Massachusetts milepost exit numbering conversion contract

[kalvado]

Probably not anytime in the foreseeable future.  MassDOT bungled the PR rollout (or lack thereof), compounded by first making it public regarding changing the numbers on US-6 on Cape Cod, where people freak out about any tiny change of anything.
 

<.<

>.>

Half wonder if the "bungling" was intentionally done to kill of a project where the willingness to follow through on it dissipated.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Is it just me, or there is not that much pressure for renumbering anyway? I mean 10 year mandate assumes that priorities of administration may change, and things can slide from back burner into a dark closet...

[bob7374]

Probably not anytime in the foreseeable future.  MassDOT bungled the PR rollout (or lack thereof), compounded by first making it public regarding changing the numbers on US-6 on Cape Cod, where people freak out about any tiny change of anything.
 

<.<

>.>

Half wonder if the "bungling" was intentionally done to kill of a project where the willingness to follow through on it dissipated.

(personal opinion emphasized)

Is it just me, or there is not that much pressure for renumbering anyway? I mean 10 year mandate assumes that priorities of administration may change, and things can slide from back burner into a dark closet...

IMO this is all about the change in  administrations and highway administrators. The exit number conversion project was initiated by the previous regime. It is obvious that the new leadership is not enthusiastic about the project. Whether they've intentionally gone out of there way to have it postponed, either temporarily or permanently, is a good question. The continuing lack of openness about the project however, under a Transportation Secretary that keeps touting transparency and customer service as the new mantras of MassDOT, is not helping the agency convince cynical taxpayers that the agency is working in their best interest with this or other proposed projects.

[roadman]

Except that a simple expedient of changing highway signs shouldn't be treated the same as running a new six lane highway through virgin forest, which is what is happening with the exit re-numbering project.  Inform people you're making changes - good idea.  Require multiple public hearings and soliciting public input in the name of "transparency" and "customer service" before you make these changes - bad idea.  Pennsylvania and Maine did wholesale exit number conversion without such nonsense, and their businesses are still thriving after the fact.

Of course, the biggest failure in this whole thing is the fact that the Feds dropped the compliance date for converting the numbers from the Final Rule for the 2009 MUTCD.  Hard to argue you need to make changes to comply with Federal requirements when you can't point to a hard deadline.

[PHLBOS]

Require multiple public hearings and soliciting public input in the name of "transparency" and "customer service" before you make these changes - bad idea.

If memory serves, the outcry that occurred in the Cape over US 6 wasn't just about interchange numbers, but it was also about overhead signs replacing ground-mounted ones.  The locals preferred replacing the older, worn-out (reflectivity-wise) ground-mounted signs with newer ground-mounted ones (i.e. match-in-kind).  Personally, I see their point that using overheads along the 2-lane stretch being overkill but I disagree with them about not using overheads along the 4-lane divided stretch.

IMHO, had either the interchange number conversion already taken place or done in a later meeting independent of the sign replacement contract; there still would've been shouting & protests at the sign replacement meetings.

Although, it's worth noting that the Mid-Cape Highway has gone through some sign style changes in the past (right-justified exit tabs, mix-case lettering, larger panel sizes & letter heights, paler, green backgrounds, and reflective sheeting).  Were there protests regarding such changes back then?

[mariethefoxy]

I can agree with the concerns on the cape in regards to the overhead signs, MA put overheads on the super 2 section of Route 2 and they seemed really overkill for what amounted to a rural highway where neighboring states would have just ground mounted them.

[roadman]

I can agree with the concerns on the cape in regards to the overhead signs, MA put overheads on the super 2 section of Route 2 and they seemed really overkill for what amounted to a rural highway where neighboring states would have just ground mounted them.

Would you rather MassDOT install ground-mounted signs, and then have to go through an environmental review process in 6 or 7 years so they can clear away trees and brush that are preventing drivers from seeing those signs?  Or they could put up overhead signs and avoid that issue entirely in the future.  And, with respect, I don't buy the 'destroying the rural character' argument as a reason to not provide adequate signing.  The super 2 sections of US 6 and Route 2 are FREEWAYS, and not some back roads that only see 20 cars a day.

