News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Massachusetts

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

Previous topic - Next topic

PHLBOS

Quote from: bob7374 on October 15, 2013, 10:23:48 AM
Quote from: roadman on October 15, 2013, 10:13:56 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2013, 08:32:27 AM
When I was up in the Boston area this past weekend, I saw something I'd never thought I'd see; a Dunkin Donuts that was closed for good... the one along MA 1A in Revere just north of Bell Circle (MA 16/60 jct.).

The reason for US 3 changing over to MA 3 at its current location in Cambridge is due to; once upon a time, US 1 ran through that area pre-1971.  Although it is allowed, MassDPW at the time didn't want any part of US 3 situated east of US 1.  Why the US 3 designation wasn't extended to Boston when US 1 replaced MA C1 along Storrow Drive is anyone's guess.
Under their current policies, it is highly unlikely that AASHTO would approve the re-designation of MA 3 as part of US 3.  IMHO, the more logical approach would be to discontinue US 3 entirely, then re-designate US 3 between Cambridge and Tyngsborough as part of MA 3, and re-designate US 3 from Nashua north as NH 3.  This is also consistent with curretn AASHTO policy, which encourages adjacent states to create same-numbered state routes in lieu of using US designations.
Or alternatively, discontinue MA 3 and, as many have suggested, designate current MA 3 from Braintree to Bourne as an interstate, I-93 or an I-93 spur. I know, that is probably just as likely as extending US 3 to the Cape, but if MassDOT can look into redesignating MA 24 as an interstate, why not MA 3?
It's worth noting that many newer BGS/LGS' along the Southeast Expressway now only sport I-93 & US 1 shields but no MA 3 shields.

The thing is, if MA 3 is dropped, MA 3A from Neponset Circle south would have to be redesignated as well (MA 203 (?)).
GPS does NOT equal GOD


agentsteel53

Quote from: roadman on October 15, 2013, 10:13:56 AMThis is also consistent with curretn AASHTO policy, which encourages adjacent states to create same-numbered state routes in lieu of using US designations.

why is this preferred to a US designation?  3 seems to be a specific instance of "does not fit the grid" but I'd be okay with, generally, more US routes that cross state lines even if they are short.  as an example, ME-NH-VT 9 could be US-104.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

bob7374

Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2013, 11:21:55 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on October 15, 2013, 10:23:48 AM
Quote from: roadman on October 15, 2013, 10:13:56 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2013, 08:32:27 AM
When I was up in the Boston area this past weekend, I saw something I'd never thought I'd see; a Dunkin Donuts that was closed for good... the one along MA 1A in Revere just north of Bell Circle (MA 16/60 jct.).

The reason for US 3 changing over to MA 3 at its current location in Cambridge is due to; once upon a time, US 1 ran through that area pre-1971.  Although it is allowed, MassDPW at the time didn't want any part of US 3 situated east of US 1.  Why the US 3 designation wasn't extended to Boston when US 1 replaced MA C1 along Storrow Drive is anyone's guess.
Under their current policies, it is highly unlikely that AASHTO would approve the re-designation of MA 3 as part of US 3.  IMHO, the more logical approach would be to discontinue US 3 entirely, then re-designate US 3 between Cambridge and Tyngsborough as part of MA 3, and re-designate US 3 from Nashua north as NH 3.  This is also consistent with curretn AASHTO policy, which encourages adjacent states to create same-numbered state routes in lieu of using US designations.
Or alternatively, discontinue MA 3 and, as many have suggested, designate current MA 3 from Braintree to Bourne as an interstate, I-93 or an I-93 spur. I know, that is probably just as likely as extending US 3 to the Cape, but if MassDOT can look into redesignating MA 24 as an interstate, why not MA 3?
It's worth noting that many newer BGS/LGS' along the Southeast Expressway now only sport I-93 & US 1 shields but no MA 3 shields.

