AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northeast => Topic started by: hotdogPi on October 12, 2013, 04:50:12 PM

Title: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on October 12, 2013, 04:50:12 PM
This is a general thread for all of Massachusetts.



Here are some things I want to know:

1. Almost EVERY weekday from about 3 to 7 PM, I-95/MA128 north from exits 33 to 37 will be backed up. Is there anything anyone can do to prevent the traffic from happening?

2. Mile markers are sometimes off by a bit, but the bridges are ALWAYS accurate. Why is this?

3. What has been happening with the Mass Pike tolls from exits 1-6?

4. Will the 128/127 and 1A/16/60 rotaries be made safer?

5. Why are there so many Dunkin Donuts?

6. Why are New Hampshire routes signed in Massachusetts shown with a Massachusetts shield? (NH 121A and NH 107)

7. Why so many MA shield signs for US routes?

8. Why can't MA 3 just be US 3?

9. What was MA 9 under the New England Route system?

10. Can anyone make the Lowell Connector much safer?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on October 12, 2013, 05:02:07 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 12, 2013, 04:50:12 PM
Is there anything anyone can do to prevent the traffic from happening?
No. Traffic just happens by itself. It has no correlation to the actions of anyone.

Quote from: 1 on October 12, 2013, 04:50:12 PM
What was MA 9 under the New England Route system?
Goat. http://broermapsonline.org/online/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/NewEngland/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: dgolub on October 12, 2013, 07:32:33 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 12, 2013, 04:50:12 PM
5. Why are there so many Dunkin Donuts?

There are a lot in Connecticut, too.  I've sometimes wondered how many Dunkin Donuts franchises you'd pass if you drove US 1 from New York City to Boston.  I wouldn't be surprised if it's somewhere on the order of 50.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 12, 2013, 08:24:24 PM
FWIW, it has just been announced that San Diego is getting their first Duncan Doughuts
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: connroadgeek on October 12, 2013, 08:37:27 PM
Dunkin' Donuts is based in MA so they are everywhere in the New England states though they have been expanding their market.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on October 12, 2013, 09:40:47 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on October 12, 2013, 08:24:24 PM
FWIW, it has just been announced that San Diego is getting their first Duncan Doughuts
Is that a cheap knockoff?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on October 12, 2013, 10:31:25 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 12, 2013, 09:40:47 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on October 12, 2013, 08:24:24 PM
FWIW, it has just been announced that San Diego is getting their first Duncan Doughuts
Is that a cheap knockoff?
Duncan Doughuts is and is not a counterfeit Dunkin Donuts.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on October 12, 2013, 10:48:29 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 12, 2013, 04:50:12 PM
1. Almost EVERY weekday from about 3 to 7 PM, I-95/MA128 north from exits 33 to 37 will be backed up. Is there anything anyone can do to prevent the traffic from happening?

Rebuild the I-95/I-93 interchange in Woburn/Reading.  As long as it remains a cloverleaf, and I-95 north loses a lane between exits 37 and 38, the traffic will back up there.

Quote from: 1 on October 12, 2013, 04:50:12 PM3. What has been happening with the Mass Pike tolls from exits 1-6?

Reinstated as of October 15th.  http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/main/tabid/1075/ctl/detail/mid/2937/itemid/359/Western-Turnpike-Toll-Collection-Resumes-October-15--2013-Between-Interchanges-1-and-6.aspx
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: deathtopumpkins on October 13, 2013, 12:21:31 AM
Quote from: 1 on October 12, 2013, 04:50:12 PM
7. Why so many MA shield signs for US routes?

Because MassDOT treats all routes equally - be they state, US, or Interstate. It's all just Route 128, Route 1, Route 95. Thus shield mix-ups are fairly common.

Quote8. Why can't MA 3 just be US 3?

