News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Interstate 93 Signing Work

Started by bob7374, May 05, 2012, 04:10:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

bob7374

Quote from: southshore720 on July 11, 2012, 01:26:05 AM
Looking forward to the Exit 4-20 replacement...looooooong overdue.  Especially replacement of the disgusting button copy.  Also looking forward to seeing what the large BGS for the 93/3 split in Braintree will look like.  How do you think they are going to handle the Rte 3S Exit 18/19 (Washington St/Burgin Pkwy) approach on 93N? Do you think it will be part of the larger Exit 7 display, or do you think it will be signed separately?  I think it should be on one sign, much like the BGS on 95/128 for Exits 32A-B for U.S. 3/Middlesex Tpke.

I think the initial signs for Exit 7 will be similar NB to those for US 3/Middlesex Tpke. However, the complication is the use of two different exit number systems (I-93 vs. MA 3). Perhaps the signs after the current MA 37 ramps will be similar to what is there now but with I-93/US 1 (supposedly restricting all overhead signs to only 2 route designations) North over the two leftmost lanes, Exit 7 MA 3 second from the right and the rightmost signs being for Washington St/Burgin Parkway, but with a banner saying use Exit 7 for those destinations, but not having the MA 3 exit numbers on them until after the MA 3 ramp begins. Will be interested to see what they come up with when the serious overhead sign work starts.


roadman

#26
Quote from: bob7374 on July 11, 2012, 10:29:19 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on July 11, 2012, 01:26:05 AM
Looking forward to the Exit 4-20 replacement...looooooong overdue.  Especially replacement of the disgusting button copy.  Also looking forward to seeing what the large BGS for the 93/3 split in Braintree will look like.  How do you think they are going to handle the Rte 3S Exit 18/19 (Washington St/Burgin Pkwy) approach on 93N? Do you think it will be part of the larger Exit 7 display, or do you think it will be signed separately?  I think it should be on one sign, much like the BGS on 95/128 for Exits 32A-B for U.S. 3/Middlesex Tpke.

I think the initial signs for Exit 7 will be similar NB to those for US 3/Middlesex Tpke. However, the complication is the use of two different exit number systems (I-93 vs. MA 3). Perhaps the signs after the current MA 37 ramps will be similar to what is there now but with I-93/US 1 (supposedly restricting all overhead signs to only 2 route designations) North over the two leftmost lanes, Exit 7 MA 3 second from the right and the rightmost signs being for Washington St/Burgin Parkway, but with a banner saying use Exit 7 for those destinations, but not having the MA 3 exit numbers on them until after the MA 3 ramp begins. Will be interested to see what they come up with when the serious overhead sign work starts.

My spies tell me that the signs on I-93 southbound for the I-93/MA 3 "split" in Braintree will be diagrammatic signs (the project was designed back before most diagrammatic signs were eliminated and "arrow per lane" signs were mandated by the 2009 MUTCD).   The new diagrammatics will not include information about Exits 19-18 on MA 3 - there is sufficient length on MA 3 prior to the ramp for standard advance exit signs for 19-18, which were installed under MassDOT's recently completed MA 3 Plymouth to Braintree signing 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)

Alps

Quote from: roadman on July 12, 2012, 02:36:47 PM
most diagrammatic signs were eliminated and "arrow per lane" signs were mandated by the 2009 MUTCD
False. Read the MUTCD. Diagrammatic are one of three options - arrow per lane are far from mandated.

roadman

Quote from: Steve on July 12, 2012, 11:12:41 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 12, 2012, 02:36:47 PM
most diagrammatic signs were eliminated and "arrow per lane" signs were mandated by the 2009 MUTCD
False. Read the MUTCD. Diagrammatic are one of three options - arrow per lane are far from mandated.

Yes, diagrammatic signs are still shown as an option in the 2009 MUTCD.  However, my understanding is that new diagrammatics are permitted only for "in-kind" sign replacement work where the existing support structures are being retained.  If the signs are being replaced as part of other construction work such as roadway widening or interchange reconstruction, then new diagrammatics are not allowed.

