Interstate 95 signing work

[PHLBOS]

Either way, and I mentioned such earlier, I don't think it's a good idea to list Boston as an eastbound control city at this location.  While MA 2 itself goes into and ends in Boston; the freeway portion ends about 7 miles from this interchange at the northern end Cambridge, adjacent to the Alewife (MBTA Red Line) Station.  Such can easily give someone unfamiliar with the area the false impression that MA 2 is a continuous freeway into Boston.

It should also be noted that Boston is used as a control city for MA 2 East at I-91 way out in Greenfield.  I've never travelled MA 2 between I-91 and Fitchburg, but the maps show it as a combination of surface road in spots and "super 2" in others

I've since revised my above-post to emphasize that my only issue with signing eastbound Route 2 to Boston was at this particular location.  Further out, such is not an issue; and had the I-695/Inner Belt been built, signing eastbound Route 2 to Boston at Lexington and points east would've made more sense (one heading to Boston would've exited towards I-695 southbound in most instances).

Maybe it makes more sense to sign it as Boston that far west and to sign it something more local from 128, especially since just about every exit off 128 will take you to Boston, as long as you head in the right direction off the exit.

Traditionally, only major highways/freeways that actually go into Boston that interchange w/I-95/MA 128 are signed as such. 

From Canton to Peabody, the following interchanges list Boston as a control city are:
Exit 12: I-93 (& US 1) North

Exit 20A: MA 9 East
(current listing includes Brookline as well, unsure which city (Brookline or Boston) will be listed on replacement signs (assuming only one control city will be used on the main exit signs))

Exit 25: I-90/Mass Pike (eastbound)

Exit 29A: MA 2 East (previous signage listed Arlington/Cambridge)
Personally, I would've chosen either Arlington or Cambridge for the main exit signs.

Exit 37A: I-93 South

Exit 44 (southbound)/44A (northbound): US 1 South

Exit 46 (southbound only): US 1 South

[roadman]

According to the Needham to Wellesley "Add-a-Lane" project plans (MassDOT Project # 603711), the legend on the replacement signs for Route 9 east (Exit 20A) will be Brookline only.

[PHLBOS]

According to the Needham to Wellesley "Add-a-Lane" project plans (MassDOT Project # 603711), the legend on the replacement signs for Route 9 east (Exit 20A) will be Brookline only.

I figured as much but I didn't want to blindly assume such given the recent Route 2 east signage further north.

[bob7374]

Here's the new signage for MA 2. First heading south on I-95:

Where's Boston?

Second, heading north, with the addition of Acton:

Update: both of those BGS' have since been replaced with ones listing just one control city (Fitchburg for 2 West, Boston for 2 East) that match the surrounding signs. 

Either way, and I mentioned such earlier, I don't think it's a good idea to list Boston as an eastbound control city at this location.  While MA 2 itself goes into and ends in Boston; the freeway portion ends about 7 miles from this interchange at the northern end Cambridge, adjacent to the Alewife (MBTA Red Line) Station.  Such can easily give someone unfamiliar with the area the false impression that MA 2 is a continuous freeway into Boston.

Finally got a photo of the new northbound sign:


Did not get a photo southbound, will try in the future.

[bob7374]

Finally got to take a trip down to Attleboro to see the new signage that came along with the new 2-lane off-ramp for I-295 South on I-95 South. There are two new overheads. The first with 2 arrows, one for the exit only lane:


The second has arrows for both I-95 and I-295:

[Alps]

Finally got to take a trip down to Attleboro to see the new signage that came along with the new 2-lane off-ramp for I-295 South on I-95 South. There are two new overheads. The first with 2 arrows, one for the exit only lane:


The second has arrows for both I-95 and I-295:

Technically those are supposed to be APL signs, or at the very least diagrammatics.

[PHLBOS]

Technically those are supposed to be APL signs, or at the very least diagrammatics.

To date, I don't believe that there are any APL installs in Massachusetts (thank goodness IMHO). 

OTOH, MassDOT has done some newer (not just mere match-in-kind replacements) diagrammatic signs in recent years.  Why such wasn't done here is unknown; Roadman will likely know.

