Interstate 93 Signing Work

[bob7374]

In a continuation of the contractor's pattern, three new signs have been installed this week for Exit 5A/B MA 28. Here's the 1/2 mile advance heading southbound:

They also placed a 1 mile advance southbound and a 3/4 mile advance northbound between the on- and off-ramps from MA 24. It appears that all the cantilever overheads have now been placed northbound between Exits 4 and 7 while one still remains to be placed (the 1 mile, left-side, advance for MA 24) southbound.

In other interesting sign news, they've also put up left-hand exit tabs on the preexisting I-95 diagrammatic overheads in Canton. Here's the 1/2 mile advance signage:

The 2-mile advance exit tab has been updated to indicated Exits 1A and B, and the gore sign at the I-95 South off-ramp has been updated as well. I've included photos of all the new signs (or exit tabs) I took today on the I-93 signage page (the I-95 exit tab pics are near the bottom):
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html

[mass_citizen]

i am getting a 404 error

[bob7374]

i am getting a 404 error

Link has been fixed.

[mass_citizen]

only works if i copy and paste. for some reason when i click it directly it takes me to an address ending "93signs.html" instead of "93photos"

[NE2]

Because:

[url http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93signs.html]http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html[/url]

[roadman]

In other interesting sign news, they've also put up left-hand exit tabs on the preexisting I-95 diagrammatic overheads in Canton. Here's the 1/2 mile advance signage:

The 2-mile advance exit tab has been updated to indicated Exits 1A and B, and the gore sign at the I-95 South off-ramp has been updated as well. I've included photos of all the new signs (or exit tabs) I took today on the I-93 signage page (the I-95 exit tab pics are near the bottom):
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html

Great to hear!  Given that the lane configuration depicted on the sign has been in place for over a year now, it's about time.

[PHLBOS]

In other interesting sign news, they've also put up left-hand exit tabs on the preexisting I-95 diagrammatic overheads in Canton. Here's the 1/2 mile advance signage:

Granted, the I-shields appear slightly blurred but it looks like the 9s on both those I-shields are tilted/reclined.  Looking at photos of the other BGS'; this 1/2 mile advance BGS appears to be the only ones (for this interchange anyway) that have this abnormality.

[bob7374]

Granted, the I-shields appear slightly blurred but it looks like the 9s on both those I-shields are tilted/reclined.  Looking at photos of the other BGS'; this 1/2 mile advance BGS appears to be the only ones (for this interchange anyway) that have this abnormality.

Here's a view of the 2-mile advance sign to compare the I-95 shields above with:


Also, I drove the length of the SE Expressway both north and south on Christmas Day. Nothing new to report sign project-wise. No new foundations for what I could see, no support posts have been placed on any existing foundations, and no other paddle/guide signs have been replaced along intersecting roadways north of Neponset Circle.

[bob7374]

I had a chance to check out parts of the SE Expressway today as I had an appointment in Cambridge and took the Red Line, which parallels I-93 north of Neponset, from North Quincy. The only new signage I can report seeing are new I-93/US 1 Mass. Guide or paddle signs have been placed along the roads leading to the Columbia Rd interchange. These replaced MA 3 only paddle signs dating from the early 1970s that were at the entrances to the rotary a block to the east and viewable from the subway. I hope to get up there by car soon to take some photos. That would leave only 2 other paddle signs that need replacing, if they haven't already, one at the SB entrance ramp from Freeport St/Morrissey Blvd (Exit 14) and a NB sign at Southampton Street (Exit 16).

I drove home via the southern end of the Expressway and can report nothing new with the exception of a new cantilever overhead for the HOV lane just north of the Braintree split having been placed on a support post that was put up a couple months ago. Nothing new report at all since the end of the year between Exits 7 and 4 in both directions on I-93/US 1.

[southshore720]

I still can't believe the contractor was allowed to milk this signing project for 3 years...I guess that's what you get when you accept the lowest bidder!   

[bob7374]

I still can't believe the contractor was allowed to milk this signing project for 3 years...I guess that's what you get when you accept the lowest bidder!   

I noticed today that MassDOT's project listing has pushed back the completion of the project to this summer from mid-April. Given its listed as still only 30% complete, that's probably still too optimistic. Especially, as Roadman has pointed out, the same firm had the winning bid for an another signage project on I-495.

[spooky]

I still can't believe the contractor was allowed to milk this signing project for 3 years...I guess that's what you get when you accept the lowest bidder!   

I noticed today that MassDOT's project listing has pushed back the completion of the project to this summer from mid-April. Given its listed as still only 30% complete, that's probably still too optimistic. Especially, as Roadman has pointed out, the same firm had the winning bid for an another signage project on I-495.

I believe there were also recent posts about the same contractor having the winning bid on the Lowell Connector and I-290 sign projects.

[machias]

Granted, the I-shields appear slightly blurred but it looks like the 9s on both those I-shields are tilted/reclined.  Looking at photos of the other BGS'; this 1/2 mile advance BGS appears to be the only ones (for this interchange anyway) that have this abnormality.