It has been determined for some reason that part of the route in Cambridge and Boston does not meet US highway standards. I doubt MassDOT would care about redesignating it as a US route anyway, since for decades it's always just been Route 3. Especially given the number of shield errors I don't think anyone actually knows or cares the difference.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on October 13, 2013, 01:21:14 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 13, 2013, 12:21:31 AM
It has been determined for some reason that part of the route in Cambridge and Boston does not meet US highway standards.
I doubt this is the reason, since the standards don't change when you cross Mass Ave. It's simply not US 3 because it was never made part of US 3.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: dgolub on October 13, 2013, 12:14:31 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 13, 2013, 01:21:14 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 13, 2013, 12:21:31 AM
It has been determined for some reason that part of the route in Cambridge and Boston does not meet US highway standards.
I doubt this is the reason, since the standards don't change when you cross Mass Ave. It's simply not US 3 because it was never made part of US 3.

US highway standards?  What standards?  US routes get routed along pairs of one-lane one-way streets.  It's not like interstates where they can't have traffic lights, low bridges, narrow lanes, etc.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on October 13, 2013, 02:55:25 PM
New U.S. Routes (and extensions) must meet AASHTO Green Book standards.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: dgolub on October 13, 2013, 04:17:13 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 13, 2013, 02:55:25 PM
New U.S. Routes (and extensions) must meet AASHTO Green Book standards.

And what about MA 3 wouldn't meet the standards?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on October 13, 2013, 04:22:27 PM
Presumably the part on Mem Drive-Longfellow Bridge-Embankment Road. Not that US 3 on Mem Drive is built to any higher standards, but ASSHTO is anal.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on October 13, 2013, 06:53:35 PM
Quote from: dgolub on October 13, 2013, 12:14:31 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 13, 2013, 01:21:14 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 13, 2013, 12:21:31 AM
It has been determined for some reason that part of the route in Cambridge and Boston does not meet US highway standards.
I doubt this is the reason, since the standards don't change when you cross Mass Ave. It's simply not US 3 because it was never made part of US 3.

US highway standards?  What standards?  US routes get routed along pairs of one-lane one-way streets.  It's not like interstates where they can't have traffic lights, low bridges, narrow lanes, etc.
US 11 in Watertown, NY is even on a residential street with no pavement markings and all-way stops!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: deathtopumpkins on October 13, 2013, 07:51:01 PM
That's just the excuse I've heard several times in several places, including on this forum.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on October 13, 2013, 07:54:07 PM
Nothing beats US 83 Business in San Ygnacio, TX. This is a two-way street: https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=27.044851,-99.443886&spn=0.015499,0.028346&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=27.044667,-99.443818&panoid=jJ7AUrVZ7azRAFWN0Pu-aw&cbp=12,311.63,,0,13.11
Doesn't seem to have any businesses, though there are some historic buildings. It looks to be completely unsigned from US 83.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on October 13, 2013, 09:35:41 PM
Maybe some day that route can be business I-2.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on October 13, 2013, 10:44:21 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 13, 2013, 01:21:14 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on October 13, 2013, 12:21:31 AM
It has been determined for some reason that part of the route in Cambridge and Boston does not meet US highway standards.
I doubt this is the reason, since the standards don't change when you cross Mass Ave. It's simply not US 3 because it was never made part of US 3.
Given that this situation has been there since the 1920s, standards don't enter into the equation.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: dgolub on October 15, 2013, 08:36:03 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2013, 08:32:27 AM
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.

Inertia, I suppose.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on October 15, 2013, 09:01:21 AM
Quote from: dgolub on October 12, 2013, 07:32:33 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 12, 2013, 04:50:12 PM
5. Why are there so many Dunkin Donuts?

There are a lot in Connecticut, too.  I've sometimes wondered how many Dunkin Donuts franchises you'd pass if you drove US 1 from New York City to Boston.  I wouldn't be surprised if it's somewhere on the order of 50.

I figure it's somewhere on the order of 50 just from Providence to Boston.

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.).

There is one of those on VFW Parkway in West Roxbury, about 1/4 mile south of another DD. When I lived in West Roxbury and used Providence Highway/US 1 to get to work, there were 7 DD along my 8 mile commute.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on October 15, 2013, 10:27:23 AM
 :-D
Quote from: spooky on October 15, 2013, 09:01:21 AM
Quote from: dgolub on October 12, 2013, 07:32:33 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 12, 2013, 04:50:12 PM
5. Why are there so many Dunkin Donuts?