[shadyjay]

No APLs in Mass that I know of.  The I-91 sign replacement projects of the past couple years have retained the status-quo diagrammatics for Exit 12-NB and Exit 27-SB, while the former billboard diagrammatics for Exit 27-NB were replaced with traditional signage.  There was no need for any diagram for that exit, as there are no lane drops/exit onlys/etc associated with it.  Exit 12-NB probably should be an APL as there is an option lane, but Mass doesn't seem to do APLs....yet....

[machias]

Finally got to take a trip down to Attleboro to see the new signage that came along with the new 2-lane off-ramp for I-295 South on I-95 South. There are two new overheads. The first with 2 arrows, one for the exit only lane:


The second has arrows for both I-95 and I-295:

Technically those are supposed to be APL signs, or at the very least diagrammatics.

I find these sign panels very easy to read and understand. Do we really need to go to such great lengths and expense to sign APLs in every one of these instances? APLs seem just so wasteful in money, resources and size. I think these Mass signs fill the need just fine.

[SignBridge]

As I've said repeatedly in these discussions over the past several years, I think this type of signing works fine for option-lane exits and I believe the FHWA created a problem where there wasn't one. From the looks of things, I'm starting to wonder if maybe some state DOT's feel that way also.

[PHLBOS]

I find these sign panels very easy to read and understand. Do we really need to go to such great lengths and expense to sign APLs in every one of these instances? APLs seem just so wasteful in money, resources and size. I think these Mass signs fill the need just fine.

As I've said repeatedly in these discussions over the past several years, I think this type of signing works fine for option-lane exits and I believe the FWHA created a problem where there wasn't one. From the looks of things, I'm starting to wonder if maybe some state DOT's feel that way also.

I agree with both of the above.

Such signage practice is no different than this older example in NJ.

[jeffandnicole]

I find these sign panels very easy to read and understand. Do we really need to go to such great lengths and expense to sign APLs in every one of these instances? APLs seem just so wasteful in money, resources and size. I think these Mass signs fill the need just fine.

As I've said repeatedly in these discussions over the past several years, I think this type of signing works fine for option-lane exits and I believe the FWHA created a problem where there wasn't one. From the looks of things, I'm starting to wonder if maybe some state DOT's feel that way also.

I agree with both of the above.

Such signage practice is no different than this older example in NJ.

That was pretty much the standard nationwide, except when diagrammatics were used.

Glancing at NJDOT bids, it appears signage comes in at $20 - $30 per square foot.  They don't request bids based on each individual sign, rather they just calculate the square footage of signage needed, and receive bids based on that total amount.  Using an average of $25 per square foot:

The 2 signs pictured above would probably cost about $9,000 or so.

An APL would probably cost about $18,000 or so.

At first glance, you're looking at double the cost. 

But then consider the overhead sign structure.  That alone can cost upwards of $100,000 or so.  Lighting is extra if used, and costs just as much as the sign.  Yes, there's different things to take into account, such as the weight of the signs, etc, but the cost won't vary all that much.  A lot of the money is spent on what you're never going to see: The underground bases holding that sign in. 

So regardless if it's APL or former standard signage, on projects that cost tens of millions of dollars, they aren't worried about a few thousand bucks on extra signage.  There's way, way more money-consuming aspects of the project they are more concerned about.

[roadman]

In Massachusetts, bid prices for overhead sign panels are typically $16 to $18 per square foot.  For overhead sign structures, bid prices are typically in the $20,000 to $30,000 range for cantilever supports, and in the $40,000 to $55,000 range for full span supports.  Note that MassDOT does not currently accept monotube supports for use on state highway projects.  However, the bid prices for the monotube structures specified for the Big Dig project were in the $275,000 to $350,000 range, with certain 'dual' monotube structures (where one structure was placed immediately behind another one and both structures connected together with cross-webbing) costing approximately $450,000 to $500,000.

[jeffandnicole]

Not surprised...everything in Jersey costs more!

But the point being, the sign prices are relatively cheap, compared to other components...and especially to the project as a whole.

