Massachusetts

[Alps]

So the district 4 retroreflective sign upgrade project has been progressing along part of my usual route to work (MA 133 from Boxford to Rowley) with new reassurance and JCT shields. I noticed one peculiarity between the posted plans regarding this paddle guide sign in Boxford...

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7120537,-71.0542001,3a,45y,52.99h,92.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssgjXkSNWAhV7d5GB3xXtKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

According to the Sign Action Plan (page 83) the sign panel was supposed to be replaced with a newer mixed case style sign since the route number was completely missing, (page 24 of the Project Sign Summary and Details file), however it seems they fixed the sign by replacing the missing route number only and leaving the existing panel. Is that something the contractors are allowed to do? Perhaps a compromise/cost saving measure? Just curious since I was expecting to see a nice new mixed case sign (which I am personally a fan of the new style signs)

Heres a link to the CommBuys page with the project files
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-17-1030-0H100-0H002-00000009788&external=true&parentUrl=bid

As long as the existing sign is within its service life (adequate reflectivity) you can patch it.

[roadman]

So the district 4 retroreflective sign upgrade project has been progressing along part of my usual route to work (MA 133 from Boxford to Rowley) with new reassurance and JCT shields. I noticed one peculiarity between the posted plans regarding this paddle guide sign in Boxford...

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7120537,-71.0542001,3a,45y,52.99h,92.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssgjXkSNWAhV7d5GB3xXtKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

According to the Sign Action Plan (page 83) the sign panel was supposed to be replaced with a newer mixed case style sign since the route number was completely missing, (page 24 of the Project Sign Summary and Details file), however it seems they fixed the sign by replacing the missing route number only and leaving the existing panel. Is that something the contractors are allowed to do? Perhaps a compromise/cost saving measure? Just curious since I was expecting to see a nice new mixed case sign (which I am personally a fan of the new style signs)

Heres a link to the CommBuys page with the project files
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-17-1030-0H100-0H002-00000009788&external=true&parentUrl=bid

As long as the existing sign is within its service life (adequate reflectivity) you can patch it.

One other possibility is that the sign was replaced by the District through Accident Recovery after the contract plans were finalized - MassDOT Accident Recovery rules require that, whenever possible, the damaged/destroyed sign (or any highway fixture) be replaced EXACTLY in kind.  Typically, use of mixed-case legend (8"/6" for "paddle" signs) as opposed to all upper-case legend (6"), requires a larger sign panel.  This would violate the rules, especially if the larger sign panel also requires a new support post (steel-beam post instead of tubular post).

[PHLBOS]

Heres a link to the CommBuys page with the project files
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-17-1030-0H100-0H002-00000009788&external=true&parentUrl=bid

The MA 145 D6 sign detail on page 28 of the PDF (sheet 10 of 18 on the detail sheet) lists the legend as:

145 NORTH
Everett
Boston

Shouldn't the first "line" of that panel that read 145 SOUTH ?

Page 34 of the pdf (sheet 16 of 18 on the detail sheet) lists a MA 113 D6 panel legend as:

WEST  TO
113   128

Just where does 113 interchange with 128?  Was this panel intended to be for & read 133?  Such would make more sense.

Page 36 of the pdf (sheet 18 of 18 on the detail sheet) regarding the Revere Beach Point of Pines exit ramp BGS (for MA 1A just south of the General Edwards Bridge).  IMHO, the Revere Beach text should be center-justified with respect to the lower Point Of Pines text.

[hotdogPi]

WEST  TO
113   128

Just where does 113 interchange with 128?  Was this panel intended to be for & read 133?  Such would make more sense.

NH 128, maybe?

[PHLBOS]

WEST  TO
113   128

Just where does 113 interchange with 128?  Was this panel intended to be for & read 133?  Such would make more sense.

NH 128, maybe?

MA 113 doesn't cross the state line and Mammoth Rd. continues northward in MA for several miles before it becomes NH 128 at the border.

[hotdogPi]

How old is this "stop line" sign? (North Andover, MA)

IMG_0340 by <name removed>, on Flickr

[PHLBOS]

How old is this "stop line" sign? (North Andover, MA)

IMG_0340 by <name removed>, on Flickr

My guess would be 80s-vintage or late 70s at the earliest.

[5foot14]

So the district 4 retroreflective sign upgrade project has been progressing along part of my usual route to work (MA 133 from Boxford to Rowley) with new reassurance and JCT shields. I noticed one peculiarity between the posted plans regarding this paddle guide sign in Boxford...