There are a lot in Connecticut, too.  I've sometimes wondered how many Dunkin Donuts franchises you'd pass if you drove US 1 from New York City to Boston.  I wouldn't be surprised if it's somewhere on the order of 50.

I figure it's somewhere on the order of 50 just from Providence to Boston.

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.).

There is one of those on VFW Parkway in West Roxbury, about 1/4 mile south of another DD. When I lived in West Roxbury and used Providence Highway/US 1 to get to work, there were 7 DD along my 8 mile commute.
As I've always joked, one of the worst directions you can give anyone in the Boston area: Turn right when you see the Dunkin' Donuts.  :-D
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 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 (?)).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 15, 2013, 01:00:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on October 15, 2013, 01:06:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on October 15, 2013, 01:16:22 PM
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).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Urban Prairie Schooner on October 15, 2013, 01:19:49 PM
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:
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on October 15, 2013, 03:20:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on October 15, 2013, 03:27:15 PM
why not redesignate 3A as MA 3 in that scenario? instead of 203
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on October 15, 2013, 03:41:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on October 17, 2013, 12:48:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on October 18, 2013, 12:43:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 18, 2013, 02:22:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on October 18, 2013, 02:32:05 PM
Google "speed reduction stripes".
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on October 21, 2013, 07:55:17 AM
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."
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on November 24, 2013, 03:17:12 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?

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?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 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).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on November 24, 2013, 11:13:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on November 25, 2013, 12:58:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on November 25, 2013, 03:10:12 PM
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!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on November 25, 2013, 04:26:08 PM
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 (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/pa/i-95/s.html)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on November 25, 2013, 04:48:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on November 25, 2013, 11:42:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on November 27, 2013, 12:38:36 PM
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...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on November 27, 2013, 12:43:18 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 27, 2013, 12:42:39 PM
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.

Another thing about these oldies...the Exit 29 sign only references RI 114 and neglects US 1.  It really should say US 1 to RI 114 as the subsequent signs in RI indicate.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on November 27, 2013, 10:54:45 PM
What's really odd is that MA is usually really good about sigining upcoming exits in neighboring states.  There is very clear signage on I-395, I-84, I-91, and I-95 (approaching the NH border) for upcoming rest areas and exits in the next state.  So to have this pretty obvious snub of RI is unusual.  The only other place I can think of with this bad of a snub is on US-3 heading into NH, where MA has no sign for NH Exit 1, which is only 1/4 mile over the line.   Not sure about I-93 heading to NH, as I very rarely go north that way. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on November 27, 2013, 10:59:49 PM
I-93 has a 1.6 mile difference between the state border and Exit 1, so it's no problem.


Note: I-95 is a slight problem, because it shows MA 107 and not NH 107.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on November 29, 2013, 09:23:19 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on November 27, 2013, 10:54:45 PM
What's really odd is that MA is usually really good about sigining upcoming exits in neighboring states.  There is very clear signage on I-395, I-84, I-91, and I-95 (approaching the NH border) for upcoming rest areas and exits in the next state.  So to have this pretty obvious snub of RI is unusual.  The only other place I can think of with this bad of a snub is on US-3 heading into NH, where MA has no sign for NH Exit 1, which is only 1/4 mile over the line.   Not sure about I-93 heading to NH, as I very rarely go north that way. 

I took a closer look at the Canton to Attleboro project plans the other day and compared it to GSV at the sign location.  I noted that the MA/RI state line at this location takes a bizarre angle in relation to the highway, which is excerbated by the presense of the bridge - which also results in having the "Entering Pawtcket Rhode Island" LGS placed within Massachusetts in front of the structure.  Because of this, I suspect what happened is that the project designer presumed the Exit 30 -29 signs and support were in Rhode Island, without doing any detailed survey or other investigation first.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 30, 2013, 11:37:18 PM
It may not mean much, but I noticed that some of the signs on I-91 between the Connecticut state line to Exit 14 at the West Springfield/Holyoke town line (I-90/Massachusetts Turnpike) are either new or different, such as the town line signs and the usual restrictions for no U-turn, etc.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2013, 11:47:16 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 27, 2013, 12:38:36 PM
I do appreciate PHLBOS' point about bordering state snubbing.  Can't all the DOTs just get along?  Haha...