Here's a view of the 2-mile advance sign to compare the I-95 shields above with:


Also, I drove the length of the SE Expressway both north and south on Christmas Day. Nothing new to report sign project-wise. No new foundations for what I could see, no support posts have been placed on any existing foundations, and no other paddle/guide signs have been replaced along intersecting roadways north of Neponset Circle.

The signs look very "professional", for lack of a better word. Like they're made to last. And from what I can tell, they're nearly flawless in design - the only thing I would question is the lack of a space between the "1" and "B" in the exit tab - I thought the latest MUTCD required something like 'EXIT 1 B-A', which is much like it was a long time ago.

[roadman]

Granted, the I-shields appear slightly blurred but it looks like the 9s on both those I-shields are tilted/reclined.  Looking at photos of the other BGS'; this 1/2 mile advance BGS appears to be the only ones (for this interchange anyway) that have this abnormality.

Here's a view of the 2-mile advance sign to compare the I-95 shields above with:


Also, I drove the length of the SE Expressway both north and south on Christmas Day. Nothing new to report sign project-wise. No new foundations for what I could see, no support posts have been placed on any existing foundations, and no other paddle/guide signs have been replaced along intersecting roadways north of Neponset Circle.

The signs look very "professional", for lack of a better word. Like they're made to last. And from what I can tell, they're nearly flawless in design - the only thing I would question is the lack of a space between the "1" and "B" in the exit tab - I thought the latest MUTCD required something like 'EXIT 1 B-A', which is much like it was a long time ago.

These signs were installed under one of the I-95/I-93 "Add-A-Lane" contracts (Randolph to Westwood Roadway I project IIRC), which was designed according to the 2003 MUTCD.  Providing a discernable space between number and suffix on exit numbers didn't become a requirement until the 2009 MUTCD.

I will also note that these signs were fabricated and installed by a different contractor than the one doing the Randolph to Boston project.

[PHLBOS]

Providing a discernable space between number and suffix on exit numbers didn't become a requirement until the 2009 MUTCD.

I have to ask this (not to you personally, Roadman); was there really a problem with people mistaking Exit XB for Exit X8 (X denoting a generic interchange number, I'm obviously not referring to the Canton I-93/95 interchange example) that triggered the change (in the MUTCD standard)?  IMHO, that would be the only logical reasoning for mandating such.

With regards to the I-93/95 exit BGS' in Canton: not to pick on you Roadman but given the fact that the LEFT EXIT 1B tabs were just recently added and the fact that the 1 exit numeral for the I-95 South exit was previously erected with the entire BGS'; shouldn't the A-B retro-fits been done in accordance to the 2009 MUTCD standards?  When were the design documents for that signing contract issued?

I realize that such would've likely triggered a change notice (or a field change) but given that the exit number is a single-digit, numberwise; one could've simply shifted the existing 1s slightly to the left or placed a whole new placard with the new spacing over the exit panels without a change in overall signwidth.

Note: I personally don't care either way regarding how suffixed exit numbers are signed spacingwise; I'm just asking the above out of curiousity.

[roadman]

As usual, PHLBOS raises some interesting questions here.

Regarding the "discernible space" between an exit number and suffix letter now required by the 2009 MUTCD, this sounds like more FHWA human factors specialists deciding national standards without the extensive field research and "real world" test installations that used to be required before anything made it to being an MUTCD requirement.  Sure, this one's minor - and can easily be adopted in states like Massachusetts that have adopted minimum exit tab widths based on various number-letter combinations.  However, my gripe is that, similar to APL signs, this type of "instant standard" represents a disturbing trend within FHWA and the NCUTCD where an increasing number of things have gone from "good idea" to "national mandate" at the blink of an eye. (and yes - I'll get down off my soapbox now).

Now, back to the subject at hand (I-93 signing).  IIRC, the final sign panel design for the Randolph to Westwood segment of the I-95/I-93 "add-a-lane" project was completed sometime in mid to late 2008.  Note that MassDOT did not officially adopt the 2009 MUTCD until sometime in late 2010.  By this time. construction of the Randolph to Westwood project was already underway.

I cannot figure any logical reason for not posting the "LEFT" and "1A, 1B" tabs on the new I-95 diagrammatic signs until over a year after the signs were initially installed, especially as those tabs were included in the original panel designs (perhaps the "Keep 128 Forever" forces - who refuse to officially acknowledge that the 128 designation has ended in Canton since 1989 - had something to do with it).  The fact that the signing under the project was installed by a subcontractor on a larger construction project, as opposed to the typical MassDOT sign replacement contract where the sign and support installer is the principal contractor, may explain why the necessary tabs were missing for so long.

[J N Winkler]

However, my gripe is that, similar to APL signs, this type of "instant standard" represents a disturbing trend within FHWA and the NCUTCD where an increasing number of things have gone from "good idea" to "national mandate" at the blink of an eye.