The thing is, if MA 3 is dropped, MA 3A from Neponset Circle south would have to be redesignated as well (MA 203 (?)).
Yes, there are complications. My solution would be simply to extend MA 53 both north and south to cover 3A on the original MA 3 route and change the number of 3A from Quincy to Kingston to 53A or another available two-digit number.

mass_citizen

Quote from: bob7374 on October 15, 2013, 10:23:48 AM
Or alternatively, discontinue MA 3 and, as many have suggested, designate current MA 3 from Braintree to Bourne as an interstate, I-93 or an I-93 spur. I know, that is probably just as likely as extending US 3 to the Cape, but if MassDOT can look into redesignating MA 24 as an interstate, why not MA 3?

Why just Bourne to Braintree? With its recent reconstruction, US 3 from Burlington to Nashua (and beyond?) more than meets freeway standards and could also be designated as a 95 spur (or 93 spur if you wanted to extend it along Everett Tpk to Manchester).

Urban Prairie Schooner

Quote from: 1 on October 12, 2013, 04:50:12 PM
Why are there so many Dunkin Donuts?

Because America New England runs on Dunkin. :sombrero:

NE2

Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2013, 11:21:55 AM
The thing is, if MA 3 is dropped, MA 3A from Neponset Circle south would have to be redesignated as well (MA 203 (?)).
Yeah, because 1A was changed in Dedham when US 1 was moved onto I-93. Oh wait.
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".

PHLBOS

Quote from: NE2 on October 15, 2013, 03:05:38 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2013, 11:21:55 AM
The thing is, if MA 3 is dropped, MA 3A from Neponset Circle south would have to be redesignated as well (MA 203 (?)).
Yeah, because 1A was changed in Dedham when US 1 was moved onto I-93. Oh wait.
Apples & oranges comparison.  The southern end of the 1989 US 1 re-route is located less than a mile away from the northern end of that stretch of 1A and one could argue that MA 1A Northbound secretly runs along the southbound Boston-Providence Highway to the US 1/I-95/MA 128 interchange.

My earlier comment was in response to the earlier-suggested idea of eliminating MA 3 not re-routing it which would orphan roughly 53 miles of MA 3A.

Big difference.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

mass_citizen

why not redesignate 3A as MA 3 in that scenario? instead of 203

PHLBOS

#33
Quote from: mass_citizen on October 15, 2013, 03:27:15 PM
why not redesignate 3A as MA 3 in that scenario? instead of 203
While that certainly is one option; I believe the intent was to eliminate the duplicate state route number (from its US counterpart) all together. 

My suggestion for extending MA 203 along the old 3A corridor, if MA 3 was indeed eliminated, was only because the eastern end of 203 ends at the northern end of 3A where it crosses the Southeast Expressway. 

Granted, 203's western terminus has been orphaned since the 1989 US 1 re-route; but that's another story.

It's worth noting that prior to 1971, MA 203 was originally MA 3.  Back then, the Southeast Expressway had no route number north of Neponset Circle/Granite Ave.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

southshore720

Quote from: 1 on October 12, 2013, 04:50:12 PM
10. Can anyone make the Lowell Connector much safer?
It's safe if you (and everyone else) follows the posted speed limit.  In fact, you don't have much of a choice as the odds are very high that there will be a MA State Trooper clocking your speed.  This stretch is a cash cow for speeding fines.  Trust me, I've been pulled over here going 60 MPH in a 55 MPH zone.  They're not fooling around.  I always cruise control to the speed limit on this stretch to stay on the safe side.

Admittedly, the abrupt ending at Exit 5C is a huge design flaw.  However, it was built in 1962 in a very different climate.

roadman

#35
The reputation of the Lowell Connector as a very dangerous road is largely an urban legend that was fueled by a couple of bad wrong-way crashes that happened in the mid-1990s.  If you look at the statistics, the Lowell Connector actually has one of the lowest crash rates of major Massachusetts highways.

