News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Interstate 195 (RI/MA)

Started by southshore720, March 29, 2014, 08:39:59 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

AMLNet49

Quote from: roadman on May 19, 2016, 08:19:25 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on May 19, 2016, 04:47:35 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 19, 2016, 08:50:16 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on May 18, 2016, 05:54:29 PM
It has to do with the fact that they use regular sized banners with the oversized shields. I always wondered why they couldn't have oversized banners made that would fit across both posts, because the issue seems to be that the standard banners simply aren't wide enough to stretch across both posts, so they simply affix it to the one closest to the roadway.
Here's an example of where 2 regular-sized banners are placed above (& side-by-side) an oversized shield.

I'll also add that today I obverved several shields on the southern part of I-495 and all of MA-25 that used a crossbar to center a banner over the oversized shield. I had never paid attention to this I guess but I definitely now recall seeing it in other places.

The problem with such a mounting is that the crossbar piece may prevent the support posts from properly yielding if struck by a vehicle.  This is one of the reasons that the cardinal direction plates are normally mounted to the left post of such installations, and not centered over the shield.

Note that, on Interstates and freeways, MassDOT has begun phasing out the use of the twin telescopic posts in favor of single slip-base mounted steel beams to support route markers, as this support method is more robust in wind.  The route assemblies recently installed on the I-95 (128) between Wellesley and Lexington are an example of this newer mounting method.

Very interesting, thank you for the insight as always. The new design looks good, and of course it's great that it's safer in case of accident.


mass_citizen

Quote from: roadman on May 19, 2016, 08:19:25 PM

Note that, on Interstates and freeways, MassDOT has begun phasing out the use of the twin telescopic posts in favor of single slip-base mounted steel beams to support route markers, as this support method is more robust in wind.  The route assemblies recently installed on the I-95 (128) between Wellesley and Lexington are an example of this newer mounting method.

The I-93 Boston to Randolph project also has these supports

southshore720

I was just on this stretch the other day.  Exits 1-4 are completely done; Exit 5 is on hold due to the exit's closure; Exits 6-8 are spotty...no diagrammatic installed for the left Exit 8B to 24 North yet.  I believe most of Exits 9-11 are done, but I haven't been down that way in a while.

RobbieL2415

Does anyone know if they will be re-opening the southbound rest area in Swansea?  According to GSV, MASSDOT has been using it as a staging area for sign replacement.

southshore720

#29
Regarding the Pawtucket Ave. accelerated bridge project in East Providence:
Does anyone know if they are going to replace those decrepit non-reflective BGSs that were once affixed to the bridge for Exits 7 and 8 in this project?  I'm assuming RI is going to follow suit with current practice and not re-attach BGS to bridges.
UPDATE 4/29/18:  These signs were replaced, which means that the NB moldy oldies for Exits 6 and 7 are the last vintage pair standing.  Still no permanent BGS for Exit 8.  In true RI style, they are using the LGS as the "good enough" replacement.

southshore720

OK, WHAT IS GOING ON with this sign replacement project on I-195?  Two years in and we still have an entire truckload of signage still waiting in a closed rest area waiting to be erected.  That includes sign bridges for the Fall River area, especially the MA 24 overlap.  Don't these contractors have a time limit, and don't they get fined if they exceed that time limit?  Delays are understandable, but this is getting to be ridiculous.

southshore720

^ Update Dec 2018:  NO PROGRESS on this sign replacement project.  Have they all but given up?  Does MASSDOT find this to be acceptable?  What can possibly justify this kind of delay?  How can the contractors be rewarded for not completing the job?

AMLNet49

Quote from: southshore720 on December 06, 2018, 05:02:51 PM
^ Update Dec 2018:  NO PROGRESS on this sign replacement project.  Have they all but given up?  Does MASSDOT find this to be acceptable?  What can possibly justify this kind of delay?  How can the contractors be rewarded for not completing the job?

