South Boston or Summer St. or something.
Of course that depends on what they wind up doing with Haul Road once the
whole Big Dig is done. (giant on ramp from I-93N to I-90 E?)
-Mike
XMetroMan
I remember seeing one in Taunton on Rte. 138. Norton may have had one
on Rte. 123 right in front of Wheaton College -- I think it blinks
yellow now.
In Ontario, flashing green means an advanced left turn (opposing side
has red light).
Matt Dixon
There are a number of lights like this on 114 in Peabody & Salem
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Ulimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Brian Connors
"Michael F. Maggard" <maggar...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <connorbd-572439...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
> Brian Connors <conn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <maggard+nntp-71DA...@brnws01-qfe1.ne.ipsvc.net>,
> > "Michael F. Maggard" <maggar...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <connorbd-B0C714...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
> > > Brian Connors <conn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The South End bypass, for example; it doesn't fit
> > > > in anywhere in the original plans, but if you go to Southwest Corridor
> > > > park it ends at Dartmouth St. in the South End, not in Roxbury
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you're talking about. The corridor cleared for the SW
> > > corridor runs from Dartmouth out through to Roxbury. The park only
> > > covers a portion of route due to cost and decreasing community influence
> > > the further from downtown. However the land cleared and the resultant
> > > scar in the local landscape remains clearly visible.
> >
> > Er... yes. That was going to be the South End Bypass... You mean the
> > park doesn't cover the whole route? That's entirely possible, but it
> > doesn't really have much to do with my point, and it's just an
> > interesting bit of information really...
>
> I didn't represent the posting as more then what it was.
I think there was just a discontinuity of information between someone
who's familiar with the area (you) and someone who's only driven through
(me). If so, my bad.
> No, the park doesn't go further then Mass. Ave. From there outward it
> occupies a large depressed cut with the occasionial road bridge crossing
> it. Where not hemmed in by buildings it lies within a linear park.
> If you'd ever taken the Orange Line outbound past Mass Ave, or commuter
> rail to Needham, or Amtrak to Rt. 128 station then you'd have passed
> down this.
>
> > Last time I was by there it was rather weird, actually -- behind the
> > buildings there are road stubs that loop together in
> > not-entirely-compatible directions, which then abut directly onto the
> > parkland. What would have been a highway is sort of the "creamy center"
> > of the South End now, or at least should be...
>
> Well, that "last time" would have been any time since the park deck was
> built and far into the foreseeable future. Yes most of the roads do not
About a month ago, maybe...
> cross the corridor but instead knit to the next one over. Indeed only
> one street crosses the park. By the way they are all entirely
> residential streets with the only exception a single business &
> religious facility across from the Copley Place behemoth. That these
> streets join awkwardly isn't seen as a problem locally as none are
> through or even leading-to streets.
The main problem with it is that it's a pain to turn around back there.
> However the SW Corridor is not "the 'creamy center' of the South End" -
> that is Tremont St. several blocks away. Indeed there's been an ongoing
> tension amongst those cut off from the rest of the South End by the park
> (essentially those along and off of St. Botolph St.) as to their
> identity as South End or possibly Back Bay or just plain adrift.
Okay. I can see that. I admit to being far less familiar with the South
End than I'd like.
> <snipped>
> > > Indeed even today the
> > > corridor park is a notorious mugging and theft escape route.
> >
> > I suppose that's to be expected -- anything to do with why Boston built
> > the new Police headquarters right in the middle of it?
>
> No, the BPD HQ is built where it is to move it out of the ancient and
> outdated downtown facility (I worked there briefly - completely
> unsitable as a office building much less a critical-services one like
> Police.) The land was free, the community amenable, good politics, good
> access, high visibility, etc. The SW Corridor park alongside the BPD is
> very unlike that in the South End and relatively unused at night; a
> lousy escape route bordered by Columbus Ave. and "the moat" of the SW
> Corridor cut.
Ah, okay.
It's a nice building. Does a lot for the area, even if it looks
hilariously retro-80s.
> The SW Corridor park falters between Mass Ave & Ruggles with a
> ballfield, parking structures, an office/hotel complex named something
> like "Gateway Center", and only then the BPD HQ on the far side of
> Ruggles. The empty lots remaining in the area are planned to be someday
> filled in (either as the area improves economically or if "linkage" ever
I wasn't aware anyone but Southie got in on the "linkage" racket; the
way it was done, it seemed like a blatant attempt to buy off certain
powerful city councillors from the area...
> happens again) and the area become a pocket of high-density office and
> residential facilities. In the meantime it is essentially a
> discontinuity.
Which is quite unfortunate.