And the abrupt ending of the northbound (inbound) highway at Gorham Street (Exit 5C) is not due to a design flaw, as the highway was originally planned to continue north of there and rejoin US 3 on the north side of Lowell.  Rather, it's due to poor political policies of the early 1970s that resulted in the highway extension being cancelled.
"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)

agentsteel53

I wonder if there is a structural way of lowering the operating speed, as opposed to the cash-cow method.  something that would make the road appear more dangerous, without actually making it that way.

the low-speed techniques (lane narrowing, chicanes, etc) would be dangerous at 50-60mph, so that's not the way to go.  maybe implied narrowing through the use of Botts dots inside the lane?  basically, have an 18 inch "barrier" between lanes.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

roadman

Google "speed reduction stripes".
"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)

spooky

Quote from: roadman on October 18, 2013, 02:32:05 PM
Google "speed reduction stripes".
The MUTCD calls them "speed reduction markings". I've also seen them called optical speed bars. Regardless of what you call them, I feel like what is essentially an optical illusion would be ineffective for regular users.

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

southshore720

What happened to the initiative to replace the button-copy Interstate shields on BGS panels that will not be replaced in the near future?  Does anyone know if this ran out of steam or if MA DOT plans to continue it?

mass_citizen

Quote from: southshore720 on November 24, 2013, 12:02:36 AM
What happened to the initiative to replace the button-copy Interstate shields on BGS panels that will not be replaced in the near future?  Does anyone know if this ran out of steam or if MA DOT plans to continue it?

not sure but what was the reasoning behind that initiative? the mobilization costs compared to the actual work performed would be very high. seems like they might as well just leave them be. was it some kind of safety concern regarding the shields falling off or just reflectivity concerns?

roadman

#41
Quote from: southshore720 on November 24, 2013, 12:02:36 AM
What happened to the initiative to replace the button-copy Interstate shields on BGS panels that will not be replaced in the near future?  Does anyone know if this ran out of steam or if MA DOT plans to continue it?
According to my information, the replacement of button-copy Interstate shields on OH signs was strictly a one-time effort along I-93 between Somerville and Methuen that was apparently initiated by the MassDOT District office in Arlington, and was not part of a larger statewide project to renew shields on all OH signs.

What's interesting about that work is that, as the blue background and the button copy numerals on the shields were still perfectly fine, drivers could still ascertain they were Interstate route shields and the route number.  It was only the red "INTERSTATE" banners that had severely faded.

In other words, the work was apparently done principally for aesthetic reasons instead of out of safety or other necessity.  My spies tell me that the shield replacement was done through the District-wide sign maintenance contract (as opposed to a separate construction contract), and that the District did not solicit input from the Boston HQ office beforehand.

Of course, the whole project is now a moot point, as the signs in question on I-93 have since been replaced with new panels with new shields meeting current MassDOT specifications (demountable HIP numerals).
"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)

bob7374

Quote from: roadman on November 24, 2013, 07:40:00 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 24, 2013, 12:02:36 AM
What happened to the initiative to replace the button-copy Interstate shields on BGS panels that will not be replaced in the near future?  Does anyone know if this ran out of steam or if MA DOT plans to continue it?
According to my information, the replacement of button-copy Interstate shields on OH signs was strictly a one-time effort along I-93 between Somerville and Methuen that was apparently initiated by the MassDOT District office in Arlington, and was not part of a larger statewide project to renew shields on all OH signs.

What's interesting about that work is that, as the blue background and the button copy numerals on the shields were still perfectly fine, drivers could still ascertain they were Interstate route shields and the route number.  It was only the red "INTERSTATE" banners that had severely faded.

In other words, the work was apparently done principally for aesthetic reasons instead of out of safety or other necessity.  My spies tell me that the shield replacement was done through the District-wide sign maintenance contract (as opposed to a separate construction contract), and that the District did not solicit input from the Boston HQ office beforehand.

Of course, the whole project is now a moot point, as the signs in question on I-93 have since been replaced with new panels with new shields meeting current MassDOT specifications (demountable HIP numerals).
Thus based on the signing plans for the current I-93 sign replacement project, the only button copy I-93 shields likely to remain past next year are the MA 37 BGS's for the Exit 6 interchange. The plans indicating these will not be taken down.

roadman

Quote from: bob7374 on November 24, 2013, 11:13:44 PM
Thus based on the signing plans for the current I-93 sign replacement project, the only button copy I-93 shields likely to remain past next year are the MA 37 BGS's for the Exit 6 interchange. The plans indicating these will not be taken down.

