News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Massachusetts

Started by hotdogPi, October 12, 2013, 04:50:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

cl94

Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2019, 12:28:43 AM
Well, that's dumb.

I'd say #MassDOTLogic, but I'm going to guess without looking at GIS that the segment in question is local maintenance. And frankly, although MassDOT does a ton of weird things, town maintenance in MA is a million times weirder. As long as there aren't any NJ 23 shields installed on those Jersey barriers...  :-D
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)


PurdueBill

So the state put the Keep Right sign in when they rebuilt route 114 (back in the 80s) and then the Town of Danvers didn't want to inconvenience people on MacArthur Blvd.  This is not a good idea.  I'd expect this kind of weird sign in Peabody, but I thought Danvers knew better.  :P

Hope no one is coming the other way. Bring on the lawsuits!

The "two way traffic both sides" thing should really not be in force on the section where it meets route 114.  Fortunately it's probably a low-enough traffic street and residents know the pattern.  Who's going to be able to parse the conflicting signs when also trying to watch for a break in the heavy traffic on 114?

I like (don't like) that exiting traffic the "wrong way" (using the left-hand roadway) doesn't even get a stop sign.  At least a stop sign facing that traffic would be a cue to entering traffic that there could be exiting traffic.  The island-mounted keep right sign just makes you think this is a normal dual carriageway with one-way roads. 

Magical Trevor

Quote from: PurdueBill on January 07, 2019, 10:41:26 AM
So the state put the Keep Right sign in when they rebuilt route 114 (back in the 80s) and then the Town of Danvers didn't want to inconvenience people on MacArthur Blvd.  This is not a good idea.  I'd expect this kind of weird sign in Peabody, but I thought Danvers knew better.  :P

Hope no one is coming the other way. Bring on the lawsuits!

The "two way traffic both sides" thing should really not be in force on the section where it meets route 114.  Fortunately it's probably a low-enough traffic street and residents know the pattern.  Who's going to be able to parse the conflicting signs when also trying to watch for a break in the heavy traffic on 114?

I like (don't like) that exiting traffic the "wrong way" (using the left-hand roadway) doesn't even get a stop sign.  At least a stop sign facing that traffic would be a cue to entering traffic that there could be exiting traffic.  The island-mounted keep right sign just makes you think this is a normal dual carriageway with one-way roads.

Aaand then you get parking like this.

JWF1959

Is anyone aware of new exit ramps being constructed on I95/128 in Waltham?  I have seen some small houses/business being torn down right around the Rt 117 overpass, and one business recently closed with the notice that their structure was being taken over due to construction of an "egress" (their words).

Haven't seen or heard of anything on the Mass DOT website.  Just curious as to when construction will start, and what the design will look like.  That area is a tremendous bottleneck as it is.  I can only imagine how bad it will get.

thx.

NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

AMLNet49

Sorry if I missed this, but what's up with the Caltrans style exit only messaging on the new I-95 signage?

Well sort of. As we know Caltrans uses patches for exit only scenarios.  They use simply "only"  for freeway-to-freeway interchanges and "exit only"  otherwise.

The new 95 signage around the mass pike uses Caltrans patches, except with the arrow embedded within the patch. Both freeway and nonfreeway exits alike use simply "only"  as opposed to "exit only" . It's a yellow patch with a black arrow and the word "only"  to the right, and this is universal along the add-a-lane portion of 128

kefkafloyd

The latest public meeting about exit 2A on the turnpike happened, and as expected, some people in the hilltowns are not enthused about building an exit inbetween 2 and 3 on the Masspike. The state has narrowed the choices down to Algerie Road, the Blandford maintenance facility or near the Blandford service plaza, and some of the cost estimates were revealed to be in the 30-35mil range.

https://www.masslive.com/boston/2019/02/state-estimates-295-million-to-378-million-cost-for-new-masspike-exit-between-lee-and-westfield.html

While I can understand opposition to the Otis proposal, either one of the Blandford ones needs to be done.

Rothman

Eesh.  None of those locations seem very helpful to me, but terrain is an issue east of the Plaza (I still wanted one at MA 8, but that would be too far west to help out with Exit 3 traffic).  Maybe the best would be at the Plaza?
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

kefkafloyd

My personal opinion is that the service plaza area is the best compromise. The service plaza and maintenance facility are only two miles apart, the distance/convenience is kind of a wash between the two.

The majority of the movements are likely to be getting on the turnpike westbound and exiting to Blandford eastbound, and for that the service plaza is the better choice.

empirestate

Quote from: kefkafloyd on February 13, 2019, 12:48:48 PM
The latest public meeting about exit 2A on the turnpike happened, and as expected, some people in the hilltowns are not enthused about building an exit inbetween 2 and 3 on the Masspike. The state has narrowed the choices down to Algerie Road, the Blandford maintenance facility or near the Blandford service plaza, and some of the cost estimates were revealed to be in the 30-35mil range.

https://www.masslive.com/boston/2019/02/state-estimates-295-million-to-378-million-cost-for-new-masspike-exit-between-lee-and-westfield.html

While I can understand opposition to the Otis proposal, either one of the Blandford ones needs to be done.