/Brian
John F. Carr
>
>> from assigning different meanings to signals. Three significant
>> requirements imposed by this change are (1) right on red arrow is
>> prohibited except as signed, (2) yellow means "red is coming", not
>> "stop", (3) red means "do not enter", not "you must have already
>> exited the intersection".
>
>Sorry for the long quote, but of these which are the current MA
>meanings, and which are the current MUTCD meanings?
(1) Massachusetts law permits a right turn on a "steady red signal
indication". G.L. c. 89 § 8. This is the same as the old MUTCD,
but is incompatible with the new MUTCD's prohibition of right turns
on red arrows.
(2) Massachusetts law says signal meanings are defined by the MUTCD.
Massachusetts ordinances and regulations say "stop on yellow". The
federal MUTCD says yellow is only a warning. I don't know what the
state MUTCD supplement says.
(3) Massachusetts has not attempted to overrule the meaning of red.
Here as in most places it means "do not enter".
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
jes...@hexdump.org
: Signals showing simultaneous red and yellow can be found in the center
: of Dedham and near Inman Square close to the Cambridge/Somerville line.
IIRC Walpole uses this in some spots (or did, 10 years ago)y
--
Jeff Gentry jes...@hexdump.org gen...@hexdump.org
SEX DRUGS UNIX
Michael J. Saletnik
> (1) Massachusetts law permits a right turn on a "steady red signal
> indication". G.L. c. 89 § 8. This is the same as the old MUTCD,
> but is incompatible with the new MUTCD's prohibition of right turns
> on red arrows.
Interesting. This is a bad idea, because not only is something we've
all been doing suddenly wrong (even worse, wrong depending on what
state you're in, since MA law will still allow it explicitly), but in
addition there is no real alternative way to get current behavior.
In other words, if a right turn on red becomes prohibited by a red
arrow, there is no signal or signage possible to allow an intersection
to still have the current behavior.
This will be especially bad at intersections where right arrows are
used gratuitiously, and by that I mean intersections where there's a
right arrow but not a right-turn-only phase. There are a lot of these,
for example all along Rte 16 between 60 and 99, and they came up in
discussion a few months ago about their use by the new intersections
along Mem Drive to indicate direction of travel.
--
{michael}
Michael Moroney
exit numbers on all interstates. First, is that true? If so, have any
of the states that currently have sequentially-numbered exits (NY, MA
etc.) that haven't already announced conversions announced plans or
schedules to convert?
-Mike
Presnwap
left that are sequential?
"Matt Dixon" <mcdi...@NOyahoo.SPAM> wrote in message
news:3cfd6ee9$1...@news.newsgroups.com...
Matt Dixon
All the New England states are sequential, though Maine will soon go to milepost.
New York is sequential as well. That's all I can think of.
Matt Dixon
As far as I know, MA has no plans to convert. The current reconstruction
of US3 from 128 to NH won't even involve getting rid of the strange exit
numbering system that begins with 25.
steve the magnificent and poisonous
> mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> >A post in ne.transportation says that the Feds have mandated mileage-based
> >exit numbers on all interstates. First, is that true? If so, have any
> >of the states that currently have sequentially-numbered exits (NY, MA
> >etc.) that haven't already announced conversions announced plans or
> >schedules to convert?
> >
> >-Mike
>
> As far as I know, MA has no plans to convert. The current reconstruction
> of US3 from 128 to NH won't even involve getting rid of the strange exit
> numbering system that begins with 25.
>
with Mile 25 on US 3, or does it correspond with the once-proposed US
3 freeway running south of there?
SPUI
"steve the magnificent and poisonous" <zoning...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:919cc57.02060...@posting.google.com...
reconstruction
> > of US3 from 128 to NH won't even involve getting rid of the strange exit
> > numbering system that begins with 25.
> >
> Question (SPUI probably has the answer) - does the Exit 25 correspond
> with Mile 25 on US 3, or does it correspond with the once-proposed US
> 3 freeway running south of there?
Neither; the old numbering system always assigned exit 25 to 128.
Alan Hamilton
<mic...@ties.org> wrote:
>In other words, if a right turn on red becomes prohibited by a red
>arrow, there is no signal or signage possible to allow an intersection
>to still have the current behavior.
Right turn signals in Arizona usually have a green and yellow arrow,
but a red ball. This allows right-on-red.
--
/
/ * / Alan Hamilton
* * al...@arizonaroads.com
Arizona Roads -- http://www.arizonaroads.com
David Chesler
recently in Mass AFAIK) consisting of a very tall (maybe 70') dark
pole with about 8 large, downward-pointing lights at the top.
I think the ring of lights can be lowered for maintenance.
I especially see these lights near interchanges -- I guess they
illuminate, or at least don't annoy drivers on, both roadways.