[roadman]

Although, it's worth noting that the Mid-Cape Highway has gone through some sign style changes in the past (right-justified exit tabs, mix-case lettering, larger panel sizes & letter heights, paler, green backgrounds, and reflective sheeting).  Were there protests regarding such changes back then?

All of the sign style changes you mention occurred with the 1995-1996 sign replacement projects on US 6 between Sandwich and Eastham.  As I recall, there may have been some token opposition to the changes, but there was no serious public backlash of the level shown for the original design of the current project.

[vdeane]

I can agree with the concerns on the cape in regards to the overhead signs, MA put overheads on the super 2 section of Route 2 and they seemed really overkill for what amounted to a rural highway where neighboring states would have just ground mounted them.

Would you rather MassDOT install ground-mounted signs, and then have to go through an environmental review process in 6 or 7 years so they can clear away trees and brush that are preventing drivers from seeing those signs?  Or they could put up overhead signs and avoid that issue entirely in the future.  And, with respect, I don't buy the 'destroying the rural character' argument as a reason to not provide adequate signing.  The super 2 sections of US 6 and Route 2 are FREEWAYS, and not some back roads that only see 20 cars a day.

MA must have some very strict environmental laws if there's anything onerous for a maintenance tree trimming.

[roadman]

I can agree with the concerns on the cape in regards to the overhead signs, MA put overheads on the super 2 section of Route 2 and they seemed really overkill for what amounted to a rural highway where neighboring states would have just ground mounted them.

Would you rather MassDOT install ground-mounted signs, and then have to go through an environmental review process in 6 or 7 years so they can clear away trees and brush that are preventing drivers from seeing those signs?  Or they could put up overhead signs and avoid that issue entirely in the future.  And, with respect, I don't buy the 'destroying the rural character' argument as a reason to not provide adequate signing.  The super 2 sections of US 6 and Route 2 are FREEWAYS, and not some back roads that only see 20 cars a day.

MA must have some very strict environmental laws if there's anything onerous for a maintenance tree trimming.

In Massachusetts, most tree trimming along state highways must be vetted through the local conservation commissions, who have final say on whether trees can be cut or not.  This is partially due to the fact that MassDOT contracts out nearly all maintenance activities, including tree trimming to improve visibility of ground-mounted signs.  The issue of tree trimming/removal is a particularly sensitive one, especially in areas like Cape Cod.

[bob7374]

I can agree with the concerns on the cape in regards to the overhead signs, MA put overheads on the super 2 section of Route 2 and they seemed really overkill for what amounted to a rural highway where neighboring states would have just ground mounted them.

Would you rather MassDOT install ground-mounted signs, and then have to go through an environmental review process in 6 or 7 years so they can clear away trees and brush that are preventing drivers from seeing those signs?  Or they could put up overhead signs and avoid that issue entirely in the future.  And, with respect, I don't buy the 'destroying the rural character' argument as a reason to not provide adequate signing.  The super 2 sections of US 6 and Route 2 are FREEWAYS, and not some back roads that only see 20 cars a day.

MA must have some very strict environmental laws if there's anything onerous for a maintenance tree trimming.

In Massachusetts, most tree trimming along state highways must be vetted through the local conservation commissions, who have final say on whether trees can be cut or not.  This is partially due to the fact that MassDOT contracts out nearly all maintenance activities, including tree trimming to improve visibility of ground-mounted signs.  The issue of tree trimming/removal is a particularly sensitive one, especially in areas like Cape Cod.

And I think trees may have a lot to do with the reaction on Cape Cod to the sign project. There was a backlash after most of the trees in the median of US 6 were taken down a few years ago along the first few miles in Sandwich. Whether part of this project or just occurring at the same time was the replacement of signage for the MA 6A exit and US 6/MA 3 advance signs (WB) with overhead signage, apparently now to be the only place where you will find overheads on the Mid-Cape highway. Thus I think that in the back of some people's minds is now an association between overhead signs and massive tree cutting, and so these people were quick to oppose the initial plans for the project.

