News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

I-90 / Mass Pike Signing Work

Started by bob7374, August 14, 2015, 06:53:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

bob7374

MassDOT plans to let a contract this upcoming Tuesday (8/18) to replace signage along the Mass Pike / I-90 from Auburn westward. New milepost based numbers will accompany the new signage. Though sign plans are not available online (I may try to get a hold of them through MassDOT after the contract is awarded), addenda to bid documents posted online do provide sample plans for two exits, with the new numbers. Here's what the new signage for current Exit 10 will look like:


There was also a sign plan for the I-91/US 5 Springfield exit, currently Exit 4, which will become Exit 45. I have posted an image of that plan on my Mass. Misc. Sign Photos page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html where I will post future new exit number related material during the next year.

I have also updated my I-90 Exit list: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i90exits.html. The plan numbers did not quite match mine, seems the I-91 exit was rounded up, while the I-290/I-390 was rounded down from the given MassDOT milepost listings. Hopefully, this trend won't continue with the rest of the list.


roadman

#1
Beat me to the punch Bob.  For those who are interested, the specs, bid item list, and plan holders list for the West Stockbridge to Auburn project can be viewed at  https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-15-1030-0H100-0H002-00000003478&external=true&parentUrl=bid

Addenda # 2 was issued to address sign design issues related to roadway changes identified by the project team for the pending Legacy Toll Plaza demolition project, which is planned to commence shortly after AET goes "live" on the Turnpike - this is currently scheduled for late 2016.  Advertising for the Auburn to Boston project has been pushed back to October 31st to address similar changes to the re-signing design in that contract, which will be more extensive on the eastern end of I-90.

I will post an update for West Stockbridge to Boston next week once the bids are opened and the winning contractor has been identified.
"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)

KEVIN_224

Thanks for the update! The signs on the present gantry for Exit 10 eastbound in Auburn are in very bad shape, especially the bigger pull-through sign for the Turnpike east.

AMLNet49

Hard to tell from the image, but will the new MassPike signage use the shorter MassPike-only exit tabs, or the taller tabs used in the rest of the state?

Alps

Quote from: AMLNet49 on August 14, 2015, 11:34:05 PM
Hard to tell from the image, but will the new MassPike signage use the shorter MassPike-only exit tabs, or the taller tabs used in the rest of the state?
Those look like MUTCD-standard tabs.

vdeane

Plus everything is now MassDOT anyways, so I'd doubt there will be any difference between new MassPike signage and new signage everywhere else except possibly the pilgrim hat.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

lowerdeck

It seems odd they use New London as a reference city, considering nearly every other one (in both states) for 395 uses Norwich

roadman

Quote
Hard to tell from the image, but will the new MassPike signage use the shorter MassPike-only exit tabs, or the taller tabs used in the rest of the state?
All new signing on the Turnpike - both the West Stockbridge to Auburn and Auburn to Boston sections - will be using the 30 inch tall exit tabs.  For tab width, MassDOT standard is to use a somewhat wider panel than required by the numerals.

QuoteIt seems odd they use New London as a reference city, considering nearly every other one (in both states) for 395 uses Norwich
As signing on I-290 west for 395 south is replaced later this decade, MassDOT will be phasing out Norwich in favor of New London as the principal control city where only one destination is provided on applicable signs.
"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)

shadyjay

Quote from: roadman on August 17, 2015, 05:55:58 PM
As signing on I-290 west for 395 south is replaced later this decade, MassDOT will be phasing out Norwich in favor of New London as the principal control city where only one destination is provided on applicable signs.

Too bad ConnDOT didn't feel the same way.  The signs currently being replaced will retain "NORWICH" as a control city, so we won't be looking at any "NEW LONDON" signage on I-395 until sometime around 2050 when the signs now installed will be up for replacement.

What we can only hope for is that when signage on I-95 is upgraded for I-395 (installed 2000) is that "WORCESTER" replace the god-aweful "PLAINFIELD".   I-95 NB Exit 76 is the only place which has PLAINFIELD as a control point, but really, why not WORCESTER?  No secondary signage even mentions Worcester.

Getting back onto Mass Pike...