In those cases in reconstruction projects where the revised roadway configuration involves an "option" exit lane, the 2009 MUTCD calls for "arrow per lane" signs as a "shall" condition (see Sections 2E.20 and 2E.21) and does not permit the use of new diagrammatic panels.
"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)

hbelkins

Quote from: roadman on July 13, 2012, 10:40:24 AM
In those cases in reconstruction projects where the revised roadway configuration involves an "option" exit lane, the 2009 MUTCD calls for "arrow per lane" signs as a "shall" condition (see Sections 2E.20 and 2E.21) and does not permit the use of new diagrammatic panels.

I'm old enough to remember when diagrammatic signs were considered better than "arrow per lane" with down arrows. Why the regression back to a modification of an old standard?


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

roadman

#30
Quote from: hbelkins on July 13, 2012, 12:52:17 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 13, 2012, 10:40:24 AM
In those cases in reconstruction projects where the revised roadway configuration involves an "option" exit lane, the 2009 MUTCD calls for "arrow per lane" signs as a "shall" condition (see Sections 2E.20 and 2E.21) and does not permit the use of new diagrammatic panels.

I'm old enough to remember when diagrammatic signs were considered better than "arrow per lane" with down arrows. Why the regression back to a modification of an old standard?

I suspect much the same reason as why we now have Clearview - because some human factors "experts" did a bunch of lab and/or test track simulations (as opposed to actually putting signs out on highways and evaluating them under real driving conditions), decided the results were positive, and convinced FHWA to adopt the "new" way as a standard.

And I share your opinion that the 2009 MUTCD restrictions on diagrammatic signs are a big step backwards.  As a non-roadgeek friend of mine commented when I was explaining the issue to him  "How does changing guide signs that older drivers have gotten used to seeing for the past forty years an improvement for those drivers?"
"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)

SidS1045

As the re-signing project progresses, it looks like they may be taking down at least some of the across-the-road sign gantries.  At Exit 31 northbound (MA16), they mounted a new short gantry (anchored off the right shoulder) right in front of the across-the-road gantry, hiding the older MA16 exit BGS with the new one.
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." - Edward R. Murrow

roadman

#32
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 25, 2012, 03:44:02 PM
As the re-signing project progresses, it looks like they may be taking down at least some of the across-the-road sign gantries.  At Exit 31 northbound (MA16), they mounted a new short gantry (anchored off the right shoulder) right in front of the across-the-road gantry, hiding the older MA16 exit BGS with the new one.

Current MassDOT practice is to space the advance signs to exits at the 1 mile and 1/2 mile intervals whenever it is practical.  Because of this, many signs in the I-93 corridor and elsewhere have been/are being relocated from their current locations.  Note that, as part of the current sign updating cycle, MassDOT is also replacing the sign structures as well as the panels.

If you have no need for a full span (or complete span) truss across the roadway to support only one sign, then why go through the extra expense and constructability issues (the new MA 16 sign you noted is in an area of "back to back" median barrier).

On I-93 between Somerville and Methuen, the sign panels were last replaced in the early 1990s, but the majority of the sign supports date from the early to mid-1970s.  AFAIK, the only existing OH sign supports that are being retained are those at the southern end of the Somerville to Wilmington contract, which are built into the I-93 bridge structure itself.
"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)

SidS1045

As of sometime yesterday or the day before, the across-the-road gantry at Exit 31 northbound is gone.  They have also constructed a new across-the-road gantry right behind the southbound VMS just ahead of the diamond lane, which holds one of the panels that will eventually show travel times.
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." - Edward R. Murrow

bob7374

Returning from a trip to Maine yesterday, I drove I-93 South to Boston from the I-95/128 interchange. It appears that, all the exit signage has been replaced from Exit 37 to Exit 28. From observing the shiny backs of all the overhead signs going northbound, it may be the same case there. There still may be additional new signage needed for the intersecting roadways, but the project appears almost complete. According to the MassDOT project list, this contract was 82% complete as of August 15. (The northern contract from MA 129 to NH was listed as 76% complete as of the end of July).

Given the same contractor working north of Boston is responsible for the I-93 sign replacement contract to the south as well, hopefully the pace will pick up between Randolph and Boston once the other projects are complete. I noticed nothing new driving I-93 south to Exit 12 that was not there in my previous trip in May (with the exception of some new Speed Limit 55 signs, which may be a separate contract since 2 of the signs were placed on the existing overhead sign supports that are to be replaced). Since the notice to proceed was given by MassDOT last September 27, only 4% of the work on this contract has been completed.