Let us not forget the button copy I-93 shields on the signs on Route 24 north at I-93 in Randolph, on I-95 north at I-93 in Canton, and on I-495 north and south at I-93 in Andover.  The signs on I-495 will be replaced sometime late next year as part of the Lowell to Haverhill project just advertised for bids, but the signs in Randolph and Canton will remain until at least 2017 or 2018.
"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

When traveling up I-95 the other night, I noticed that the reflectivity on all of the button copy shields in the Attleboro-Canton stretch was quite poor, which is what prompted me to ask the question.  The button-copy shields were a stupid idea, IMHO.

Speaking of the Attleboro-Canton stretch, are they ever going to replace the missing BGS for Exit 1 (US 1/Broadway)?  Also, isn't the sign bridge for R.I. Exits 30-29 under MA DOT's jurisdiction?  Why hasn't that been replaced?  Those signs are very old!

PHLBOS

#45
Quote from: southshore720 on November 25, 2013, 03:10:12 PMAlso, isn't the sign bridge for R.I. Exits 30-29 under MA DOT's jurisdiction?
Yes, it is under MassDOT's jurisdiction.

Quote from: southshore720 on November 25, 2013, 03:10:12 PMWhy hasn't that been replaced?  Those signs are very old!
Those BGS' & gantry are from 1977.  At the time, when MassHighway was replacing signs along I-95 circa 2001; they were likely only interested in replacing ones that involve interchanges that are actually located in Massachusetts. 

This isn't the first case of a state snubbing an adjacent state in terms of highway signage replacements/updates.

For another example (I realize this one's not located in New England, let alone Massachusetts) of such snubbing was when DelDOT finished revamping its stretch of I-95 in Wilmington many years ago.  The PennDOT owned & spec'd diagramatrc BGS' for the I-95/495 split still displays the City/Port of Wilmington mask over the original Port of Wilmington destination for I-495 South.

http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/pa/i-95/s.html
GPS does NOT equal GOD

roadman

Note that the signs and support structure on I-95 SB for Exits 30 and 29 don't even appear on the project plans for the 2001 Attleboro to Canton sign replacement project (MassHighway Project # 601166).  However, the northbound signs and structure at this location were replaced under that same 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)

PHLBOS

Quote from: roadman on November 25, 2013, 04:38:33 PM
Note that the signs and support structure on I-95 SB for Exits 30 and 29 don't even appear on the project plans for the 2001 Attleboro to Canton sign replacement project (MassHighway Project # 601166).  However, the northbound signs and structure at this location were replaced under that same project.
That just more than proves my earlier point regarding the BGS for the RI interchanges being snubbed.  That northbound gantry has a BGS referencing an interchange located in MA (Exits 2A-B) whereas the old southbound gantry does not.

Which is why the northbound gantry & sign(s) were targeted for replacement back on that fore-mentioned MassHighway contract.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Beeper1

RI replaced all their signs in this area a couple years ago and didn't touch that SB overhead either, so it looks like it's stuck in limbo.  Good news is that those classic signs will likely be around for a long time to come, bad news is that that is the only SB BGS for exit 30. There are none as you approach from further into MA. 

I wondered about the missing exit 1 BGS as well.  I don't think one was ever even installed there, leaving just the 3/4 mile advance back on the Exit 2A sign bridge.

southshore720

I seem to recall that there used to be a sign bridge for the Exit 1 ramp which also contained an advance sign for Exit 30.  I'm guessing it was destroyed/knocked down and then completely ignored.  If you're unfamiliar to the area and not paying close attention to Exit 1, you will completely miss the exit.

Besides the ancient signage just prior to Exit 30, the only other mention of Roosevelt Ave. is currently is on a "Upcoming Pawtucket Exits" secondary sign prior to Exits 2A-B...with advance notice of 3 1/4 miles!  You would think RI would have erected a single overhead sign for Exit 30 (as they are trending toward in lieu of sign bridges) closer to the off-ramp...but RI isn't quick on the draw when it comes to signage.  The sign replacement projects in the 2000s were an outright miracle!

I do appreciate PHLBOS' point about bordering state snubbing.  Can't all the DOTs just get along?  Haha...



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.