(For that matter, what's the name of the more usual kind, a 20'
mast with one or two arms each supporting an electric eye and
a flattened bulb of various (eg sodium) colors? )
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
http://www.geocities.com/chesler.geo/
Michael J. Saletnik
> Right turn signals in Arizona usually have a green and yellow arrow,
> but a red ball. This allows right-on-red.
Interesting. So the red ball is displayed along with other red balls
and the green arrow during the protected right turn, then just a red
ball alone during the stop / right-on-red phase?
I hadn't thought of this scenario since I wasn't sure if it was
allowed to do this in situations where the right turn signals have
their own stanchion or heads, labelled.
--
{michael}
Michael J. Saletnik
> What's the name of the kind of streetlight used (only relatively
> recently in Mass AFAIK) consisting of a very tall (maybe 70') dark
> pole with about 8 large, downward-pointing lights at the top.
I remember seeing these in Western Mass, which means prior to 1987. In
fact, I think I remember when they first installed them, because they
were really, really bright, and not too long afterward they seemed to
have every other bulb removed, and were much more reasonable.
--
{michael}
John F. Carr
>> (1) Massachusetts law permits a right turn on a "steady red signal
>> indication". G.L. c. 89 § 8. This is the same as the old MUTCD,
>> but is incompatible with the new MUTCD's prohibition of right turns
>> on red arrows.
>
>Interesting. This is a bad idea, because not only is something we've
>all been doing suddenly wrong (even worse, wrong depending on what
>state you're in, since MA law will still allow it explicitly), but in
>addition there is no real alternative way to get current behavior.
>
>In other words, if a right turn on red becomes prohibited by a red
>arrow, there is no signal or signage possible to allow an intersection
>to still have the current behavior.
A "RIGHT TURN ON RED ARROW PERMITTED AFTER STOP" sign may be
posted to allow a right turn on a red arrow. It's not a pretty
sign:
+----------+
|RIGHT TURN|
| ON |
|RED ARROW|
| PERMITTED|
|AFTER STOP|
+----------+
30 inches wide and 36 inches high.
(All this assumes that the new MUTCD revision is adopted as
proposed.)
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Access Systems
> What's the name of the kind of streetlight used (only relatively
> (For that matter, what's the name of the more usual kind, a 20'
> mast with one or two arms each supporting an electric eye and
> a flattened bulb of various (eg sodium) colors? )
these are called "Cobra" lights
Bob
--
ASCII Ribbon Campaign accessBob
NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail acce...@smartnospam.net
NO MSWord docs in e-mail Access Systems, engineers
NO attachments in e-mail, *LINUX powered* access is a civil right
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged. They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, Please notify the sender as
soon as possible. Please DO NOT READ, COPY, USE, or DISCLOSE this
communication to others and DELETE it from your computer systems. Thanks
Alexander R Svirsky
: What's the name of the kind of streetlight used (only relatively
: recently in Mass AFAIK) consisting of a very tall (maybe 70') dark
: pole with about 8 large, downward-pointing lights at the top.
I think it's called simply "high-mast" lighting. IIRC, most of it in the
Boston area in and around 128 was installed in the late 1960s or the
1970s. The _real_ story here is that the high-mast lights could not be
turned on for years after they were installed. There was some major
controversy involving the birds or the trees or something. The high-mast
lighting was finally lit up by the end of the 1970s though. Also, IIRC,
it was installed at the Route 3/495 interchange in 1989 or so. The mast
height is actually quite tall, 100-120'.
: (For that matter, what's the name of the more usual kind, a 20'
: mast with one or two arms each supporting an electric eye and
: a flattened bulb of various (eg sodium) colors? )
Mast-arm, maybe?
I'm pretty sure that around Boston's suburbs these mast-arm lights in the
expressway medians are not any older, or are perhaps newer, than the
high-mast fixtures. 128 was a dark road before the 1970s. Even now, most
expressways outside of 128, except at major interchanges, are unlit.
--
Alexander_R_Svirsky_______...@world.std.com
Brian Purcell
> What's the name of the kind of streetlight used (only relatively
> recently in Mass AFAIK) consisting of a very tall (maybe 70') dark
> pole with about 8 large, downward-pointing lights at the top.
> I think the ring of lights can be lowered for maintenance.
> I especially see these lights near interchanges -- I guess they
> illuminate, or at least don't annoy drivers on, both roadways.
High-mast lighting. Used quite freqently in Texas.
> (For that matter, what's the name of the more usual kind, a 20'
> mast with one or two arms each supporting an electric eye and
> a flattened bulb of various (eg sodium) colors? )
Mast-arm lighting (also known as "goose-neck" lights.)