J N Winkler

Quote from: roadman on July 13, 2012, 10:40:24 AMIn those cases in reconstruction projects where the revised roadway configuration involves an "option" exit lane, the 2009 MUTCD calls for "arrow per lane" signs as a "shall" condition (see Sections 2E.20 and 2E.21) and does not permit the use of new diagrammatic panels.

Actually, that is not completely true.

§ 2E.21 only requires that arrow-per-lane signs be used as provided for in § 2E.20 on new or reconstructed facilities; the intent is therefore to prohibit the use of stippled-arrow diagrammatics on new or reconstructed facilities, and not to require the use of arrow-per-lane diagrammatics on new freeways where they would not otherwise be called for by § 2E.20.  § 2E.20 itself establishes a mandatory requirement for diagrammatics (i.e., arrow-per-lane with the option to use stippled-arrow instead on existing facilities) only for:

*  Multilane exits with an option lane where the through route exits; and

*  Splits with an option lane.

On all other exits with an option lane, the use of a diagrammatic guide sign is optional.  (At exits without option lanes, the use of diagrammatics is now prohibited.  This is a change from the 2003 and earlier editions of MUTCD, which allowed stippled-arrow diagrammatics in the absence of an option lane.)

Some state DOTs have chosen to adopt a more stringent and expensive policy that calls for provision of arrow-per-lane diagrammatics at all exits with option lanes.  That decision is theirs to make and to defend:  they cannot blame it on the MUTCD.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

bob7374

Quote from: bob7374 on August 25, 2012, 11:40:25 AM
Returning from a trip to Maine yesterday, I drove I-93 South to Boston from the I-95/128 interchange. It appears that, all the exit signage has been replaced from Exit 37 to Exit 28. From observing the shiny backs of all the overhead signs going northbound, it may be the same case there. There still may be additional new signage needed for the intersecting roadways, but the project appears almost complete. According to the MassDOT project list, this contract was 82% complete as of August 15. (The northern contract from MA 129 to NH was listed as 76% complete as of the end of July).

Given the same contractor working north of Boston is responsible for the I-93 sign replacement contract to the south as well, hopefully the pace will pick up between Randolph and Boston once the other projects are complete. I noticed nothing new driving I-93 south to Exit 12 that was not there in my previous trip in May (with the exception of some new Speed Limit 55 signs, which may be a separate contract since 2 of the signs were placed on the existing overhead sign supports that are to be replaced). Since the notice to proceed was given by MassDOT last September 27, only 4% of the work on this contract has been completed.
Some additional information. A couple sign changes noted southbound (besides Park St replacing Winchester Highlands) include Exit 32 that was MA 60 Medford Square is now MA 60 to MA 16 West (Exit 31 already being MA 16 East). Also the former MA 28 MA 38 exit (30) whose ramp accesses MA 38 (and thus should probably should have been MA 38 to MA 28), is now just MA 38.

roadman

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 25, 2012, 12:27:55 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 13, 2012, 10:40:24 AMIn those cases in reconstruction projects where the revised roadway configuration involves an "option" exit lane, the 2009 MUTCD calls for "arrow per lane" signs as a "shall" condition (see Sections 2E.20 and 2E.21) and does not permit the use of new diagrammatic panels.

Actually, that is not completely true.

§ 2E.21 only requires that arrow-per-lane signs be used as provided for in § 2E.20 on new or reconstructed facilities; the intent is therefore to prohibit the use of stippled-arrow diagrammatics on new or reconstructed facilities, and not to require the use of arrow-per-lane diagrammatics on new freeways where they would not otherwise be called for by § 2E.20.  § 2E.20 itself establishes a mandatory requirement for diagrammatics (i.e., arrow-per-lane with the option to use stippled-arrow instead on existing facilities) only for:

*  Multilane exits with an option lane where the through route exits; and

*  Splits with an option lane.

On all other exits with an option lane, the use of a diagrammatic guide sign is optional.  (At exits without option lanes, the use of diagrammatics is now prohibited.  This is a change from the 2003 and earlier editions of MUTCD, which allowed stippled-arrow diagrammatics in the absence of an option lane.)