[DRMan]

For overhead sign structures, bid prices are typically in the $20,000 to $30,000 range for cantilever supports, and in the $40,000 to $55,000 range for full span supports....  However, the bid prices for the monotube structures specified for the Big Dig project were in the $275,000 to $350,000 range, with certain 'dual' monotube structures (where one structure was placed immediately behind another one and both structures connected together with cross-webbing) costing approximately $450,000 to $500,000.

Is there an advantage to monotube structures, besides aesthetics, that could justify the huge price differential?

[roadman]

Technically those are supposed to be APL signs, or at the very least diagrammatics.

To date, I don't believe that there are any APL installs in Massachusetts (thank goodness IMHO). 

OTOH, MassDOT has done some newer (not just mere match-in-kind replacements) diagrammatic signs in recent years.  Why such wasn't done here is unknown; Roadman will likely know.

To properly implement diagrammatic (or APL) signs at this location would have meant replacing not just the exit signs, but all the advance signs for the I-295 interchange, and relocating some of the other existing signs to maintain adequate sign spacing.  Because of this, MassDOT designers determined that the additional work was outside the scope of the ramp widening project, especially with design on the pending Attleboro to Norwood sign replacement project to begin in late 2017.

The possible future use of APLs is mentioned in the Massachusetts MUTCD Amendments - see http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/traffic/MassMUTCD20120409.pdf  .  However, at present there are no APL installations on Massachusetts Interstates or freeways.  Nor are any APL installations proposed in any of the current or pending sign replacement projects.

[shadyjay]

Note that MassDOT does not currently accept monotube supports for use on state highway projects.

Aren't these monotube supports, installed last year on the I-91 sign project, W. Springfield to Bernardston?
91SB-Exit15 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Cantilevers and trusses were installed on the couple-years-ago project from Longmeadow to W. Springfield...
91NB-Exit13 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Why two types used on the same interstate?  Granted, two different projects, but is there a particular advantage with one design over the other? 

[SignBridge]

That photo above is not a monotube in the modern sense. That term as I understand it applies to a wider tube that curves from the vertical to horizontal. That one above looks to me like an old design from way back when.

[roadman]

Note that MassDOT does not currently accept monotube supports for use on state highway projects.

Aren't these monotube supports, installed last year on the I-91 sign project, W. Springfield to Bernardston?
91SB-Exit15 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Cantilevers and trusses were installed on the couple-years-ago project from Longmeadow to W. Springfield...
91NB-Exit13 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Why two types used on the same interstate?  Granted, two different projects, but is there a particular advantage with one design over the other? 

The structure in the top photograph is actually a single chord support, not a monotube support.  Standard MassDOT practice is to give contractors general guidance as to structure design, but leaves the specific design up to the fabricators - subject to approval of the design drawings and calculations for each structure.  Note that single chord supports have most of the aesthetic benefits of monotubes, but - being a simpler design - are easier to fabricate and install than monotubes.  Costs for single chord supports are also less than for monotubes as well.

Also note that the structure in the bottom photograph spans both sides of the highway ("complete span" support in MassDOT nomenclature).  In this case, neither a single chord support nor a monotube would be practical to install due to the span length.

[SignBridge]

Those single-chord supports were common back in the 1950's, but I'm not aware of them being used anywhere in new construction nowadays. Can they handle the same wind-load as a truss design?

[roadman]

Those single-chord supports were common back in the 1950's, but I'm not aware of them being used anywhere in new construction nowadays. Can they handle the same wind-load as a truss design?

Minimum wind speed is a basic parameter that a sign support structure must meet, regardless of whether it is a single chord, dual chord, trichord, box truss, or monotube design.  The structures supplied for the recent I-91 Longmeadow to West Springfield and West Springfield to Bernardston sign projects are designed for 130 mph wind speed, in accordance with 2013 AASHTO requirements.