--Brian Purcell
San Antonio, Texas, USA
mailto:br...@texhwyman.com
http://www.texhwyman.com
Exile on Market Street
"Michael F. Maggard" <maggar...@mac.com> wrote:
[about "cobra head" lamps, the most common high-pressure lamp design found
today, designed by Norman Bel Geddes]
> The lamps were originally his but were quickly reproduced around the
> world where they and their knock-offs, paired with their gooseneck
> brackets, soon became the standard in the post WWII suburbs of the US,
> Europe, and Australia.
Minor point: Gooseneck arms, if I'm not mistaken, are curved.
Gooseneck arms are common enough in the United States, especially in the
upper Midwest, but most states use angled mast arms rather than goosenecks.
--
Sandy Smith, Univ of Pennsylvania / 215.898.1423 / smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
Managing Editor, _Pennsylvania Current_ cur...@pobox.upenn.edu
Penn Web Team -- Web Editor webm...@isc.upenn.edu
I speak for myself here, not Penn http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/
"You keep usin' them big-ass Harvard words, your ghetto pass is going to
be revoked."
-----------------------------------------------Method Man, in "How High"--
Alan Hamilton
<mic...@ties.org> wrote:
>Alan Hamilton <al...@arizonaroads.com> writes:
>> Right turn signals in Arizona usually have a green and yellow arrow,
>> but a red ball. This allows right-on-red.
>
>Interesting. So the red ball is displayed along with other red balls
>and the green arrow during the protected right turn, then just a red
>ball alone during the stop / right-on-red phase?
Right, unless the signal is only visible from the right turn lane. In
that case (such as the right-turning branch of a SPUI) it shows just a
green right arrow, rather than red ball/green arrow..
>I hadn't thought of this scenario since I wasn't sure if it was
>allowed to do this in situations where the right turn signals have
>their own stanchion or heads, labelled.
It's fine. Typically, you wouldn't want "right on red" for the right
turn lane while thru traffic has a green ball. I can't even think of
how that would work. So you won't have conflicting green and red
balls. A rare but possible situation is forbidding right turns while
thru traffic has a green ball. This would be covered by a red arrow.
I can think of one setup like this where a road parallels a rail line.
When there's a train blocking the cross street, there's a red arrow
while thru traffic has a green ball.
David Chesler
reasons I'm in the same web ring with someone with a streetlights
site, so I promised I could get an answer and didn't.
Alexander R Svirsky wrote:
> IIRC, most of it in the
> Boston area in and around 128 was installed in the late 1960s or the
> 1970s. The _real_ story here is that the high-mast lights could not be
> turned on for years after they were installed. There was some major
> controversy involving the birds or the trees or something. The high-mast
> lighting was finally lit up by the end of the 1970s though. Also, IIRC,
> it was installed at the Route 3/495 interchange in 1989 or so. The mast
> height is actually quite tall, 100-120'.
3/495 is certainly a place I pass by a lot, and did prior to 1989,
which is probably why I think these are "new". And maybe when I
see them unlighted (I think there are some along 128, maybe in
the 38 rotary) I might be assuming they're new.
Why are they dark-colored, instead of aluminum paint?
> I'm pretty sure that around Boston's suburbs these mast-arm lights in the
> expressway medians are not any older, or are perhaps newer, than the
> high-mast fixtures. 128 was a dark road before the 1970s. Even now, most
> expressways outside of 128, except at major interchanges, are unlit.
Of course I judge everything by a standard which is 190 miles outside
of 128, as of 30 years ago. Almost all NYC expressways are and were
illuminated, mostly with various mast-arm types.
And Brian Purcell <br...@texhwyman.com> wrote:
} High-mast lighting. Used quite freqently in Texas.
I guess it's true then what they say about Texas.
David Chesler
> Right turn signals in Arizona usually have a green and yellow arrow,
> but a red ball. This allows right-on-red.
In that context does the arrowness of the green and yellow
indicators indicate right-of-way, or that that is the only
direction permitted to traffic in the lane controlled by
that signal if it is the only signal over the lane.
Are we looking for an indicator that says "You may make a
right turn, but look out because there may be straight-going
traffic coming from your left to your right, and also, unlike
other times, stop long enough that you can see any crossing
pedestrians"?
Alan Hamilton
<che...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Alan Hamilton wrote:
>> Right turn signals in Arizona usually have a green and yellow arrow,
>> but a red ball. This allows right-on-red.
>
> In that context does the arrowness of the green and yellow
>indicators indicate right-of-way, or that that is the only
>direction permitted to traffic in the lane controlled by
>that signal if it is the only signal over the lane.
The arrow always indicates right of way -- it means there will be no
conflicting traffic or pedestrian movements.