Wonder if any control points will be changing for I-84/present Exit 9?  Will HARTFORD/NEW YORK CITY be retained WB?  I always thought replacing HOLYOKE with HARTFORD for EB Exit 4 signage made more sense, thus moving Holyoke onto a secondary sign. 

roadman

Quote from: shadyjay on August 17, 2015, 07:08:34 PM

Getting back onto Mass Pike...

Wonder if any control points will be changing for I-84/present Exit 9?  Will HARTFORD/NEW YORK CITY be retained WB?  I always thought replacing HOLYOKE with HARTFORD for EB Exit 4 signage made more sense, thus moving Holyoke onto a secondary sign. 


The new principal BGSes for I-84 will read Hartford CT   NY City both westbound and eastbound.  US 20 will be downgraded from the principal signs to new supplemental signs with Sturbridge on them.

The new principal BGSes for I-91/US 5 will read Springfield  Holyoke both eastbound and westbound.  The reason for this is to satisfy MUTCD requirements regarding control destinations on signs for routes that go in two directions.

The new principal BGSes for I-291 will read  Springfield  Hartford CT.
"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

#10
Quote from: bob7374 on August 14, 2015, 06:53:07 PM
I commented on this on FB and will state similar here.  Given that the ramps to both directions to MA 12 occur right after the toll booths and are within the interchange (such is not the case for the I-84/US 20 interchange below the Pike's Sturbridge interchange); I would've still placed MA 12 shields on the main signs (to the right of the I-290/395 shields).  A dual-legend treatment similar to what was done for the westbound BGS' for the I-95/MA 30 interchange; IMHO, would be overkill.   

I'm assuming that the future signing for MA 12 and Auburn will be ground-mounted supplemental signs.  I agree with such for Auburn; disagree regarding MA 12. 

As one who's used the MA 12 ramps at the Auburn interchange many times over during the last 25 years; I can attest that many use still use that interchange to get on MA 12 (especially 12 southbound) and not I-290/395.

Personal preference; the numerals for the I-shields should be Series C.  Note: I'm well aware that current MassDOT standards state Series D numerals for all routes (including 3-digit routes); but that hasn't stopped fabrication of Series C and (ugh) Series B (I-495 signage at I-90 Eastbound) for 3di-shields in the past.  IMHO, the only 3di-shields using Series D numerals in MA should be ones containing a 1 in them (I-190, 195, 291 and 391).

Quote from: roadman on August 17, 2015, 07:26:38 PMThe new principal BGSes for I-84 will read Hartford CT   NY City both westbound and eastbound.  US 20 will be downgraded from the principal signs to new supplemental signs with Sturbridge on them.
Agree for the westbound signs (the current signs reflect such); disagree for the eastbound signs (the current ones list Sturbridge and Hartford).  Nobody, repeat nobody heading eastbound along I-90 in that area is going to use that exit to head towards NY (be it NYC or NY State).  They'll likely head south on local roads and/or west to I-291 (to I-91).  While one can make a similar argument for Hartford (again, for those exiting the eastbound Pike); such is the only logical I-84 westbound destination beyond Sturbridge.

This is one case where the keeping the same legends on interchange signage in both directions approach is flawed.  The current legends on the eastbound signs work; let's try not to fix what's not broken.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

roadman

#11
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 14, 2015, 10:39:23 PM
Thanks for the update! The signs on the present gantry for Exit 10 eastbound in Auburn are in very bad shape, especially the bigger pull-through sign for the Turnpike east.
Given that those signs and gantry were retained under the 1996 sign update, it's no wonder they are now in bad shape.  MassDOT District 3 crews were going to replace the shields on these signs as a stop-gap measure until the panels (and support) are replaced as part of the West Stockbridge to Auburn sign update, but I'm not sure if that's been done yet.
"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)

roadman

Bids for 606619 were opened earlier today.  The apparent low bidder is RoadSafe Traffic Systems of Avon, MA.  They are also the contractor for the just-completed I-95 (128) Wellesley to Lexington sign project, and the ongoing I-91 West Springfield to Bernardston sign 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)

lowerdeck

Quote from: PHLBOS on August 18, 2015, 11:33:39 AM
Quote from: roadman on August 17, 2015, 07:26:38 PMThe new principal BGSes for I-84 will read Hartford CT   NY City both westbound and eastbound.  US 20 will be downgraded from the principal signs to new supplemental signs with Sturbridge on them.
Agree for the westbound signs (the current signs reflect such); disagree for the eastbound signs (the current ones list Sturbridge and Hartford).  Nobody, repeat nobody heading eastbound along I-90 in that area is going to use that exit to head towards NY (be it NYC or NY State).  They'll likely head south on local roads and/or west to I-291 (to I-91).  While one can make a similar argument for Hartford (again, for those exiting the eastbound Pike); such is the only logical I-84 westbound destination beyond Sturbridge.