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7120537,-71.0542001,3a,45y,52.99h,92.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssgjXkSNWAhV7d5GB3xXtKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

According to the Sign Action Plan (page 83) the sign panel was supposed to be replaced with a newer mixed case style sign since the route number was completely missing, (page 24 of the Project Sign Summary and Details file), however it seems they fixed the sign by replacing the missing route number only and leaving the existing panel. Is that something the contractors are allowed to do? Perhaps a compromise/cost saving measure? Just curious since I was expecting to see a nice new mixed case sign (which I am personally a fan of the new style signs)

Heres a link to the CommBuys page with the project files
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-17-1030-0H100-0H002-00000009788&external=true&parentUrl=bid

I have an update, they replaced this sign last week with a mixed case sign. Seems pointless that they patched it only a month or 2 before replacing it.

SM-G900P

[PHLBOS]

I have an update, they replaced this sign last week with a mixed case sign. Seems pointless that they patched it only a month or 2 before replacing it.

Is it me or should the mix-cased letters have a tad more spacing between them?  The lettering looks a bit crowded.

[roadman]

I have an update, they replaced this sign last week with a mixed case sign. Seems pointless that they patched it only a month or 2 before replacing it.

Is it me or should the mix-cased letters have a tad more spacing between them?  The lettering looks a bit crowded.

I noted that as well.  Looks like about 65% to 70% inter-letter spacing to me.

[SectorZ]

I have an update, they replaced this sign last week with a mixed case sign. Seems pointless that they patched it only a month or 2 before replacing it.

Is it me or should the mix-cased letters have a tad more spacing between them?  The lettering looks a bit crowded.

I noted that as well.  Looks like about 65% to 70% inter-letter spacing to me.

The appears harder to read than the sign it replaced, which wasn't very legible in the first place. This sign is exhibit A of why they should get rid of these signs and do what NH does, as in the sign is sized based on the length of the location name rather than one size fits all.

[5foot14]

The letters definitely are crowded and it is a bit difficult to read at speed... Seems unnecessary though, there seems to be plenty of space on the panel. Also, are the capital letters supposed to be larger than the lower case letters? Seems the G and R are a bit oversized.

SM-G900P

[PHLBOS]

The appears harder to read than the sign it replaced, which wasn't very legible in the first place.

Unless I'm missing something, you have to be joking about the previous sign not being legible.  Per the earlier-posted July 2012 GSV; the old sign was perfectly legible.

The letters definitely are crowded and it is a bit difficult to read at speed... Seems unnecessary though, there seems to be plenty of space on the panel. Also, are the capital letters supposed to be larger than the lower case letters? Seems the G and R are a bit oversized.

I was thinking the same thing.

[roadman]

The appears harder to read than the sign it replaced, which wasn't very legible in the first place. This sign is exhibit A of why they should get rid of these signs and do what NH does, as in the sign is sized based on the length of the location name rather than one size fits all.

For secondary road LGS signs, MassDOT is doing just that - transitioning away from the "one size fits all" approach for D6 and D8 "paddle" sign panels.  Eventually, most new LGS signs will be based on the typical MA-D1-7 layouts shown in the 2017 MassDOT Sign Book.  These signs will be fabricated from extruded aluminum and mounted on single steel beam posts.  Of course, there will still be instances (think local streetscape and/or historic district areas) where the traditional "paddle" signs will continue to be used in lieu of the updated standard, but eventually "paddle signs will be the exception instead of the rule for LGS signs in Massachusetts.

[odditude]

The letters definitely are crowded and it is a bit difficult to read at speed... Seems unnecessary though, there seems to be plenty of space on the panel. Also, are the capital letters supposed to be larger than the lower case letters? Seems the G and R are a bit oversized.

I was thinking the same thing.

once again, this is someone misinterpreting "lowercase letters are supposed to have an x-height equal to 75% of uppercase letters" as "the font size for lowercase letters should be 75% of the font size for uppercase letters".

[PHLBOS]

The letters definitely are crowded and it is a bit difficult to read at speed... Seems unnecessary though, there seems to be plenty of space on the panel. Also, are the capital letters supposed to be larger than the lower case letters? Seems the G and R are a bit oversized.

I was thinking the same thing.

once again, this is someone misinterpreting "lowercase letters are supposed to have an x-height equal to 75% of uppercase letters" as "the font size for lowercase letters should be 75% of the font size for uppercase letters".

The lower-case text looks to be about half the height of the upper-case letters in the above-example.

[odditude]

The letters definitely are crowded and it is a bit difficult to read at speed... Seems unnecessary though, there seems to be plenty of space on the panel. Also, are the capital letters supposed to be larger than the lower case letters? Seems the G and R are a bit oversized.