I am not so sure the NCUTCD can be included in the blame, except as an (unwitting?) enabler.  In the run-up to MUTCD 2009, the NCUTCD was urging a form of passive resistance, where instead of making comments on specific items in the rulemaking notice, draft MUTCD text, and draft MUTCD figures, state DOT engineers and other professional commenters would instead complain about the excessively wide scope of the changes and the limited amount of time available for review and comment.

I thought this was a dumb strategy because my own experience of the earlier MUTCD rulemaking (leading to the 2003 edition) was that FHWA paid careful attention to specific comments while ignoring others that were broad in scope, including "meta" ones dealing with the structure of the rulemaking process.  But a surprising number of state DOT commenters did as the NCUTCD suggested, and later found themselves having to cohabit with objectionable provisions which they had not addressed specifically in their comments.

[spooky]

I noticed over the last couple days that the contractor has replaced the SB advance overhead diagrammatic signs for Exit 4.

One notable change is that "TO 95" is added to the mainline legend. The old sign had "South 93 1" in a vertical stack, as can be seen in the distance in Bob's picture here:

The new sign has:

SOUTH
93  1
TO 95

[southshore720]

The new sign has:

SOUTH
93  1
TO 95

That's consistent with how it's labeled at the MA 24 split.  I'm assuming that "Fall River" is now the control city for 24 South on I-93 South instead of "Brockton"?

[spooky]

The new sign has:

SOUTH
93  1
TO 95

That's consistent with how it's labeled at the MA 24 split.  I'm assuming that "Fall River" is now the control city for 24 South on I-93 South instead of "Brockton"?

you are correct in your assumption.

[bob7374]

The new sign has:

SOUTH
93  1
TO 95

That's consistent with how it's labeled at the MA 24 split.  I'm assuming that "Fall River" is now the control city for 24 South on I-93 South instead of "Brockton"?

you are correct in your assumption.

As is it consistent with the signage plans. I am currently leaning towards doing a quick road trip out there on Super Bowl Sunday morning. I'll try to get photos of the new sign, or hopefully, signs to post on my I-93 photo site.

[spooky]

The new sign has:

SOUTH
93  1
TO 95

That's consistent with how it's labeled at the MA 24 split.  I'm assuming that "Fall River" is now the control city for 24 South on I-93 South instead of "Brockton"?

you are correct in your assumption.

As is it consistent with the signage plans. I am currently leaning towards doing a quick road trip out there on Super Bowl Sunday morning. I'll try to get photos of the new sign, or hopefully, signs to post on my I-93 photo site.

The two signs showed up on consecutive days, so maybe something else is going up tonight.

[southshore720]

I spotted the new HOV zipper lane entrance overhead sign this morning on I-93 N after the Rte 3 merge.  Why did they use a green background?  Isn't the standard to use black font on white background for all HOV signage (with the diamond emblem)?

[roadman]

I spotted the new HOV zipper lane entrance overhead sign this morning on I-93 N after the Rte 3 merge.  Why did they use a green background?  Isn't the standard to use black font on white background for all HOV signage (with the diamond emblem)?

Per the 2009 MUTCD, advance signs for HOV lane entrances on freeways are considered to be guide signs, so they are now white on green.  However, HOV related signs (or banners on signs) for freeways indicating HOV hours of operation or other regulations/restrictions are considered regulatory, and are still black on white.

These new standards were promulgated in large part due to the Atlanta bus crash in 2007, where the driver mistook a left exit ramp for a continuation of the HOV lane, went up the ramp, and couldn't stop before running off the end of the bridge (the ramp ended in a T intersection).

[bob7374]

Per the 2009 MUTCD, advance signs for HOV lane entrances on freeways are considered to be guide signs, so they are now white on green.  However, HOV related signs (or banners on signs) for freeways indicating HOV hours of operation or other regulations/restrictions are considered regulatory, and are still black on white.

These new standards were promulgated in large part due to the Atlanta bus crash in 2007, where the driver mistook a left exit ramp for a continuation of the HOV lane, went up the ramp, and couldn't stop before running off the end of the bridge (the ramp ended in a T intersection).

Here's a photo of the sign in question:


Here's a photo of the newly replaced MA 24 1 Mile Advance sign:


There is also a new overhead 1/2 mile advance sign. They also have replaced the overheads at the MA 28 interchange both south and northbound as well. This leaves only the remaining MA 24 signage at the ramp southbound, and MA 28 North signage northbound (along with a right-hand support for the combination VMS/ MA 28 exit overhead) to complete the work for all the exits south of the Split. They still need to put up all the new signs northbound for Exit 7 itself and put up new reassurance markers to complete the work from MA 24 to MA 3. No new work on the SE Expressway portion that I could see when I drove it this morning.

You can view all the photos I took this morning, including new paddle signs along Columbia Rd on my I-93 photo page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html