[roadman]

The sign replacement project on US 6 had nothing to do with the prior tree removal project, and was an entirely separate design.  Traditionally, the Cape Cod Commission has always been adverse to overhead signs, as well as LOGO service signs, east of the Cape Cod Canal.  Not so much because of the tree removal, but because they believe placing proper freeway signing on a freeway will somehow destroy the "image" of the Cape to tourists.

[vdeane]

To be fair, MA's policy on overhead signs IS overkill.  Overhead signs are for major junctions, closely spaced exits/ramps (including cloverleafs), lack of ROW, etc.  Using them for every sign just makes an area look more urban/suburban than it otherwise would.

Lack of logo signs isn't just a Cape Cod thing... also see the Adirondacks and Vermont.  It really does have an effect on perception, too.

I don't understand the intense opposition to mile-based exit numbers, but given that they were already mad about overhead signs, they were probably more sensitive to change than they otherwise would have been.  IMO MassDOT should have done the project with mile-based numbers and NYSDOT's overhead signing policies.

[The Ghostbuster]

So is the plan to change the state's exits from sequential to mileage-based dead?

[AMLNet49]

So is the plan to change the state's exits from sequential to mileage-based dead?

That's the million dollar question

[bob7374]

The MassDOT project that was advertised last fall to replace signage in the Big Dig and surrounding US 1 and I-90 tunnels,  with signs having new milepost based exit numbers, apparently has been canceled. MassDOT readvertised the project this past Saturday (10/1) with the date to announce the new winner of the contract to be announced 2/22/17. Unknown whether these signs will have new numbers or not.

The bid page for the project:
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-17-1030-0H100-0H002-10081&external=true&parentUrl=bid

[The Ghostbuster]

Why do I have a feeling that cancelation cans the rest of the sequential-to-milepost conversion plan?

[roadman]

The MassDOT project that was advertised last fall to replace signage in the Big Dig and surrounding US 1 and I-90 tunnels,  with signs having new milepost based exit numbers, apparently has been canceled. MassDOT readvertised the project this past Saturday (10/1) with the date to announce the new winner of the contract to be announced 2/22/17. Unknown whether these signs will have new numbers or not.

The bid page for the project:
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-17-1030-0H100-0H002-10081&external=true&parentUrl=bid

The previous contract for the Big Dig tunnel overhead sign repairs was not awarded due to issues with the sole bid that was received for the work.  As of now, signs under the new contract will retain the sequential numbers.  Note that MassDOT's current SOP for sign replacement projects is to retain the existing sequential numbers on new signs, but design the exit tabs and gore signs to eventually accommodate the new milepost numbers.

[PHLBOS]

The MassDOT project that was advertised last fall to replace signage in the Big Dig and surrounding US 1 and I-90 tunnels,  with signs having new milepost based exit numbers, apparently has been canceled. MassDOT readvertised the project this past Saturday (10/1) with the date to announce the new winner of the contract to be announced 2/22/17. Unknown whether these signs will have new numbers or not.

The bid page for the project:
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-17-1030-0H100-0H002-10081&external=true&parentUrl=bid

The previous contract for the Big Dig tunnel overhead sign repairs was not awarded due to issues with the sole bid that was received for the work.  As of now, signs under the new contract will retain the sequential numbers.  Note that MassDOT's current SOP for sign replacement projects is to retain the existing sequential numbers on new signs, but design the exit tabs and gore signs to eventually accommodate the new milepost numbers.

Such would make for wider exit sign/tabs for the I-90 signage; the milepost-based numbers are all triple-digits (not including suffixes) in that area.

[roadman]

The MassDOT project that was advertised last fall to replace signage in the Big Dig and surrounding US 1 and I-90 tunnels,  with signs having new milepost based exit numbers, apparently has been canceled. MassDOT readvertised the project this past Saturday (10/1) with the date to announce the new winner of the contract to be announced 2/22/17. Unknown whether these signs will have new numbers or not.