> Are we looking for an indicator that says "You may make a
>right turn, but look out because there may be straight-going
>traffic coming from your left to your right, and also, unlike
>other times, stop long enough that you can see any crossing
>pedestrians"?
Seems like a yield sign or a red ball would suffice.
Michael J. Saletnik
> Why are they dark-colored, instead of aluminum paint?
A lot of them are "weathering steel" - a type of steel that oxidizes a
hard "crust" on its surface. So it looks like it's rusted, and often
stains the base that it stands on, but in reality it has formed a
resilient barrier to corrosion that requires no maintenance.
--
{michael}
Ron Newman
<al...@arizonaroads.com> wrote:
> A rare but possible situation is forbidding right turns while
> thru traffic has a green ball. This would be covered by a red arrow.
The central intersection in Arlington, MA has this setup. It was considered
the best way to protect pedestrians without giving them an exclusive
WALK phase of their own. The signal has 4 phases:
straight on Mass. Ave. (with concurrent WALK)
left from Mass Ave / right from Route 60 (no WALKs)
straight on Route 60 (with concurrent WALK)
left from Route 60 / right from Mass. Ave. (no WALKs)
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Tony Matt
Ron Newman <rne...@thecia.net> wrote:
>In article <adp1ga$14bpv$1...@ID-131683.news.dfncis.de>, Alan Hamilton
><al...@arizonaroads.com> wrote:
>
>> A rare but possible situation is forbidding right turns while
>> thru traffic has a green ball. This would be covered by a red arrow.
>
>The central intersection in Arlington, MA has this setup.
Doesn't this signal use thru arrows, rather than a green ball?
TM
> It was considered
>the best way to protect pedestrians without giving them an exclusive
>WALK phase of their own. The signal has 4 phases:
> straight on Mass. Ave. (with concurrent WALK)
> left from Mass Ave / right from Route 60 (no WALKs)
> straight on Route 60 (with concurrent WALK)
> left from Route 60 / right from Mass. Ave. (no WALKs)
>
>--
>Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
>http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
--
Anti-spam sig:
tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
ab...@msn.com ab...@sprintmail.com ab...@earthlink.net u...@ftc.gov
Access Systems
it is called "Corten" steel the coating is actually a form of rust
Paul Schlichtman
http://www.schlichtman.org/signal/
On 6/7/02 11:40 AM, in article
rnewman-0706...@dialup-216-41-39-62.thecia.net, "Ron Newman"
Ron Newman
> >> A rare but possible situation is forbidding right turns while
> >> thru traffic has a green ball. This would be covered by a red arrow.
> >
> >The central intersection in Arlington, MA has this setup.
>
> Doesn't this signal use thru arrows, rather than a green ball?
You're right -- I rode by there again yesterday and verified this.
ke...@nospace.com
to think of the graft and corruption over the new signage. Nothing seems
to be done in the state withoput someones hand out.
The system looks GREAT, wonder about the costs in such a corrupt
contractor state.
Brian Colby wrote:
>
> I would suggest that the entire Turnpike system be renumbered using
> the mile marker system, i.e. Exit 1 in Stockbridge would be renumbered
> 2, and the end of the Pike in Boston would be 134. The very end of
> the turnpike at Logan Airport would be 137.
>
> Here's how the exits would look like post renumbering:
>
> Stockbridge old 1 new 2
> Lee old 2 new 10
> Westfield old 3 new 40
> West Springfield old 4 new 53
> Chicopee old 5 new 55
> Springfield old 6 new 57
> Ludlow old 7 new 65
> Palmer old 8 new 74
> Sturbridge old 9 new 85
> Auburn I-290/I-395/MA 12 old 10 new 94
> Worcester Airport/MA 146 old 10A new 96
> Millbury/MA 122 old 11 new 98
> Westboro/I-495 old 11A new 106
> Framingham/MA 9 old 12 new 114
> Natick/MA 30 old 13 new 120
> Weston/I-95 old 14/15 new 123A-B
> West Newton/MA 16 old 16 new 125
> Newton Corner old 17 new 128
> Brighton old 18/19/20 new 131A-B-C
> Mass Ave old 21 new 132
> Prudential Ctr old 22 new 133A-B
> Arlington St old 23 new 133C
> I-93 old 24 new 134
> Haul Road new 135
> Airport new 137
Pete from Boston
I agree, looks great. Except there's no exit in Brighton.
Ed Foster
Boston <mass...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Isn't that the Brighton (Alston)/Cambrige exit?
J Mello
The interchange is in Allston.
JMello
J Mello
That's ridiculous. I know many less dense and underdeveloped states
use this method for numbering, but most in New England and the
Northeast find it confusing. We are used to sequencial numbers and, I
suspect, most would not approve of this mileage-based system.