I was thinking the same thing.

once again, this is someone misinterpreting "lowercase letters are supposed to have an x-height equal to 75% of uppercase letters" as "the font size for lowercase letters should be 75% of the font size for uppercase letters".

The lower-case text looks to be about half the height of the upper-case letters in the above-example.

my point exactly - 56.25% is 75% of 75%.

[bob7374]

I have posted the latest I-95/128 Add-A-Lane Project photos on my I-95 in MA Photo Gallery, most of the temporary shoulder and median barriers have been removed, replaced by orange barrels, such as here approaching MA 9 NB:


Rest of the photos: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane

[jp the roadgeek]

The letters definitely are crowded and it is a bit difficult to read at speed... Seems unnecessary though, there seems to be plenty of space on the panel. Also, are the capital letters supposed to be larger than the lower case letters? Seems the G and R are a bit oversized.

I was thinking the same thing.

once again, this is someone misinterpreting "lowercase letters are supposed to have an x-height equal to 75% of uppercase letters" as "the font size for lowercase letters should be 75% of the font size for uppercase letters".

The lower-case text looks to be about half the height of the upper-case letters in the above-example.

my point exactly - 56.25% is 75% of 75%.

These similar font signs have been appearing on I-84 in my area of CT:

[5foot14]

Does anyone know what information is encoded on the bottom of pretty much all BGS? The first 2 parts are panel dimensions and I assume either fabrication or installation date. Just curious what the rest (F14 F2 M3 M3 A A) of it means. This particular sign is on the Ward Hill Connector WB (towards I-495) approaching the Shelley Rd/Ward Hill Business Park intersection in Haverhill.

SM-G900P

[roadman]

Does anyone know what information is encoded on the bottom of pretty much all BGS? The first 2 parts are panel dimensions and I assume either fabrication or installation date. Just curious what the rest (F14 F2 M3 M3 A A) of it means. This particular sign is on the Ward Hill Connector WB (towards I-495) approaching the Shelley Rd/Ward Hill Business Park intersection in Haverhill.

SM-G900P

Inventory code, which MassDOT has been putting on all their BGS and LGS panels since the early 1990s.  For the example in your photo - 13 feet wide by 5.5 feet high  Sign Fabricated August 1995  Fabricated by Lyle Signs (F14)  Installed by Visi-Flash (Boston area sign company) (F2)  Fabricated from 3M Sheeting (M3), Type III High Intensity (A).  As there is only one sign (i.e., no exit tab) and no banner, not sure why the M3 and the A are repeated on this specific panel.

Given the recent improvements in MassDOT's asset management system, it is likely that the placement of this code on signs will become unnecessary and will eventually be phased out.

BTW, this sign is to be replaced within this year - it's included in the Methuen to Amesbury I-495 sign project presently under construction

[bob7374]

MassDOT will announce today (5/15) the winning bidder for Project 607917 that will replace signage on a portion of I-290 north of the Mass Pike and at the northern end of I-395 and southern part of I-190. An addendum recently placed on the bid site had new sign plans for the Mass Pike exit. Here's the plan heading north at the end of I-395 and the beginning of I-290, notice the wide exit tab for a future 2-digit mileage based number:


Also a 'To' has been added before the I-90 and Mass Pike logo shields. This makes sense since you have to travel on MA 12 South to get to the I-90 ramp. However, here's the plan for the sign at the ramp heading south:


Notice a 'To' has also been added here. In this case, though the ramp to MA 12 comes first, you don't have to get off to access the Pike, as this Google Maps Street View image indicates:
https://goo.gl/maps/V25vHLSMKcr

Is this another case, as seen with the new signage for Exit 9 on the Pike, that the same text is to be used for signs in both directions even though the public would be better served with different signing each way?

[Beeper1]

Are they not indicating MA-12 north on the Exit 7 signage WB?

[SectorZ]

Are they not indicating MA-12 north on the Exit 7 signage WB?

The bid sheet shows both exits of 20 as "west" for the A and B exits, so who knows how accurate they've got it.  Exit 8 still shows as "12 south", so was hoping it was just 12 since you can easily and legally go north from there as well.

[PHLBOS]

Exit 8 still shows as "12 south", so was hoping it was just 12 since you can easily and legally go north from there as well.

While technically true & correct; the likely reason why Exit 8 was signed for 12 South (even though one can use such for 12 North) and Exit 7 was signed for 12 North (along with I-90, there's a ramp for 12 North prior to where the toll booths once stood) was to avoid dumping excess traffic onto southbound Oxford St.

Granted, when the toll booths existed, many who were familiar with area were already using Exit 8 for 12 northbound as a means of avoiding the toll booth-related backups that existed then.