Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[5foot14]

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet on another thread but, for some reason, most if not all of the yellow LEFT banners on the Exit tab signs approaching both the Canton (I-95/93/MA 128/US 1) & Peabody (I-95/MA 128) have been removed... including the recent installs.

What gives?  Scroll down

Seems kind of weird, especially since the last sign at the Peabody I-95/MA 128 split now includes a yellow bottom EXIT ONLY banner with black down-arrows as well.  A bit overkill IMHO.

The Left Tabs are present with the new signs that went up... I mentioned it on the general Massachusetts Thread. This pic was from last week.

I didn't really notice if the left tabs were removed previously, but with the sign replacement project going on on I-95 all 4 exit signs currently have the left tab ...

SM-A515U

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/E5Y49Q1b33ERsN8u5
Are these button copy shields now gone?

[Ted$8roadFan]

I believe they have been, but I don't have photos.

[The Ghostbuster]

That segment of Interstate 95 has narrow shoulders. Too narrow for an Interstate corridor.

[roadman65]

That segment of Interstate 95 has narrow shoulders. Too narrow for an Interstate corridor.

The old grandfather clause protection.

[bob7374]

https://goo.gl/maps/E5Y49Q1b33ERsN8u5
Are these button copy shields now gone?

Yes, they were replaced last August:

[PHLBOS]

That segment of Interstate 95 has narrow shoulders. Too narrow for an Interstate corridor.

The old grandfather clause protection.

Actually, that particular stretch, from US 1 to the 128 split was redone circa 1988 when I-95/MA 128 interchange was built with the main corridor being widened & re-aligned in the process.

[SidS1045]

Yes, Virginia (er, MassDOT), quality control is a thing.

The sign has been fixed.

[kramie13]

Any reason why this sign wasn't replaced during the recent sign replacement project between Canton and the RI border?
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.042928,-71.2434482,3a,90y,202.75h,101.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snwOBUwMqLXIk33TBPoUbWw!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

All of the other new signs have new exit tabs with the recently-changed (now mileage-based) exit numbers fabricated onto them.  But this sign still has a "tacked on" exit number and it really sticks out like a sore thumb.  The number is very close to the "exit" text and it's not aligned.

[machias]

Any reason why this sign wasn't replaced during the recent sign replacement project between Canton and the RI border?
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.042928,-71.2434482,3a,90y,202.75h,101.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snwOBUwMqLXIk33TBPoUbWw!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

All of the other new signs have new exit tabs with the recently-changed (now mileage-based) exit numbers fabricated onto them.  But this sign still has a "tacked on" exit number and it really sticks out like a sore thumb.  The number is very close to the "exit" text and it's not aligned.

Aside from the overlay being a bit misaligned, the sign appears to be in great shape, meets current requirements, and is fully functional for motorists. Being skipped over in a sign rehab project isn't surprising, it was probably a budget decision.

[SignBridge]

Any reason why this sign wasn't replaced during the recent sign replacement project between Canton and the RI border?
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.042928,-71.2434482,3a,90y,202.75h,101.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snwOBUwMqLXIk33TBPoUbWw!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

All of the other new signs have new exit tabs with the recently-changed (now mileage-based) exit numbers fabricated onto them.  But this sign still has a "tacked on" exit number and it really sticks out like a sore thumb.  The number is very close to the "exit" text and it's not aligned.

Aside from the overlay being a bit misaligned, the sign appears to be in great shape, meets current requirements, and is fully functional for motorists. Being skipped over in a sign rehab project isn't surprising, it was probably a budget decision.

Right, we wouldn't want to spend any extra money to make the signs consistent.

[machias]

Any reason why this sign wasn't replaced during the recent sign replacement project between Canton and the RI border?
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.042928,-71.2434482,3a,90y,202.75h,101.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snwOBUwMqLXIk33TBPoUbWw!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

All of the other new signs have new exit tabs with the recently-changed (now mileage-based) exit numbers fabricated onto them.  But this sign still has a "tacked on" exit number and it really sticks out like a sore thumb.  The number is very close to the "exit" text and it's not aligned.

Aside from the overlay being a bit misaligned, the sign appears to be in great shape, meets current requirements, and is fully functional for motorists. Being skipped over in a sign rehab project isn't surprising, it was probably a budget decision.