There's always got to be a quote from someone saying they don't see the need, doesn't there? :-D

Of course, whether one specific resident sees the need doesn't go one way or the other to show whether there actually is a need. And in public discourse, there is approximately a 0% chance that, when someone says they don't know something, they are inviting you to inform them of the thing they don't know. :spin:

hotdogPi

There's a 30 mile gap between Exit 2 and Exit 3.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

The Ghostbuster

Does anyone know why those who planned and constructed the Massachusetts Turnpike left such a long gap between the US 20 (Exit 2) and the US 202/SR-10 (Exit 3) interchanges? Was it the lack of development in-between those two interchanges?

kefkafloyd

#1087
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 13, 2019, 02:58:42 PM
Does anyone know why those who planned and constructed the Massachusetts Turnpike left such a long gap between the US 20 (Exit 2) and the US 202/SR-10 (Exit 3) interchanges? Was it the lack of development in-between those two interchanges?

The population density and movements at the time were not enough to warrant having staffed tollbooths.

Now, in the era of AET, in-filling some ramps will cost a lot less money over time.

Quote from: 1 on February 13, 2019, 02:50:06 PM
There's a 30 mile gap between Exit 2 and Exit 3.

To some that is a feature, not a bug.

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: kefkafloyd on February 13, 2019, 04:58:10 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 13, 2019, 02:58:42 PM
Does anyone know why those who planned and constructed the Massachusetts Turnpike left such a long gap between the US 20 (Exit 2) and the US 202/SR-10 (Exit 3) interchanges? Was it the lack of development in-between those two interchanges?

The population density and movements at the time were not enough to warrant having staffed tollbooths.

Now, in the era of AET, in-filling some ramps will cost a lot less money over time.

There was a proposed exit in there for the CT/MA 8 expressway, but environmentalists shot that down north of US 44.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

RobbieL2415

Quote from: kefkafloyd on February 13, 2019, 12:48:48 PM
The latest public meeting about exit 2A on the turnpike happened, and as expected, some people in the hilltowns are not enthused about building an exit inbetween 2 and 3 on the Masspike. The state has narrowed the choices down to Algerie Road, the Blandford maintenance facility or near the Blandford service plaza, and some of the cost estimates were revealed to be in the 30-35mil range.

https://www.masslive.com/boston/2019/02/state-estimates-295-million-to-378-million-cost-for-new-masspike-exit-between-lee-and-westfield.html

While I can understand opposition to the Otis proposal, either one of the Blandford ones needs to be done.
Do the lay people have their own solution?

froggie

^ Many of them probably see this new interchange as a "solution in search of a problem".

jp the roadgeek

Well, these 3 options seem to be designed more for local traffic for long distance traffic.  It does nothing to make things easier for traffic coming up from western CT on Route 8 bound for the Capital District.  My question is if MassDOT has ever considered making Exit 1 a full interchange now that the toll plaza is gone.  That would at least make a somewhat convenient option for traffic to and from the west that would otherwise be forced to use Exit B3 or Exit 2. 
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

kefkafloyd

#1092
There has been discussion about upgrading Exit 1 to full interchange, but no actual plans from MassDOT on public record. It would certainly be a far lower priority than filling in the 30 mile gap.

The goal of exit 2A is:

1. Get westbound turnpike traffic from Westfield and eastbound traffic to Westfield off of exit 3 and out of the center of Westfield. This is probably 70% of the push for this interchange.

2. Prevent excessive backtracking for towns in that 30 mile gap from either Lee or Westfield. This is related to #1, but a different set of traffic.

3. Allow easier access for emergency vehicles and to allow people to turn around without having to go all the way to Lee or Westfield.

Traffic from Route 8 to the capital district is probably very low on their list of priorities. An exit by the US 20/MA 8 junction would be too far west to be useful for the above three priorities, and since it's only 6 miles from exit 2 to that junction, probably not much of a time saver. I can't think of other exit placements that would take significant time off of such a trip. Exit 2, 20 to 8 is most likely the fastest, most efficient route. Without a US 7 or MA 8 expressway, time savings would be minimal.

RobbieL2415

Quote from: kefkafloyd on February 14, 2019, 02:11:38 PM
There has been discussion about upgrading Exit 1 to full interchange, but no actual plans from MassDOT on public record. It would certainly be a far lower priority than filling in the 30 mile gap.

The goal of exit 2A is:

1. Get westbound turnpike traffic from Westfield and eastbound traffic to Westfield off of exit 3 and out of the center of Westfield. This is probably 70% of the push for this interchange.

2. Prevent excessive backtracking for towns in that 30 mile gap from either Lee or Westfield. This is related to #1, but a different set of traffic.

3. Allow easier access for emergency vehicles and to allow people to turn around without having to go all the way to Lee or Westfield.