JMello
Pete from Boston
Yeah, to some degree. I'm admittedly being a stickler -- the
interchange itself is in Allston, not Brighton, that's all. FWIW,
technically it's called the "Beacon Park" interchange anyway.
Paul Anderson
<jo...@allston.org> wrote:
> That's ridiculous. I know many less dense and underdeveloped states
> use this method for numbering, but most in New England and the
> Northeast find it confusing. We are used to sequencial numbers and, I
> suspect, most would not approve of this mileage-based system.
So we should never improve anything because we are used to the old way?
On the Mass Pike, I think it's confusing having Exit 10 different than
10A, and 11 different than 11A.
People will whine about renumbering for a while and then get used to
it. There average person is probably not aware of the benefits of
mileage-based numbering.
Paul
--
Paul Anderson
OpenVMS Engineering
Hewlett-Packard Company
Daniel Davis
> use this method for numbering, but most in New England and the
> Northeast find it confusing. We are used to sequencial numbers and, I
> suspect, most would not approve of this mileage-based system.
As most around know, Florida is currently in the middle of this change. I'm
actually indifferent but I do like one aspect of mile marker based exits
(having driven throughout the southeast).. It's easier to judge distances.
i.e. how far is it from exit X to exit Y?
And as far as being used to it goes, so were we.. These questions keep
getting asked of the local (Orlando Sentinel) traffic columnists in the
paper and they always get the same answers.
Daniel
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Ulimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Adam Kippes
> So we should never improve anything because we are used to the old way?
That is a classic example of a loaded, dishonest question. Are you by
any chance a pollster? Of course we should change but only if the change
constitutes a real improvement.
> On the Mass Pike, I think it's confusing having Exit 10 different than
> 10A, and 11 different than 11A.
Are you stupid? Why would anyone - not stupid - expect 10 and 10A to
denote the same thing? Ditto 11 and 11A.
> People will whine about renumbering for a while and then get used to
> it.
Good advice. So stop whining and get used to what exists. You can start
by trying to figure out why 10 and 10A are not the same thing.
> There average person is probably not aware of the benefits of
> mileage-based numbering.
By "average" I assume you mean people other than your exalted self.
Anyway, what are the benefits that would make this ultimately
worthwhile, never mind of any real importance?
-- AK
--
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
Chip Olson
<adam....@pobox.com> wrote:
> Are you stupid? Why would anyone - not stupid - expect 10 and 10A to
> denote the same thing? Ditto 11 and 11A.
Because every other interstate highway in the state uses A/B designations
to distinguish different exit ramps in the same interchange. Next
question.
This also brings up the other advantage of mileage-based exit numbering:
You can insert new exits without having to either number them things like
11A (or 37C, as on the I-93 exit to Anderson RTC) or renumber the entire
highway.
--
-Chip Olson. | ceo at thsi dot org
This article is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and
grammar enhance its natural character and beauty and in no way are to be
considered flaws or defects.
Paul Anderson
> In <190620021137126473%paul.a...@hp.com>, Paul Anderson wrote:
>
> > So we should never improve anything because we are used to the old way?
>
> That is a classic example of a loaded, dishonest question. Are you by
> any chance a pollster? Of course we should change but only if the change
> constitutes a real improvement.
I did not intend my question to be loaded or dishonest, and I am
certainly not a pollster. I was just pointing out that being
comfortable with the "old way" of doing things is not a reason to keep
doing so if there are good reasons for changing.
> > On the Mass Pike, I think it's confusing having Exit 10 different than
> > 10A, and 11 different than 11A.
>
> Are you stupid? Why would anyone - not stupid - expect 10 and 10A to
> denote the same thing? Ditto 11 and 11A.
In most other places, exits with letter suffixes denote two parts of
the same exit; for example, one exit connecting to a road going east
and the other west.
> > People will whine about renumbering for a while and then get used to
> > it.
>
> Good advice. So stop whining and get used to what exists. You can start
> by trying to figure out why 10 and 10A are not the same thing.
I wasn't whining. I'm already used to the existing exit numbers and my
life will not substantially change whether they stay that way or not.
And of course I know why they're numbered that way.
> > There average person is probably not aware of the benefits of
> > mileage-based numbering.
>
> By "average" I assume you mean people other than your exalted self.
No. By "average" I mean the average non-road geek or average person
who does not participate in this newsgroup or average person who
doesn't know that odd-numbered Interstate highways go north-south. I
was neither exalting myself nor insulting others.
> Anyway, what are the benefits that would make this ultimately
> worthwhile, never mind of any real importance?
I'm almost certain you are familiar with the benefits of mileage-based
exit numbering. But two I can think of are:
- Mileage to a particular exit from your current location is easy
to calculate.
- Exits numbers don't have to be re-used with suffixes attached
when new exits are inserted into an existing highway.