Right, we wouldn't want to spend any extra money to make the signs consistent.

In today's world of everything being politicized, functional is much more important than consistent. It'd be nice if the signs were consistent, but many state DOTs are resorting to spot replacements instead of bulk replacements like the did in the latter half of the 20th century.  The sign in question doesn't have the "integrated" exit tab like MassHighway used to do, so it's new enough to match the others. The overlay could have been much better (personally I would have included a new "A" in the overlay) but it's readable, functional, and serves its purpose.

[bob7374]

Checked out progress on the completed (according to MassDOT's Project Info website) I-95 Reading to Lynnfield sign replacement project. Only 2 more signs have gone up since June, leaving at least 3 more to be placed. The new ones are both advance signs for the MA 129 exit headed south. The 1 mile advance seems to missing something:


I also spotted one contractor tag before Exit 57 marking the spot of a future overhead sign still with no foundation placed near it.

[SignBridge]

Checked out progress on the completed (according to MassDOT's Project Info website) I-95 Reading to Lynnfield sign replacement project. Only 2 more signs have gone up since June, leaving at least 3 more to be placed. The new ones are both advance signs for the MA 129 exit headed south. The 1 mile advance seems to missing something:


I also spotted one contractor tag before Exit 57 marking the spot of a future overhead sign still with no foundation placed near it.

Am I seeing this photo correctly? The 1 Mile advance sign for the next exit is placed before the exit direction sign for the previous exit?  That's definitely not normal practice. The correct and normal way would have been to hang them side by side on a full size overhead gantry. Good old Massachusetts........

[PurdueBill]

Checked out progress on the completed (according to MassDOT's Project Info website) I-95 Reading to Lynnfield sign replacement project. Only 2 more signs have gone up since June, leaving at least 3 more to be placed. The new ones are both advance signs for the MA 129 exit headed south. The 1 mile advance seems to missing something:


I also spotted one contractor tag before Exit 57 marking the spot of a future overhead sign still with no foundation placed near it.

Am I seeing this photo correctly? The 1 Mile advance sign for the next exit is placed before the exit direction sign for the previous exit?  That's definitely not normal practice. The correct and normal way would have been to hang them side by side on a full size overhead gantry. Good old Massachusetts........

They've been doing this for a while now.  A number of years back (in 2015), they replaced the full-width gantry with an advance for US 1 (then Exit 50) and the at-exit sign for route 62 (Exit 49) with separate cantilevers, one further back from route 62 showing only US 1 in 1 mile, and one at the exit just for 62.  They are taking the MUTCD sign spreading advice a little too far almost. 
One sentence in it says:

The Exit Direction sign should be the only sign used in the vicinity of the gore (other than the Exit Gore sign). It should be located overhead near the theoretical gore and generally on an overhead sign support structure.

Possibly from this, they decided to not have a sign for the next exit near the gore of the first exit.
However, the next sentence in the MUTCD sign spreading advice says:

The Advance Guide sign to indicate the next interchange exit should be placed near the crossroad location. If the crossroad goes over the mainline, the Advance Guide sign should be placed on the overcrossing structure or on a separate structure immediately in front of the overcrossing structure.

Having the sign for the following exit coming right before the at-exit sign for the first isn't really in the spirit of this. 

[Alps]

Checked out progress on the completed (according to MassDOT's Project Info website) I-95 Reading to Lynnfield sign replacement project. Only 2 more signs have gone up since June, leaving at least 3 more to be placed. The new ones are both advance signs for the MA 129 exit headed south. The 1 mile advance seems to missing something:


I also spotted one contractor tag before Exit 57 marking the spot of a future overhead sign still with no foundation placed near it.

Am I seeing this photo correctly? The 1 Mile advance sign for the next exit is placed before the exit direction sign for the previous exit?  That's definitely not normal practice. The correct and normal way would have been to hang them side by side on a full size overhead gantry. Good old Massachusetts........

This happens. In NJ you get the 2-mile advance for Exit 41 (I-80) before the advance for Exit 40 (CR 511) on I-287.

[SignBridge]

Well in the Massachusetts case they've done the MUTCD sign-spreading concept in reverse. I'm sure that's not what was intended in the Manual.

And in the New Jersey I-287 case as I suggested earlier the two signs should be hung together on a full-width gantry showing the distances to the next two exits. This an especially common practice in Chicago on the Dan Ryan Expwy, I-90-94.