Traffic from Route 8 to the capital district is probably very low on their list of priorities. An exit by the US 20/MA 8 junction would be too far west to be useful for the above three priorities, and since it's only 6 miles from exit 2 to that junction, probably not much of a time saver. I can't think of other exit placements that would take significant time off of such a trip. Exit 2, 20 to 8 is most likely the fastest, most efficient route. Without a US 7 or MA 8 expressway, time savings would be minimal.
Or Albany-bound passenger car traffic can go west a wee bit and give the Taconic SP some love.

bob7374

#1094
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 14, 2019, 03:37:13 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on February 14, 2019, 02:11:38 PM
There has been discussion about upgrading Exit 1 to full interchange, but no actual plans from MassDOT on public record. It would certainly be a far lower priority than filling in the 30 mile gap.

The goal of exit 2A is:

1. Get westbound turnpike traffic from Westfield and eastbound traffic to Westfield off of exit 3 and out of the center of Westfield. This is probably 70% of the push for this interchange.

2. Prevent excessive backtracking for towns in that 30 mile gap from either Lee or Westfield. This is related to #1, but a different set of traffic.

3. Allow easier access for emergency vehicles and to allow people to turn around without having to go all the way to Lee or Westfield.

Traffic from Route 8 to the capital district is probably very low on their list of priorities. An exit by the US 20/MA 8 junction would be too far west to be useful for the above three priorities, and since it's only 6 miles from exit 2 to that junction, probably not much of a time saver. I can't think of other exit placements that would take significant time off of such a trip. Exit 2, 20 to 8 is most likely the fastest, most efficient route. Without a US 7 or MA 8 expressway, time savings would be minimal.
Or Albany-bound passenger car traffic can go west a wee bit and give the Taconic SP some love.
Hopefully, when and if they decide to place the new interchange, it will not be known as Exit 2A but will be given a mileage based number. The new interchange can then be the excuse MassDOT could use to at least convert the Pike to mileage based exit numbers.

Ben114

Quote from: bob7374 on February 14, 2019, 06:23:16 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 14, 2019, 03:37:13 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on February 14, 2019, 02:11:38 PM
There has been discussion about upgrading Exit 1 to full interchange, but no actual plans from MassDOT on public record. It would certainly be a far lower priority than filling in the 30 mile gap.

The goal of exit 2A is:

1. Get westbound turnpike traffic from Westfield and eastbound traffic to Westfield off of exit 3 and out of the center of Westfield. This is probably 70% of the push for this interchange.

2. Prevent excessive backtracking for towns in that 30 mile gap from either Lee or Westfield. This is related to #1, but a different set of traffic.

3. Allow easier access for emergency vehicles and to allow people to turn around without having to go all the way to Lee or Westfield.

Traffic from Route 8 to the capital district is probably very low on their list of priorities. An exit by the US 20/MA 8 junction would be too far west to be useful for the above three priorities, and since it's only 6 miles from exit 2 to that junction, probably not much of a time saver. I can't think of other exit placements that would take significant time off of such a trip. Exit 2, 20 to 8 is most likely the fastest, most efficient route. Without a US 7 or MA 8 expressway, time savings would be minimal.
Or Albany-bound passenger car traffic can go west a wee bit and give the Taconic SP some love.
Hopefully, when and if they decide to place the new interchange, it will not be known as Exit 2A but will be given a  mileage base number. The new interchange being the excuse for MassDOT would use to at least convert the Pike to mileage based exit numbers.
prays that this would start the exit renumbering about 3 years overdue

KEVIN_224

I may have posted this one before...but how often do you see a 5.5 mile advance sign like this? Took this I-91 gantry picture outside of the Basketball Hall Of Fame in Springfield.


roadman

Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 05, 2019, 07:01:09 PM
Sorry if I missed this, but what’s up with the Caltrans style exit only messaging on the new I-95 signage?

Well sort of. As we know Caltrans uses patches for exit only scenarios.  They use simply “only” for freeway-to-freeway interchanges and “exit only” otherwise.

The new 95 signage around the mass pike uses Caltrans patches, except with the arrow embedded within the patch. Both freeway and nonfreeway exits alike use simply “only” as opposed to “exit only”. It’s a yellow patch with a black arrow and the word “only” to the right, and this is universal along the add-a-lane portion of 128

"ONLY" was used on secondary road entrances to I-95 instead of "Exit Only" because the ramps on these non-controlled access roadways are considered to be entrances, not exits.  "ONLY" was also used on certain mainline signs (i.e. to Kendrick St C/D road northbound).  Due to the lane geometry, and given the width of the signs, it was felt that a full "Exit Only" banner would potentially confuse drivers in the right through lane (despite the arrow).
"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)

kefkafloyd

#1098
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 13, 2019, 06:23:05 AM
I may have posted this one before...but how often do you see a 5.5 mile advance sign like this? Took this I-91 gantry picture outside of the Basketball Hall Of Fame in Springfield.



The reason why is because it's telling traffic headed to the Masspike westbound to stay on I-91 North and use Exit 14 to get on the westbound pike since it's the shortest overall route. Eastbound traffic should use I-291 to get on the turnpike instead. If there wasn't a split routing, they wouldn't have posted the advance.

You could get on I-291 and enter the turnpike westbound there, but it's a longer, less efficient route.

I'm sure such things are noted in other areas where you have a split-type routing, but it's not very frequent.

KEVIN_224

I feel bad for those people who need to use Turnpike exit 5 from this point! 😞



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.