Some state DOTs have chosen to adopt a more stringent and expensive policy that calls for provision of arrow-per-lane diagrammatics at all exits with option lanes.  That decision is theirs to make and to defend:  they cannot blame it on the MUTCD.

You are indeed correct in that what you stated is the current "letter of the law" regarding arrow-per-lane signs.  However, the commonly accepted interpertation of the 2009 MUTCD is that diagrammatic signs can be replaced "in-kind" during sign replacement projects (like MassDOT's current Randolph to Boston work i cited) or incidental to other "minor" work such as resurfacing.  If there's more substantial work involved, or if the sign replacement project includes structure replacement, FHWA generally wants to see the signs updated to "arrow per lane".

And I still mantain that no longer alllowing diagrammatic signs for those locations that don't have an option lane is a huge step backwards.
"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)

J N Winkler

Quote from: roadman on August 27, 2012, 08:53:10 PMYou are indeed correct in that what you stated is the current "letter of the law" regarding arrow-per-lane signs.  However, the commonly accepted interpertation of the 2009 MUTCD is that diagrammatic signs can be replaced "in-kind" during sign replacement projects (like MassDOT's current Randolph to Boston work I cited) or incidental to other "minor" work such as resurfacing.  If there's more substantial work involved, or if the sign replacement project includes structure replacement, FHWA generally wants to see the signs updated to "arrow per lane".

And I still mantain that no longer allowing diagrammatic signs for those locations that don't have an option lane is a huge step backwards.

I did not agree with that change either.  Part of the original purpose for diagrammatic signs was to advise motorists of unusual road geometry, which can exist whether there is an option lane or not.

It is not actually in the use of arrow-per-lane diagrammatics in contracts involving sign structure renewal that I think state DOT provision has been more luxurious than what the MUTCD requires.  Rather, it is in the provision of arrow-per-lane diagrammatics where the through route does not exit, as in this example (at an interchange which, if memory serves, did not previously have a diagrammatic at all):



This is a classic example of a situation where the MUTCD allows but does not require diagrammatics.  The cost of these signs has given rise to some grumbling in the traffic engineering community and I tend to feel these complaints would be eased by not using them in permissive cases such as this.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

roadman

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 28, 2012, 10:24:27 AM



Looking at this sign, I wonder if anybody has ever taken the first ramp thinking it will lead them to Exit 8A.
"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)

hbelkins

^^^^^^^

That's in Missouri, right? Shouldn't the control city for I-70 west be Kansas City?


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

J N Winkler

Quote from: roadman on August 28, 2012, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 28, 2012, 10:24:27 AM

Looking at this sign, I wonder if anybody has ever taken the first ramp thinking it will lead them to Exit 8A.

I don't know if anyone has made that particular mistake, but it is possible only because the designers tried to combine advance information for Exit 8A with the pull-through message.  MoDOT would have been better off if it had used one pull-through for Topeka, one advance guide sign for Exit 8A, and an exit direction sign for Exit 8B with yellow "EXIT ONLY" bottom panel and two downward-pointing arrows, per MUTCD 2009 criteria.

This is a classic example of a design that looks really, really good on the sign panel detail sheet but totally falls down when it is actually fabricated and installed on a gantry.

Quote from: hbelkins on August 29, 2012, 09:25:50 AMThat's in Missouri, right? Shouldn't the control city for I-70 west be Kansas City?

Yes, it is in Missouri.  No, Kansas City is not really an appropriate control-city choice at this location because it is already in Kansas City, so long-distance traffic is better able to orient itself if the control city flips over to Topeka.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

tdindy88

I know that is Kansas City in the background of that picture and I know that at that point, signing the next city for long-distane traffic is appropriate. But just looking at that picture, I wonder if someone would think, wow that's Topeka ahead...that city sure has grown up!

bob7374

Sept. 27 marks the first anniversary of the Notice to Proceed on the I-93 sign replacement project between Randolph and Boston. The project page still lists the contract as 4% complete. At this pace, the job will be done in 2036. Any reason to hope more progress will be made in the next year?