This is one case where the keeping the same legends on interchange signage in both directions approach is flawed.  The current legends on the eastbound signs work; let's try not to fix what's not broken.

If they were to add a second town on the EB signs, it should be Southbridge (131) or Charlton (20)

TravelingBethelite

Quote from: lowerdeck on August 18, 2015, 06:39:23 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 18, 2015, 11:33:39 AM
Quote from: roadman on August 17, 2015, 07:26:38 PMThe new principal BGSes for I-84 will read Hartford CT   NY City both westbound and eastbound.  US 20 will be downgraded from the principal signs to new supplemental signs with Sturbridge on them.
Agree for the westbound signs (the current signs reflect such); disagree for the eastbound signs (the current ones list Sturbridge and Hartford).  Nobody, repeat nobody heading eastbound along I-90 in that area is going to use that exit to head towards NY (be it NYC or NY State).  They'll likely head south on local roads and/or west to I-291 (to I-91).  While one can make a similar argument for Hartford (again, for those exiting the eastbound Pike); such is the only logical I-84 westbound destination beyond Sturbridge.

This is one case where the keeping the same legends on interchange signage in both directions approach is flawed.  The current legends on the eastbound signs work; let's try not to fix what's not broken.

If they were to add a second town on the EB signs, it should be Southbridge (131) or Charlton (20)
They feel too short a distance to be control cites. On that topic, what do you guys think is too short or long a distance to be considered a control city?  :hmm:  :hmmm:
"Imprisoned by the freedom of the road!" - Ronnie Milsap
See my photos at: http://bit.ly/1Qi81ws

Now I decide where I go...

2018 Ford Fusion SE - proud new owner!

PHLBOS

Quote from: lowerdeck on August 18, 2015, 06:39:23 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 18, 2015, 11:33:39 AM
Quote from: roadman on August 17, 2015, 07:26:38 PMThe new principal BGSes for I-84 will read Hartford CT   NY City both westbound and eastbound.  US 20 will be downgraded from the principal signs to new supplemental signs with Sturbridge on them.
Agree for the westbound signs (the current signs reflect such); disagree for the eastbound signs (the current ones list Sturbridge and Hartford).  Nobody, repeat nobody heading eastbound along I-90 in that area is going to use that exit to head towards NY (be it NYC or NY State).  They'll likely head south on local roads and/or west to I-291 (to I-91).  While one can make a similar argument for Hartford (again, for those exiting the eastbound Pike); such is the only logical I-84 westbound destination beyond Sturbridge.

This is one case where the keeping the same legends on interchange signage in both directions approach is flawed.  The current legends on the eastbound signs work; let's try not to fix what's not broken.

If they were to add a second town on the EB signs, it should be Southbridge (131) or Charlton (20)
Why? Sturbridge is right there (131 actually heads towards the center of town before it reaches Southbridge) and the historic Old Sturbridge Village is located right along 20.  Sturbridge, in addition to being a pass-through area (in terms of Interstates), does draw in tourists.  Moreso than Charlton or Southbridge.