[PurdueBill]

Checked out progress on the completed (according to MassDOT's Project Info website) I-95 Reading to Lynnfield sign replacement project. Only 2 more signs have gone up since June, leaving at least 3 more to be placed. The new ones are both advance signs for the MA 129 exit headed south. The 1 mile advance seems to missing something:


I also spotted one contractor tag before Exit 57 marking the spot of a future overhead sign still with no foundation placed near it.

Am I seeing this photo correctly? The 1 Mile advance sign for the next exit is placed before the exit direction sign for the previous exit?  That's definitely not normal practice. The correct and normal way would have been to hang them side by side on a full size overhead gantry. Good old Massachusetts........

They've been doing this for a while now.  A number of years back (in 2015), they replaced the full-width gantry with an advance for US 1 (then Exit 50) and the at-exit sign for route 62 (Exit 49) with separate cantilevers, one further back from route 62 showing only US 1 in 1 mile, and one at the exit just for 62.  They are taking the MUTCD sign spreading advice a little too far almost. 
One sentence in it says:
The Exit Direction sign should be the only sign used in the vicinity of the gore (other than the Exit Gore sign). It should be located overhead near the theoretical gore and generally on an overhead sign support structure.

Well in the Massachusetts case they've done the MUTCD sign-spreading concept in reverse. I'm sure that's not what was intended in the Manual.

And in the New Jersey I-287 case as I suggested earlier the two signs should be hung together on a full-width gantry showing the distances to the next two exits. This an especially common practice in Chicago on the Dan Ryan Expwy, I-90-94.

Indeed they seem to have it backwards, putting the sign for the next exit before the first one instead of after it.  In Ohio, I can't even think of any spreading examples; they almost always do what is common in most places with a sign for the next exit on the same sign bridge as the at-exit sign for the one leaving. 

[bob7374]

Checked out progress on the completed (according to MassDOT's Project Info website) I-95 Reading to Lynnfield sign replacement project. Only 2 more signs have gone up since June, leaving at least 3 more to be placed. The new ones are both advance signs for the MA 129 exit headed south. The 1 mile advance seems to missing something:


I also spotted one contractor tag before Exit 57 marking the spot of a future overhead sign still with no foundation placed near it.

Am I seeing this photo correctly? The 1 Mile advance sign for the next exit is placed before the exit direction sign for the previous exit?  That's definitely not normal practice. The correct and normal way would have been to hang them side by side on a full size overhead gantry. Good old Massachusetts........

They've been doing this for a while now.  A number of years back (in 2015), they replaced the full-width gantry with an advance for US 1 (then Exit 50) and the at-exit sign for route 62 (Exit 49) with separate cantilevers, one further back from route 62 showing only US 1 in 1 mile, and one at the exit just for 62.  They are taking the MUTCD sign spreading advice a little too far almost. 
One sentence in it says:
The Exit Direction sign should be the only sign used in the vicinity of the gore (other than the Exit Gore sign). It should be located overhead near the theoretical gore and generally on an overhead sign support structure.

Well in the Massachusetts case they've done the MUTCD sign-spreading concept in reverse. I'm sure that's not what was intended in the Manual.

And in the New Jersey I-287 case as I suggested earlier the two signs should be hung together on a full-width gantry showing the distances to the next two exits. This an especially common practice in Chicago on the Dan Ryan Expwy, I-90-94.

Indeed they seem to have it backwards, putting the sign for the next exit before the first one instead of after it.  In Ohio, I can't even think of any spreading examples; they almost always do what is common in most places with a sign for the next exit on the same sign bridge as the at-exit sign for the one leaving. 

This seems to be standard MassDOT practice now, it's repeated prior to the MA 129 exit:


This is what the overhead signage looked like before the new 1 Mile advance went up for MA 129:

[SignBridge]

Well I for one, think what Mass DOT is doing here is a bad practice. It counter-intuitive, illogical and potentially confusing to drivers. I couldn't say for sure whether it's MUTCD compliant or not, but I'd sure like to see an FHWA opinion on this issue.

Also, just a point of info: The sign-spreading concept in the Manual is only a recommendation, not a standard. All the instructions say should, not shall. So even if Massachusetts is mis-applying the concept, I'm not sure it matters since sign-spreading is not required.