How can you “give up” on a project after spending thousands on signs and gantries, especially after starting? The signs have probably lost reflectivity just sitting there. I wonder if it’s a manpower shortage, because otherwise to do no work during the warm summer months is inexcusable

bob7374

Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 07, 2018, 11:21:35 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on December 06, 2018, 05:02:51 PM
^ Update Dec 2018:  NO PROGRESS on this sign replacement project.  Have they all but given up?  Does MASSDOT find this to be acceptable?  What can possibly justify this kind of delay?  How can the contractors be rewarded for not completing the job?
How can you "give up"  on a project after spending thousands on signs and gantries, especially after starting? The signs have probably lost reflectivity just sitting there. I wonder if it's a manpower shortage, because otherwise to do no work during the warm summer months is inexcusable
The MassDOT project status report still lists this project as under construction, 95% complete, and due to be complete in the fall of 2015.

bob7374

Bumping up this thread. MassDOT was suppose to announce the winning bidder for a small sign contract (609299) covering the replacement of several overhead signs related to the I-195/MA 24 interchange this afternoon (6/9). These signs were not replaced during the last I-195 replacement contract apparently due to environmental concerns. The special provisions document on the contract bid page indicates that all the current right side foundations for the existing signs will be removed, but that the median foundations will be kept for use by the new signs. It also states that all the sign structures and supports created for the last replacement contract that were not put up, and that are stored at the I-195 East rest area in Swansea, are to be "removed and discarded." Is this because those signs will not fit on the new supports? New new signs will be created for this project. For those who want to read the documents, they are here:
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-20-1030-0H100-0H002-50570&external=true&parentUrl=bid

southshore720

Thank you for the update, Bob!  It's amazing this project dragged on for so long!  How were the "environmental impacts" not evaluated during the initial sign replacement project?

roadman

#36
Quote from: southshore720 on June 10, 2020, 07:13:57 PM
Thank you for the update, Bob!  It's amazing this project dragged on for so long!  How were the "environmental impacts" not evaluated during the initial sign replacement project?

My understanding is that providing the median uprights for the new sign supports would have required spread footing foundations due to soil conditions.  Standard MassDOT practice for overhead sign structures is to have the Contractor conduct the soil borings before the fabricator prepares the exact design, which is why the need for spread footings at these locations (which all have existing structures) wasn't identified during the design of the previous 195 project.  My guess is that the environmental impacts cited are likely related to fact that long term lane shifts would have been needed to install spread footings at these locations.

The support designs in the 609299 contract avoid the need for median uprights, by using a combination of complete spans (across both roadways) and cantilevers.  All median uprights have been eliminated.

"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

roadman

Quote from: bob7374 on June 09, 2020, 10:22:39 PM
The special provisions document on the contract bid page indicates that all the current right side foundations for the existing signs will be removed, but that the median foundations will be kept for use by the new signs. It also states that all the sign structures and supports created for the last replacement contract that were not put up, and that are stored at the I-195 East rest area in Swansea, are to be "removed and discarded." Is this because those signs will not fit on the new supports? New new signs will be created for this project. For those who want to read the documents, they are here:
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-20-1030-0H100-0H002-50570&external=true&parentUrl=bid


Just to clarify Bob.  The median foundations for the existing sign supports will be abandoned in place, and not reused for the new sign supports .
As I noted in my previous post, the new sign supports being installed will be a combination of complete span structures (across both sides on the roadway), cantilever supports, and 'double panel' cantilever supports.  No new median-mounted supports will be provided.  Because of this, none of the sign supports currently in storage at the Seekonk rest area can be used or re-purposed for this project.  However, all the sign panels currently in the Seekonk rest area can and will be used  No new sign panels will be fabricated under the project.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

bob7374

Thanks for the clarification, it was hard to tell reading the document whether the disposal was referring to just the sign structures or the signs. The winning bidder was Roadsafe Traffic Systems at $849,976, typical winner Liddell Bros. had a bid of $959,200. MassDOT's estimated cost is $741,156. Will they accept the bid, or try again for something lower?

Meanwhile, I took a photo this past Sunday of one of the signs to be replaced on Route 24 North:


And one of the signs on I-195 East:

Alps

Quote from: bob7374 on June 16, 2020, 12:01:14 AM
Thanks for the clarification, it was hard to tell reading the document whether the disposal was referring to just the sign structures or the signs. The winning bidder was Roadsafe Traffic Systems at $849,976, typical winner Liddell Bros. had a bid of $959,200. MassDOT's estimated cost is $741,156. Will they accept the bid, or try again for something lower?

Meanwhile, I took a photo this past Sunday of one of the signs to be replaced on Route 24 North:


And one of the signs on I-195 East:

Does MassHighway (sorry, I was there 2001-2006) have a threshold above which a bid is rejected? 15%? 20%?

roadman

Quote from: Alps on June 16, 2020, 12:37:08 AM
Does MassHighway (sorry, I was there 2001-2006) have a threshold above which a bid is rejected? 15%? 20%?

AFAIK, MassDOT does not have a specific threshold at which a bid is automatically rejected.  Rather, my experience has been that bids that are noticeably higher than the office estimate are reviewed on a case by case basis.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.