Be reminded that, per MassDOT/MassHighway/MassDPW standard practice since the 1960s, each support structure is actually a custom design to meet the requirements of the span length and sign loading for the specific structure location.  While many structures may look similar externally from location to location, specific characteristics such as wall thickness of the uprights and members, number and diameter of anchor bolts, depth of and amount/thickness of reinforcing steel in foundations, etc. are unique to each specific structure.  The notable exception to this practice in Massachusetts in recent years was with the monotube supports used on the Big Dig project.  In that case, the designers were directed to develop a standard design for the sign support structures (principally for aesthetic reasons), and then develop the sign panel designs so they did not exceed the total panel area and maximum wind loading (IIRC it was 110 mph) permissible for the standard support design.

[SignBridge]

Interesting. Thanks Roadman.

[KEVIN_224]

Isn't this a monotube example here? This is from I-84/US 6 West in Hartford, just after the Exit 48 off ramp:

https://goo.gl/maps/nJ6Sj5qSK772

[SectorZ]

Those single-chord supports were common back in the 1950's, but I'm not aware of them being used anywhere in new construction nowadays. Can they handle the same wind-load as a truss design?

Minimum wind speed is a basic parameter that a sign support structure must meet, regardless of whether it is a single chord, dual chord, trichord, box truss, or monotube design.  The structures supplied for the recent I-91 Longmeadow to West Springfield and West Springfield to Bernardston sign projects are designed for 130 mph wind speed, in accordance with 2013 AASHTO requirements.

Be reminded that, per MassDOT/MassHighway/MassDPW standard practice since the 1960s, each support structure is actually a custom design to meet the requirements of the span length and sign loading for the specific structure location.  While many structures may look similar externally from location to location, specific characteristics such as wall thickness of the uprights and members, number and diameter of anchor bolts, depth of and amount/thickness of reinforcing steel in foundations, etc. are unique to each specific structure.  The notable exception to this practice in Massachusetts in recent years was with the monotube supports used on the Big Dig project.  In that case, the designers were directed to develop a standard design for the sign support structures (principally for aesthetic reasons), and then develop the sign panel designs so they did not exceed the total panel area and maximum wind loading (IIRC it was 110 mph) permissible for the standard support design.

130 MPH. I wonder what it was before 2013. I think of the sign on I-84 in Sturbridge that the tornado hit in 2011. The sign stayed attached, yet the whole vertical pole bent in half. That sign took a direct hit from that thing.

[roadman]

Those single-chord supports were common back in the 1950's, but I'm not aware of them being used anywhere in new construction nowadays. Can they handle the same wind-load as a truss design?

Minimum wind speed is a basic parameter that a sign support structure must meet, regardless of whether it is a single chord, dual chord, trichord, box truss, or monotube design.  The structures supplied for the recent I-91 Longmeadow to West Springfield and West Springfield to Bernardston sign projects are designed for 130 mph wind speed, in accordance with 2013 AASHTO requirements.

Be reminded that, per MassDOT/MassHighway/MassDPW standard practice since the 1960s, each support structure is actually a custom design to meet the requirements of the span length and sign loading for the specific structure location.  While many structures may look similar externally from location to location, specific characteristics such as wall thickness of the uprights and members, number and diameter of anchor bolts, depth of and amount/thickness of reinforcing steel in foundations, etc. are unique to each specific structure.  The notable exception to this practice in Massachusetts in recent years was with the monotube supports used on the Big Dig project.  In that case, the designers were directed to develop a standard design for the sign support structures (principally for aesthetic reasons), and then develop the sign panel designs so they did not exceed the total panel area and maximum wind loading (IIRC it was 110 mph) permissible for the standard support design.

130 MPH. I wonder what it was before 2013. I think of the sign on I-84 in Sturbridge that the tornado hit in 2011. The sign stayed attached, yet the whole vertical pole bent in half. That sign took a direct hit from that thing.

The sign structure on I-84 that took a direct hit from the tornado was designed for a 110 mph wind speed, as was the replacement structure.  Currently, most of Massachusetts is a 110 mph design wind speed, with parts of District 1, District 2, and District 5 having a 130 mph design wind speed.  However, ground mounted sign posts are still designed for a 90 mph design wind speed statewide.