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

Route 6 sign project hits possible roadblock

Started by roadman, February 24, 2016, 04:54:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

mariethefoxy

Quote from: Duke87 on February 25, 2016, 09:11:59 PM

Quote from: mariethefoxy on February 25, 2016, 02:50:56 AM
theres quite a few interchanges on the parkways on Long Island with only ground mounted signs

The overhead sign requirement applies to cloverleaf interchanges specifically (logically one would also follow the same standard at a parclo with two exits). Any interchange where there is only one exit in each direction can be signed entirely with ground mounted signs.

That said, yes, there *are* cloverleaf interchanges on NY parkways that lack overhead signage (e.g. exits 35S-N on the Northern State). This is, however, a violation of the MUTCD, or at least the 2003 and 2009 versions of it. I'm not sure whether this requirement was in the 2000 version or how far back it goes, but it's certainly possible depending on how old those signs are that they were not in violation of any standard at the time they were installed.

The entire Northern State Parkway got a sign replacement around 2013-14 with signs supposedly meeting the new NYSDOT standards, im guessing they were supposed to make those overhead signs? That whole interchange is horrible with the lack of merging room on the loop ramps.


southshore720

Ugh...I can't stop rolling my eyes over this article.

Why not split the difference and use the signing method on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth -- ground-mounted for 1 mile and 1/2 mile, cantilevered at the exit? 

RE: Mile-based, the change needs to be consistent all over the state.  The businesses will just have to adjust, like every other business in MA.

AMLNet49

Quote from: southshore720 on February 25, 2016, 11:03:37 PM
Ugh...I can't stop rolling my eyes over this article.

Why not split the difference and use the signing method on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth -- ground-mounted for 1 mile and 1/2 mile, cantilevered at the exit? 

RE: Mile-based, the change needs to be consistent all over the state.  The businesses will just have to adjust, like every other business in MA.

What if they compromised and used a mileage-based system starting where the current numbering starts from, in Bourne?

RobbieL2415

Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 26, 2016, 01:10:13 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on February 25, 2016, 11:03:37 PM
Ugh...I can't stop rolling my eyes over this article.

Why not split the difference and use the signing method on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth -- ground-mounted for 1 mile and 1/2 mile, cantilevered at the exit? 

RE: Mile-based, the change needs to be consistent all over the state.  The businesses will just have to adjust, like every other business in MA.

What if they compromised and used a mileage-based system starting where the current numbering starts from, in Bourne?

I could see that being very confusing for construction workers and emergency vehicles, having mile-based exits that don't match the actual MPs.

You COULD, say, have US 6 end at the Sagamore flyover and either give the entire mid-Cape a new SR number or continue MA 3 onto it.   Both of those are, in my view, quite impractical because you'd have to fund not only a sign replacement but a MP replacement.  Though signing MA 3 through to Provincetown would make sense given the flyover is constructed to give Boston-bound traffic priority flow and most most people probably who commute off-cape do so to there.

AMLNet49

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 26, 2016, 09:32:39 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 26, 2016, 01:10:13 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on February 25, 2016, 11:03:37 PM
Ugh...I can't stop rolling my eyes over this article.

Why not split the difference and use the signing method on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth -- ground-mounted for 1 mile and 1/2 mile, cantilevered at the exit? 

RE: Mile-based, the change needs to be consistent all over the state.  The businesses will just have to adjust, like every other business in MA.

What if they compromised and used a mileage-based system starting where the current numbering starts from, in Bourne?

I could see that being very confusing for construction workers and emergency vehicles, having mile-based exits that don't match the actual MPs.

You COULD, say, have US 6 end at the Sagamore flyover and either give the entire mid-Cape a new SR number or continue MA 3 onto it.   Both of those are, in my view, quite impractical because you'd have to fund not only a sign replacement but a MP replacement.  Though signing MA 3 through to Provincetown would make sense given the flyover is constructed to give Boston-bound traffic priority flow and most most people probably who commute off-cape do so to there.

There are definitely many roadblocks, probably better in the end to just use the current system. MA-3 wouldn't work because the mileposts and new exit numbers would have to be redone for over 150 miles of road (because the current 0 is in Bourne).

bob7374

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 26, 2016, 09:32:39 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 26, 2016, 01:10:13 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on February 25, 2016, 11:03:37 PM
Ugh...I can't stop rolling my eyes over this article.

Why not split the difference and use the signing method on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth -- ground-mounted for 1 mile and 1/2 mile, cantilevered at the exit? 

RE: Mile-based, the change needs to be consistent all over the state.  The businesses will just have to adjust, like every other business in MA.

What if they compromised and used a mileage-based system starting where the current numbering starts from, in Bourne?

I could see that being very confusing for construction workers and emergency vehicles, having mile-based exits that don't match the actual MPs.