Meanwhile, the north of Boston projects are 84% (Somerville to Wilmington) and 77% (Wilmington to NH Line) complete as of the end of last week. I hope to get the chance to check out the progress in person soon.

southshore720

Quote from: bob7374 on September 27, 2012, 11:27:44 AM
Sept. 27 marks the first anniversary of the Notice to Proceed on the I-93 sign replacement project between Randolph and Boston. The project page still lists the contract as 4% complete. At this pace, the job will be done in 2036. Any reason to hope more progress will be made in the next year?
I just find it ironic that this stretch has some of the oldest existing signs in the MA road system and yet, didn't receive top billing in the sign replacement projects. To say that I've even seen 4% complete would be stretching it!

bob7374

I took a road trip Thursday (10/11) to check out the progress on the sign replacement projects on I-93 north of Boston. Photos and comments on what I saw are here: http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/10/i-93-signage-update.html Enjoy.

roadman

#46
Quote from: bob7374 on October 12, 2012, 04:06:46 PM
I took a road trip Thursday (10/11) to check out the progress on the sign replacement projects on I-93 north of Boston. Photos and comments on what I saw are here: http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/10/i-93-signage-update.html Enjoy.

Bob,

Another excellent blog entry regarding the current I-93 signing projects.   However, I remind you that the MassDOT policy regarding no 128 markers on BGSes for the I-95/128 overlap is one of the stipulations FHWA originally put on MassHighway - starting in the early 1990s - as a condition of receiving Federal matching funds for Interstate guide sign replacement projects.

One other thing I will note is that, although "Anderson RTC" is included on the new OH signs for Commerce Way (Exit 37C), the "next train in X minutes" information is only provided on I-93 southbound.  An existing portable CMS panel at the Concord Street interchange is presently being used for this.  However, I've heard talk that the CMS will eventually be replaced with a "hybrid" assembly (static sign with small CMS) similar in design to the signs currently in use on I-93 between Wilmington and Methuen for the weekday peak-hour breakdown lane travel.

And, unless the Massachusetts Legislature is successful in blocking the plan (BTW this is the real reason the I-95/Route 128 overlap south of Peabody still exists), reference-based exit numbering should eventually come to Massachusetts Interstates and freeways.

My spies tell me that the current timetable is to have the entire state converted, on a route-by route basis, within the next ten years.  As I understand it, the current plan is to do short routes (I-291, I-84, I-395, I-190, etc.) with relatively new signs first, then tackle the longer routes (I-95, I-495, I-93) once those signs are updated.  The work should consist mostly of overlays on existing exit tabs and E5-1a gore signs.
"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)

southshore720

Some new signage has popped up on the Exit 12 on-ramp to I-93 N from I-95 N for the Exit 2A-B approach (never there before), as well as on the Rte 24 NB on-ramp to I-93 S for the Exit 3 approach at the 1/2 mile marker (also never there before).  The add-a-lane project seems to add-a-sign along the way, which is fine by me!

StogieGuy7

Do any of you recall the mileage-based signing experiment that MassHighway did back in the 1970's on parts of I-91 in western MA?   They would sign the exits as "Exit 2/Mile 6" or something along the lines of that.  IIRC, those signs stayed up for a few years and were then replaced with standard sequential exit number references. 

Good to see that MA is finally going to get with the program. 

roadman

#49
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on October 17, 2012, 04:54:54 PM
Do any of you recall the mileage-based signing experiment that MassHighway did back in the 1970's on parts of I-91 in western MA?   They would sign the exits as "Exit 2/Mile 6" or something along the lines of that.  IIRC, those signs stayed up for a few years and were then replaced with standard sequential exit number references. 

Good to see that MA is finally going to get with the program. 

The dual exit tabs (i.e. EXIT 3 MILE 5) was a short-lived experiment based on a late 1960s FHWA human factors study (the title escapes me at the moment).  I don't recall any of these special tabs appearing on I-91 in Massachusetts (I think CT experimented with them on I-91 however), but they were indeed put in place on exit signs on I-93 between the lower deck in Somerville and I-95 (at the time, 128) in Woburn Somerville and Methuen in 1974 and 1975.  When the I-93 sign panels were replaced in 1991 and 1992, the dual tabs were removed and replaced with standard tabs.

Rhode Island used the dual tab system for some time on I-295.  Those signs lasted until a couple of years ago, when all panels and supports on I-295 were replaced.

Post updated on 10/18 to correct limits of I-93 dual exit tabs
"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.