The bid page for the project:
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-17-1030-0H100-0H002-10081&external=true&parentUrl=bid

The previous contract for the Big Dig tunnel overhead sign repairs was not awarded due to issues with the sole bid that was received for the work.  As of now, signs under the new contract will retain the sequential numbers.  Note that MassDOT's current SOP for sign replacement projects is to retain the existing sequential numbers on new signs, but design the exit tabs and gore signs to eventually accommodate the new milepost numbers.

Such would make for wider exit sign/tabs for the I-90 signage; the milepost-based numbers are all triple-digits (not including suffixes) in that area.

The I-90 sign replacement projects were originally designed to accommodate the new milepost numbers, so this SOP doesn't affect these projects as much as others that are still under design.

[bob7374]

The MassDOT project that was advertised last fall to replace signage in the Big Dig and surrounding US 1 and I-90 tunnels,  with signs having new milepost based exit numbers, apparently has been canceled. MassDOT readvertised the project this past Saturday (10/1) with the date to announce the new winner of the contract to be announced 2/22/17. Unknown whether these signs will have new numbers or not.

The bid page for the project:
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-17-1030-0H100-0H002-10081&external=true&parentUrl=bid

The previous contract for the Big Dig tunnel overhead sign repairs was not awarded due to issues with the sole bid that was received for the work.  As of now, signs under the new contract will retain the sequential numbers.  Note that MassDOT's current SOP for sign replacement projects is to retain the existing sequential numbers on new signs, but design the exit tabs and gore signs to eventually accommodate the new milepost numbers.

Such would make for wider exit sign/tabs for the I-90 signage; the milepost-based numbers are all triple-digits (not including suffixes) in that area.

The I-90 sign replacement projects were originally designed to accommodate the new milepost numbers, so this SOP doesn't affect these projects as much as others that are still under design.

So, in other words, the exit number conversion project is postponed indefinitely. Hopefully, all the effort put into planning the project will not go for naught. Will MA now be the last state to convert?

[mass_citizen]

Will MA now be the last state to convert?

A tad bit presumptuous considering the other northeast states aren't exactly fast tracking any changes

[AMLNet49]

Will MA now be the last state to convert?

A tad bit presumptuous considering the other northeast states aren't exactly fast tracking any changes

Rhode Island was supposed to be, they announced it around the same time as the Mass plan was announced. Just like Mass, they were also planning on adding exit numbers to roads that did not already have them. However, RIDOT fell silent at around the same time MassDOT did about the project. Given this, it would not be a stretch to assume that the states are working together to try and get a waiver, extension, or avoid it all together. NH and VT are on their own, but it does seem like RI and MA are somewhat tied together with this.

[Rothman]

I suppose there's some consolation that NY at least got the Taconic's conversion underway.  What a mess, though, having different numbering schemes on various different highways.

[roadman]

Will MA now be the last state to convert?

A tad bit presumptuous considering the other northeast states aren't exactly fast tracking any changes

Rhode Island was supposed to be, they announced it around the same time as the Mass plan was announced. Just like Mass, they were also planning on adding exit numbers to roads that did not already have them. However, RIDOT fell silent at around the same time MassDOT did about the project. Given this, it would not be a stretch to assume that the states are working together to try and get a waiver, extension, or avoid it all together. NH and VT are on their own, but it does seem like RI and MA are somewhat tied together with this.

Once the 2009 MUTCD Final Rule was adopted, most of the New England states (excepting Maine) and New York jointly petitioned FHWA for a waiver from the requirement to convert to milepost-based numbering.  The request was flatly denied by FHWA.  And, although the original 2008 Federal Register NPA for the 2009 MUTCD contained a compliance date (10 years from adoption of Final Rule) for converting to milepost-based numbering, this compliance date was not included in the final 2009 MUTCD.  Pretty difficult for FHWA to mandate something be changed by a certain date if there's no compliance date requiring the change to be made.

[cl94]

I suppose there's some consolation that NY at least got the Taconic's conversion underway.  What a mess, though, having different numbering schemes on various different highways.

The Taconic "conversion" is more applying numbers to a route that lost them 20-30 years ago and only in the Interstate-quality section. I've been on the road for as long as I can remember and there were only a couple numbers left in the late 90s, all north of I-84, IINM.