You COULD, say, have US 6 end at the Sagamore flyover and either give the entire mid-Cape a new SR number or continue MA 3 onto it.   Both of those are, in my view, quite impractical because you'd have to fund not only a sign replacement but a MP replacement.  Though signing MA 3 through to Provincetown would make sense given the flyover is constructed to give Boston-bound traffic priority flow and most most people probably who commute off-cape do so to there.
Agree on the compromise on the signing using a design similar to MA 3. As for exit renumbering, I agree all the states's freeways should have a consistent numbering system. A poll on the Cape Cod Times website asks readers whether the exit numbers should be changed, yes or no. I bet you can guess what answer is getting 80% of the vote. As for providing different milepost based numbers to make it more compatible for Cape residents, I have 2 ideas, one less, the other more radical. The less radical is similar to what is suggested above. The commissioning of a new route, say 328, that would be co-routed along US 6 from MA 3 to MA 28 with the exits based on that highway's mileage. Therefore MA 3 would be Exit 0, MA 6A on the other side would have the same number, 1, and the mileage would increase from there. The more radical suggestion is to re-route US 6 along MA 28's current alignment south/east of the Bourne Bridge to Orleans. Extend MA 6A to fill in the gap between the Bourne and Sagamore bridges, and create a new route to run along the Mid Cape Highway. This would solve the re-numbering 'crisis' by providing numbers not starting in the 50s and end the confusion regarding North and South MA 28 running east-west from Falmouth to Orleans. Of course, this probably wouldn't pass AASHTO muster, not to mention businesses on the effected routes.

PHLBOS

How about adopting a Back to the Early 70s mode and use the MILE XX - EXIT YY tabs that one saw along I-93 in MA and I-295 in RI.  The old exit numbers can stay but the mile marker number would be more visible & prominent.  If the goal is to have the nearest mile marker number listed on the exit tabs; the above is one way to do such while maintaining sequential interchange numbering.

Either that or just have the Cape secede from the Commonwealth, that way MM 0 for US 6 along the Cape is at Bourne rather than Seekonk.  :sombrero:
GPS does NOT equal GOD

RobbieL2415

Quote from: bob7374 on February 26, 2016, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 26, 2016, 09:32:39 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 26, 2016, 01:10:13 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on February 25, 2016, 11:03:37 PM
Ugh...I can't stop rolling my eyes over this article.

Why not split the difference and use the signing method on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth -- ground-mounted for 1 mile and 1/2 mile, cantilevered at the exit? 

RE: Mile-based, the change needs to be consistent all over the state.  The businesses will just have to adjust, like every other business in MA.

What if they compromised and used a mileage-based system starting where the current numbering starts from, in Bourne?

I could see that being very confusing for construction workers and emergency vehicles, having mile-based exits that don't match the actual MPs.

You COULD, say, have US 6 end at the Sagamore flyover and either give the entire mid-Cape a new SR number or continue MA 3 onto it.   Both of those are, in my view, quite impractical because you'd have to fund not only a sign replacement but a MP replacement.  Though signing MA 3 through to Provincetown would make sense given the flyover is constructed to give Boston-bound traffic priority flow and most most people probably who commute off-cape do so to there.
Agree on the compromise on the signing using a design similar to MA 3. As for exit renumbering, I agree all the states's freeways should have a consistent numbering system. A poll on the Cape Cod Times website asks readers whether the exit numbers should be changed, yes or no. I bet you can guess what answer is getting 80% of the vote. As for providing different milepost based numbers to make it more compatible for Cape residents, I have 2 ideas, one less, the other more radical. The less radical is similar to what is suggested above. The commissioning of a new route, say 328, that would be co-routed along US 6 from MA 3 to MA 28 with the exits based on that highway's mileage. Therefore MA 3 would be Exit 0, MA 6A on the other side would have the same number, 1, and the mileage would increase from there. The more radical suggestion is to re-route US 6 along MA 28's current alignment south/east of the Bourne Bridge to Orleans. Extend MA 6A to fill in the gap between the Bourne and Sagamore bridges, and create a new route to run along the Mid Cape Highway. This would solve the re-numbering 'crisis' by providing numbers not starting in the 50s and end the confusion regarding North and South MA 28 running east-west from Falmouth to Orleans. Of course, this probably wouldn't pass AASHTO muster, not to mention businesses on the effected routes.

They could also just un-number it and sign it as the Mid-Cape Highway and put US 6 on its original alignment from Bourne-Orleans.  There'd could be a NYSDOT-style shield and everything.

bob7374

Update on the reaction to the planned US 6 signing project. I found a link to another Cape newspaper article from late Feb. about the reaction to the plan:
http://www.capenews.net/sandwich/news/state-gets-earful-on-highway-sign-plan/article_7271a850-a838-5e99-b487-62b8da011ef1.html

This article features more comments from state highway administrator Thomas J. Tinlin than the other article. If you believe his quotes in the article then you would think MassDOT is only considering milepost based exits at this time, not that they have already awarded contracts to change numbers on the MassPike and statewide.