IMHO, keeping Sturbridge on the eastbound exit signs (along w/Hartford as the current signs do) isn't going to cause harm or confuse motorists one iota.  Removing it and replacing such with a more distant city that nobody along I-90 East would use (remember that I-90 eastbound traffic is coming from NY State and had better more logical options to get to NYC beforehand) is ludicrous and MassDOT will likely get some backlash for such should they erect the new signs as planned/designed.  Again, I'm only referring to the eastbound exit signage not the westbound ones.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Rothman

Sturbridge also is a destination for school field trips from all around Massachusetts.  It's a pretty significant draw.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

lowerdeck

Quote from: PHLBOS on August 18, 2015, 07:39:40 PM
Quote from: lowerdeck on August 18, 2015, 06:39:23 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 18, 2015, 11:33:39 AM
Quote from: roadman on August 17, 2015, 07:26:38 PMThe new principal BGSes for I-84 will read Hartford CT   NY City both westbound and eastbound.  US 20 will be downgraded from the principal signs to new supplemental signs with Sturbridge on them.
Agree for the westbound signs (the current signs reflect such); disagree for the eastbound signs (the current ones list Sturbridge and Hartford).  Nobody, repeat nobody heading eastbound along I-90 in that area is going to use that exit to head towards NY (be it NYC or NY State).  They'll likely head south on local roads and/or west to I-291 (to I-91).  While one can make a similar argument for Hartford (again, for those exiting the eastbound Pike); such is the only logical I-84 westbound destination beyond Sturbridge.

This is one case where the keeping the same legends on interchange signage in both directions approach is flawed.  The current legends on the eastbound signs work; let's try not to fix what's not broken.

If they were to add a second town on the EB signs, it should be Southbridge (131) or Charlton (20)
Why? Sturbridge is right there (131 actually heads towards the center of town before it reaches Southbridge) and the historic Old Sturbridge Village is located right along 20.  Sturbridge, in addition to being a pass-through area (in terms of Interstates), does draw in tourists.  Moreso than Charlton or Southbridge.

IMHO, keeping Sturbridge on the eastbound exit signs (along w/Hartford as the current signs do) isn't going to cause harm or confuse motorists one iota.  Removing it and replacing such with a more distant city that nobody along I-90 East would use (remember that I-90 eastbound traffic is coming from NY State and had better more logical options to get to NYC beforehand) is ludicrous and MassDOT will likely get some backlash for such should they erect the new signs as planned/designed.  Again, I'm only referring to the eastbound exit signage not the westbound ones.


I never suggested taking Sturbridge off the EB signs in favor of something else.  I was saying, instead of Hartford underneath Sturbridge it should be either Southbridge or Charlton.

PHLBOS

#18
Quote from: lowerdeck on August 20, 2015, 08:20:04 PMI never suggested taking Sturbridge off the EB signs in favor of something else.  I was saying, instead of Hartford underneath Sturbridge it should be either Southbridge or Charlton.
Charlton doesn't work because it's located several miles east of I-84, which heads in a southwesterly direction from Sturbridge.  Southbridge is also located east of I-84 as well. 

Plus I-84 in MA is only just over 7 miles long vs. 97 miles in CT.  Using a CT destination (Hartford in this case) makes the most sense despite the fact that one heading eastbound on I-90 had more direct options beforehand (I-91 & 291).  Those heading to Hartford from Palmer (Exit 8 off I-90) or Ludlow (Exit 7 off I-90) would more likely head west on either I-90 or US 20 to I-291 rather than head east to pick up I-84.

If there were a small (Danbury-sized for example) or more noteworthy city located between Hartford & Sturbridge; only then could such a destination be used en lieu of Hartford for those eastbound exit signs.

Another option (for the I-84 interchange signage along I-90 eastbound) not mentioned yet would be just to list one destination on the primary exit signs (Hartford).  Such has been done previously for the current eastbound signage for the MA 9 interchange (Framingham for the eastbound signs vs. Framingham/Marlborough for the westbound exit signs) as well as the US 20 signage its I-84 West exit ramp (eastbound direction shown).
GPS does NOT equal GOD

southshore720

I'm not as picky with the 90 EB signage for I-84.  It is a major interstate and should have major cities listed as destinations.  Don't forget...not everyone are Road Geeks like us.  Many people get lost, do not have GPS, or just have no sense of direction whatsoever.  Maybe broadening the scope on 90 EB will help that population of people.  Admittedly, I'm playing a little bit of devil's advocate, here.  I don't disagree with what anyone has said from a Road Geek perspective, but just trying to rationalize it for the rest of the folks out there.

southshore720

I also approve of I-395's new control of New London instead of Norwich.  Technically, I-395 only leads to you CT 32 to get to New London directly as they have yet to move on the 95/395/CT 11 interchange that would provide direct access from the end of I-395 to I-95 North.  (Wishful thinking for completion of this interchange?)  But at least it addresses the terminus location as opposed to midway through I-395.