Dan Peltier
Isn't Allston itself technically a part of Brighton?
Just as Brighton is now technically a part of Boston?
To say that the exit is in Allston does not necessarily mean that the
exit is not in Brighton... The exit is in Boston, too, plus Massachusetts,
the USA, Earth, etc.
Dan
ke...@nospace.com
Kevin
Adam
> In <190620021137126473%paul.a...@hp.com>, Paul Anderson wrote:
>
> > So we should never improve anything because we are used to the old way?
> That is a classic example of a loaded, dishonest question: "Are you by
> any chance a pollster?"
That is a classic example of a loaded, dishonest question: "Are you by
any chance a pollster?"
Pete from Boston
Regardless, it isn't in Brighton. Allston and Brighton are on many
levels administered collectively by the city, but as there's no longer
any such entity as the City of Brighton, Allston's not "technically"
part of any municipal entity other than Boston. Ask people on Harvard
Ave. if they're in Brighton. See which way they point you. Most
importantly, ask the people living on all (inhabited) sides of the
interchange (and anyone living east of roughly Everett St. for that
matter) if they live in Brighton. See what kind of looks you get.
Pete from Boston
> In <190620021137126473%paul.a...@hp.com>, Paul Anderson wrote:
> > On the Mass Pike, I think it's confusing having Exit 10 different than
> > 10A, and 11 different than 11A.
>
> Are you stupid? Why would anyone - not stupid - expect 10 and 10A to
> denote the same thing? Ditto 11 and 11A.
What sort of awful life experience have you endured that you can't use
a simple newsgroup without regularly dishing out insults? Get back on
that Prozac and smile. The vast majority of people manage to use this
group nicely, without regularly putting down others to make their
point. Didn't you have a mother or something explain this idea once?
On virtually any Interstate highway in the United States, exits
sharing a number with different suffixes are located in more or less
immediate proximity. This helps people used to a national standard
understand the general system from one state to another. The purpose
of signage on a national system is to promote as clear, safe, and
mutually understandable a set of instructions as possible to drivers,
not to tell them to suck it up and deal with our local ways.
> > People will whine about renumbering for a while and then get used to
> > it.
>
> Good advice. So stop whining and get used to what exists. You can start
> by trying to figure out why 10 and 10A are not the same thing.
Boy, Tom Finneran fan, are you? Telling people with different ideas
than you "that's not how we do it in Massachusetts"? 10 and 10A are
not the same thing, but following the standard of the system of which
the Mass Pike is a component part, exits with those numbers indicate
parts of the same general interchange.
> > There average person is probably not aware of the benefits of
> > mileage-based numbering.
>
> By "average" I assume you mean people other than your exalted self.
>
> Anyway, what are the benefits that would make this ultimately
> worthwhile, never mind of any real importance?
See above. Also, determining time and distance between exits becomes a
simple procedure at a glance, making the road more functional for its
users. Also, further confusing sequences like 17-18-22 become
unnecessary, as every exit has a logical number given its location.
Pete from Boston
> orio...@yahoo.com (Brian Colby) wrote in message news:<cf482e5e.02060...@posting.google.com>...
> > I would suggest that the entire Turnpike system be renumbered using
> > the mile marker system, i.e. Exit 1 in Stockbridge would be renumbered
> > 2, and the end of the Pike in Boston would be 134. The very end of
> > the turnpike at Logan Airport would be 137.
> >
> > Here's how the exits would look like post renumbering:
[snip]
> That's ridiculous. I know many less dense and underdeveloped states
> use this method for numbering, but most in New England and the
> Northeast find it confusing. We are used to sequencial numbers and, I
> suspect, most would not approve of this mileage-based system.
Most in New England find it confusing? I'm not sure that's giving us
Yankees quite enough credit. I'm picturing some old Maine woodsman
pulled over and looking up at the exit sign, scratching his head in
befuddlement.
IIRC, New Jersey uses this system on all but its Turnpike. It's more
dense and developed than anyplace in New England, and is very much in
the Northeast. Pennsylvania (also Northeast), which has dense urban
areas rivaling New England's, switched last year. People aren't losing
sleep over it.
DuBois
Well, in the "mileage" system, consecutive exit numbers like 17-18-22
are MORE likely in general, and unlike the 10-10A thing which confuses
poor Adam so much, it really isn't confusing to anybody. But forgive
Adam; every month or so he forgets to take his Midol and freaks out
on some newsgroup. He's just a troll who's totally full of shit, but
he's really harmless and pathetic.
Adam Kippes
wrote:
> but as there's no longer any such entity as the City of Brighton
Was there ever? That is, did any cities, as opposed to towns, ever join
Boston?