AMLNet49

Quote from: bob7374 on March 11, 2016, 11:25:04 AM
Update on the reaction to the planned US 6 signing project. I found a link to another Cape newspaper article from late Feb. about the reaction to the plan:
http://www.capenews.net/sandwich/news/state-gets-earful-on-highway-sign-plan/article_7271a850-a838-5e99-b487-62b8da011ef1.html

This article features more comments from state highway administrator Thomas J. Tinlin than the other article. If you believe his quotes in the article then you would think MassDOT is only considering milepost based exits at this time, not that they have already awarded contracts to change numbers on the MassPike and statewide.
On purpose I'm sure. I'm sure they wanted the numbers to go up before anyone found out, but it didn't happen, so now they are pretending that it's only a proposal. Then when the numbers go up, they'll tell everyone "oh yeah we decided already". To be honest it's the only way to change the way anything is done in Mass, is just to do it without asking and deal with the backlash later.

Duke87

This same principle is fairly commonplace in a whole cornucopia of circumstances. As the saying goes, "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission".

People often automatically oppose change as a kneejerk reaction, but then once it is forced upon them they get used to it and find that it really isn't nearly as big of a deal as they initially perceived it being.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

The Ghostbuster

Some people can't handle change. To them, change is bad. Everything must remain the same!

paulthemapguy

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 17, 2016, 06:19:29 PM
Some people can't handle change. To them, change is bad. Everything must remain the same!

I shall call them CHACWIMBYs.  Can't Handle Any Change Whatsoever In My Back Yard.  A bit wordy but it works I think :hmm:
Avatar is the last interesting highway I clinched.
My website! http://www.paulacrossamerica.com Now featuring all of Ohio!
My USA Shield Gallery https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHwJRZk
TM Clinches https://bit.ly/2UwRs4O

National collection status: 361/425. Only 64 route markers remain

roadman

Quote from: southshore720 on February 25, 2016, 11:03:37 PM
Ugh...I can't stop rolling my eyes over this article.
Why not split the difference and use the signing method on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth -- ground-mounted for 1 mile and 1/2 mile, cantilevered at the exit? 

Advance signs on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth were intentionally ground-mounted because of the potential for a widening project in this area.
"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 March 18, 2016, 10:56:24 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on February 25, 2016, 11:03:37 PM
Ugh...I can't stop rolling my eyes over this article.
Why not split the difference and use the signing method on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth -- ground-mounted for 1 mile and 1/2 mile, cantilevered at the exit? 
Advance signs on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth were intentionally ground-mounted because of the potential for a widening project in this area.
That widening proposal has been discussed for more than 30 years. Wonder if there will be another sign replacement before the project ever comes to fruition. I am curious though about one of the ground-mounted signs. During the last sign replacement they removed the 1 Mile advance cantilever overhead for the Derby Street exit southbound and replaced it with a ground-mounted sign. This area is already widened to 3 lanes. Are they thinking of four lanes in this area?

roadman

Quote from: bob7374 on March 18, 2016, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 18, 2016, 10:56:24 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on February 25, 2016, 11:03:37 PM
Ugh...I can't stop rolling my eyes over this article.
Why not split the difference and use the signing method on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth -- ground-mounted for 1 mile and 1/2 mile, cantilevered at the exit? 
Advance signs on MA 3 from Weymouth to Plymouth were intentionally ground-mounted because of the potential for a widening project in this area.
That widening proposal has been discussed for more than 30 years. Wonder if there will be another sign replacement before the project ever comes to fruition. I am curious though about one of the ground-mounted signs. During the last sign replacement they removed the 1 Mile advance cantilever overhead for the Derby Street exit southbound and replaced it with a ground-mounted sign. This area is already widened to 3 lanes. Are they thinking of four lanes in this area?
At the time the Braintree to Plymouth sign project was under design, it appeared that the widening project was going to move forward.  As for the Derby Street advance sign, there were discussions about a separate project to improve the merge at Derby Street, which would have included grading for an eventual fourth lane to Derby Street.
"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

If you haven't read it, this is the editorial the Cape Cod Times wrote about the US 6 Sign Project 'Boondoggle' on March 5:
http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20160305/OPINION/160309806/2013/OPINION

AMLNet49

Quote from: bob7374 on March 22, 2016, 11:11:18 AM
If you haven't read it, this is the editorial the Cape Cod Times wrote about the US 6 Sign Project 'Boondoggle' on March 5:
http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20160305/OPINION/160309806/2013/OPINION

To be fair, the Times did not rip on the exit number change as much as the overhead sign supports. The only thing about the numbers that most people have ripped on is the fact that they would measure to the state line. They seem much more offended by the supports, which I believe stems from a program to cut down a large number of trees in the US 6 median last year that did not go over well with locals. I think you'll likely see a compromise to change the numbers, but keep ground-mounted guide signage.