PHLBOS

Quote from: southshore720 on August 23, 2015, 01:38:37 PM
My earlier critiques on the proposed I-90 east bound sign changes for the I-84 interchange have nothing to do with road geeking as much it has to do with simple logic and common sense. 

Plus the fact that the current Sturbridge/Hartford legend works for the eastbound signage.  Any changes to the destination listings these particular signs is (IMHO) essentially fixing something that isn't broken.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

PHLBOS

Thread bump:

Regarding the new interchange signage for Auburn:

Per Roadman's suggestion, I submitted a comment regarding the absence of MA 12 shields on the proposed main interchange signs.  My argument for keeping the MA 12 shields was because the ramps to MA 12 are not only part of the overall interchange but are the first ramps one encounters after exiting off the Pike (and after clearing the toll booths).

I have since received a reply e-mail from the MassDOT District Three Feedback.  Bold emphais added:

Quote from: Note: Actual names are intentionally not shownThank you for your recent e-mail to MassDOT Feedback regarding your concerns about the proposed replacement signs on Interstate 90 (MassPike) for the Interstate 295/395/MA Route 12 interchange in Auburn.

It was not practical to include destinations on Route 12 on the new overhead signs for I-295/I-395 while conforming to Federal signing guidelines.  Therefore, a decision was made early in the project design process to relegate the Route 12 information to ground-mounted supplemental signs instead, and to not provide Route 12 shields on the overhead signs.

However, upon further review of this location, and in consideration of the unique nature of this interchange, we now agree that placing Route 12 shields on these new signs will benefit drivers using I-90.  Accordingly, we will instruct our sign fabricator for the I-90 West Stockbridge to Auburn sign replacement project to add the Route 12 shields to the new overhead signs on the I-90 mainline at this location.

Again, thank you for contacting us with your concerns.  We appreciate your interest in MassDOT's ongoing freeway sign replacement program, and in the Massachusetts state highway system.

Sincerely,

MassDOT District Three Highway Feedback

GPS does NOT equal GOD

Mergingtraffic

Quote from: PHLBOS on September 29, 2015, 09:26:04 AM
Thread bump:

Regarding the new interchange signage for Auburn:

Per Roadman's suggestion, I submitted a comment regarding the absence of MA 12 shields on the proposed main interchange signs.  My argument for keeping the MA 12 shields was because the ramps to MA 12 are not only part of the overall interchange but are the first ramps one encounters after exiting off the Pike (and after clearing the toll booths).

I have since received a reply e-mail from the MassDOT District Three Feedback.  Bold emphais added:

Quote from: Note: Actual names are intentionally not shownThank you for your recent e-mail to MassDOT Feedback regarding your concerns about the proposed replacement signs on Interstate 90 (MassPike) for the Interstate 295/395/MA Route 12 interchange in Auburn.

It was not practical to include destinations on Route 12 on the new overhead signs for I-295/I-395 while conforming to Federal signing guidelines.  Therefore, a decision was made early in the project design process to relegate the Route 12 information to ground-mounted supplemental signs instead, and to not provide Route 12 shields on the overhead signs.

However, upon further review of this location, and in consideration of the unique nature of this interchange, we now agree that placing Route 12 shields on these new signs will benefit drivers using I-90.  Accordingly, we will instruct our sign fabricator for the I-90 West Stockbridge to Auburn sign replacement project to add the Route 12 shields to the new overhead signs on the I-90 mainline at this location.

Again, thank you for contacting us with your concerns.  We appreciate your interest in MassDOT’s ongoing freeway sign replacement program, and in the Massachusetts state highway system.

Sincerely,

MassDOT District Three Highway Feedback



WOW some good feedback and you got them to change!
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

bob7374

I have been able to get the sign plans for the first I-90 re-signing project. The new numbers, except for 1, match those I have listed on my Future I-90 Exit page. Here's the plan for the 1/2 mile advance sign westbound:


I have posted plans for all the new 1 mile advance signs, and a few others on my Misc. Sign Photos Page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html

I plan to post more in the coming days.



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.