Adam Kippes
wrote:
> People aren't losing sleep over it.
I'm sure they're not. But I am equally certain they weren't losing any
sleep over the issue before, either.
So what was the point other than satisfying some bureaucrats?
Ed Foster
wrote:
> every month or so he forgets to take his Midol and freaks out
> on some newsgroup. He's just a troll who's totally full of shit, but
> he's really harmless and pathetic.
As good a description of DuBois as I've ever seen.
Ed Foster
I don't think that's true.
> We are used to sequencial numbers and, I suspect, most would not approve
> of this mileage-based system.
Again I'll disagree. With mileage based systems it's very easy to
figure out how far it is to any exit, and I've had no problem adjusting
to it in those states that have it. But then, I'm not a produce of
Boston public schools. :-)
Ed Foster
<adam....@pobox.com> wrote:
> In <b282e3e6.02062...@posting.google.com>, Pete from Boston
> wrote:
>
> > People aren't losing sleep over it.
>
> I'm sure they're not. But I am equally certain they weren't losing any
> sleep over the issue before, either.
>
> So what was the point other than satisfying some bureaucrats?
That it's more logical, and it makes figuring out how far you have to
go to reach any exit quite easy? Sometimes even bureaucrats get it
right.
Adam Kippes
> Again I'll disagree. With mileage based systems it's very easy to
> figure out how far it is to any exit,
Only if you realize that the exit numbers do, in fact, denote miles.
Pete from Boston
> Pete from Boston wrote:
> > See above. Also, determining time and distance between exits becomes a
> > simple procedure at a glance, making the road more functional for its
> > users. Also, further confusing sequences like 17-18-22 become
> > unnecessary, as every exit has a logical number given its location.
>
> Well, in the "mileage" system, consecutive exit numbers like 17-18-22
> are MORE likely in general, and unlike the 10-10A thing which confuses
> poor Adam so much, it really isn't confusing to anybody.
My point is that as it currently exists, it's a deviation from the
rule. Yes, it's the kind of thing you'd expect on a mileage-based
system, but as it exists now, it's a sequential system, and those
numbers aren't sequential. You can talk all day about the ramps and
the extension mainline having un-signed exit numbers -- all this means
for the traveler is added confusion.
Matthew D. Jones
Boston (I believe in 1870). There were a series of annexations to Boston in
the 19th Century (e.g., Dorchester, Roxbury, Charlestown), mostly so these
adjoining suburbs could obtain "city" services, such as water and sewer. In
1870, several adjoining communities had referenda about being annexed into
Boston. Both Brighton and Brookline held referenda at the same time.
Brookline voted annexation down and remains a separately incorporated town
(not city) to this day, even though it is surrounded on three sides by
Boston and is now a non-contiguous part of Norfolk County (due to
annexations of the contiguous Norfolk County municipalities to Boston and
thereby to Suffolk County). Brighton voted in favor of annexation. This
situation resulted in the state Legislature mandating a small annexation
from Brookline to Boston along the Charles river, so that Brighton could
have a land connection to the rest of the city. This strip of land is now
the corridor for Commonwealth Avenue near Boston University. The buildings
on the south side of Commonwealth Avenue in this areas are in Brookline,
while the sidewalk and everything to the north to the middle of the Charles
River is Boston.
"Adam Kippes" <adam....@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:7qh3hus0il47u723j...@4ax.com...
Ed Foster
<adam....@pobox.com> wrote:
> In <200620020909274597%erfo...@nospam.attbi.com>, Ed Foster wrote:
>
> > Again I'll disagree. With mileage based systems it's very easy to
> > figure out how far it is to any exit,
>
> Only if you realize that the exit numbers do, in fact, denote miles.
But it's not a difficult thing to figure out.
J Mello
> In article <ooa1hus0jo13epn63...@4ax.com>, "Adam Kippes"
> <adam....@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Are you stupid? Why would anyone - not stupid - expect 10 and 10A to
> > denote the same thing? Ditto 11 and 11A.
>
> Because every other interstate highway in the state uses A/B designations
> to distinguish different exit ramps in the same interchange. Next
> question.
And every other interstate highway in the state uses sequential
numbering, not mileage based numbering.
JMello
J Mello
> I think he means the Cambridge exit at the toll.
> Kevin
The Cambridge exit ramp is still in Allston, along with the entire interchange.
JMello
Bob Johnson
<adam....@pobox.com> wrote:
>In <200620020909274597%erfo...@nospam.attbi.com>, Ed Foster wrote:
>
>> Again I'll disagree. With mileage based systems it's very easy to
>> figure out how far it is to any exit,
>
>Only if you realize that the exit numbers do, in fact, denote miles.
Now that you've finally figured that out, you can use the information.