PHLBOS

Quote from: AMLNet49 on March 22, 2016, 12:09:11 PMThey seem much more offended by the supports, which I believe stems from a program to cut down a large number of trees in the US 6 median last year that did not go over well with locals. I think you'll likely see a compromise to change the numbers, but keep ground-mounted guide signage.
IMHO, a modest compromise would be to stay with ground-mounted signs along the Super-2 stretch (east of Exit 9/MA 134) but go with overheads/cantilevered along the 4-lane divided stretch.  The reason being if there's a steady stream of trucks moving along in the right lane; those traveling along in the left lane will not be able to see the ground-mounted signs due to such being obstructed by the trucks.

While every sign can't be mounted overhead (and nobody's proposing such); at least the major interchange signs should be overhead along 4-lane divided stretch for visibility reasons.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

roadman

As bob7374 posted on the Massachusetts Exit Renumbering Contract thread, MassDOT is holding a public meeting to discuss the Route 6 sign replacement project on Monday, July 18th in Hyannis.  Details are at http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/route-6-sign-replacement-public-meeting-scheduled/

This appears to be a first for any state DOT - holding a public meeting for a highway sign replacement 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)

The Ghostbuster

I expect there will be a lot of bitching and whining at that public meeting. Miserable NIMBYS!

AMLNet49

Very interesting. I'm a college student and have always had this road hobby on the side since I was a kid, so I have developed a good knowledge base in the subject, but have never done anything with it except join this forum a while back. However I've followed the exit number conversion and Route 6 replacement projects closely, plus I am currently working on the Cape as a broadcaster (my actual career path) and this meeting is 5 minutes from where I am staying. I am considering going, but I don't know if it would be worth it. I imagine if I went I would probably just watch but I don't really know.

bob7374

Quote from: roadman on July 05, 2016, 04:22:26 PM
As bob7374 posted on the Massachusetts Exit Renumbering Contract thread, MassDOT is holding a public meeting to discuss the Route 6 sign replacement project on Monday, July 18th in Hyannis.  Details are at http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/route-6-sign-replacement-public-meeting-scheduled/

This appears to be a first for any state DOT - holding a public meeting for a highway sign replacement project.
MassDOT has now provided a link to the press release on their Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/massdotinfo/?fref=nf

I commented about whether the poster knew whether this was the first time MassDOT held a public meeting regarding a sign replacement project. So far, no response. At least the comment has not been deleted, unlike the  one stating how all of this was a waste of money that was there when I added my comment. I am thinking of attending this meeting, if just to see who turns up.

SectorZ

Quote from: bob7374 on July 07, 2016, 11:21:22 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 05, 2016, 04:22:26 PM
As bob7374 posted on the Massachusetts Exit Renumbering Contract thread, MassDOT is holding a public meeting to discuss the Route 6 sign replacement project on Monday, July 18th in Hyannis.  Details are at http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/route-6-sign-replacement-public-meeting-scheduled/

This appears to be a first for any state DOT - holding a public meeting for a highway sign replacement project.
MassDOT has now provided a link to the press release on their Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/massdotinfo/?fref=nf

I commented about whether the poster knew whether this was the first time MassDOT held a public meeting regarding a sign replacement project. So far, no response. At least the comment has not been deleted, unlike the  one stating how all of this was a waste of money that was there when I added my comment. I am thinking of attending this meeting, if just to see who turns up.

As of now, there are no comments, so apparently yours got deleted, too.

bob7374

Quote from: SectorZ on July 07, 2016, 01:37:52 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 07, 2016, 11:21:22 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 05, 2016, 04:22:26 PM
As bob7374 posted on the Massachusetts Exit Renumbering Contract thread, MassDOT is holding a public meeting to discuss the Route 6 sign replacement project on Monday, July 18th in Hyannis.  Details are at http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/route-6-sign-replacement-public-meeting-scheduled/

This appears to be a first for any state DOT - holding a public meeting for a highway sign replacement project.
MassDOT has now provided a link to the press release on their Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/massdotinfo/?fref=nf

I commented about whether the poster knew whether this was the first time MassDOT held a public meeting regarding a sign replacement project. So far, no response. At least the comment has not been deleted, unlike the  one stating how all of this was a waste of money that was there when I added my comment. I am thinking of attending this meeting, if just to see who turns up.

As of now, there are no comments, so apparently yours got deleted, too.
Shows up on my feed, still with no response. Perhaps only comments appear to those who 'like' the page.



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.