Along those lines, when I drove all of I-95 in Connecticut (and Rhode Island and Massachusetts, too) last summer, I don't recall seeing even one sign with the place name Boston on it anywhere in Connecticut. First one I noticed was in Rhode Island.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on December 01, 2013, 03:41:45 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2013, 11:47:16 PM
Along those lines, when I drove all of I-95 in Connecticut (and Rhode Island and Massachusetts, too) last summer, I don't recall seeing even one sign with the place name Boston on it anywhere in Connecticut. First one I noticed was in Rhode Island.
That's because I-95 isn't the route to Boston.
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/connecticut050/i-091_nb_exit_029_02.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on December 02, 2013, 09:53:55 AM
Quote from: 1 on November 27, 2013, 10:59:49 PMNote: I-95 is a slight problem, because it shows MA 107 and not NH 107.
It is worth noting that NH used to use square/rectangular shields for their state route markers decades ago.

Since the only difference between a MA and a NH shield shapewise is only with the left side (for the Old Man of the Mountain NH shield); MassHighway/DOT's using a generic rectangle for the the Route 107 shield is somewhat forgiveable in this case IMHO.  You may recall that there's another thread that covers border-state DOT signing for interchanges located outside of their respective jurisdictions.  Some states take the time to copy the shape/look of an adjacent state shield and in other instances, they don't.

Quote from: roadman on November 29, 2013, 09:23:19 AMI took a closer look at the Canton to Attleboro project plans the other day and compared it to GSV at the sign location.  I noted that the MA/RI state line at this location takes a bizarre angle in relation to the highway, which is excerbated by the presense of the bridge - which also results in having the "Entering Pawtcket Rhode Island" LGS placed within Massachusetts in front of the structure.  Because of this, I suspect what happened is that the project designer presumed the Exit 30 -29 signs and support were in Rhode Island, without doing any detailed survey or other investigation first.
While I certainly don't doubt the above happening at all or being the reason why that BGS gantry was ignored, I have to ask the following question; did anybody pull the previous DPW signing contract for that section of I-95 that erected the older BGS' and look over the limits of work?  That would've been the first thing I'd have done.

If memory serves, MassDPW signing of Entering Pawtucket Rhode Island appeared to be SOP back then.  A similar-vintage Mass DPW-spec'd BGS reading Entering East Providence Rhode Island was also erected along I-195 at the RI border.

Note: that particular BGS was replaced with a MassHighway-spec'd Welcome to Rhode Island BGS but the WEST 195 through-BGS is of the 1977-vintage (and it shows wearwise).

http://goo.gl/maps/L2PCQ (http://goo.gl/maps/L2PCQ)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 11, 2014, 06:40:41 PM
MassDOT is installing permanent travel-time signs to supplant the portable ones we've had the last few years.

http://m.wcvb.com/news/massachusetts-drivers-get-real-time-traffic-info/25431808

Meanwhile, the Herald's reporting on the regular VMSs being plagued by malfunction:

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2014/04/ritzy_signs_on_fritz_43_busted_digital_highway_boards_leave
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on April 11, 2014, 07:43:37 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 11, 2014, 06:40:41 PM
MassDOT is installing permanent travel-time signs to supplant the portable ones we've had the last few years.

http://m.wcvb.com/news/massachusetts-drivers-get-real-time-traffic-info/25431808

This is a continuation (although on a much larger scale) of the travel time sign installations on Cape Cod that were just turned on today.

Quote

Meanwhile, the Herald's reporting on the regular VMSs being plagued by malfunction:

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2014/04/ritzy_signs_on_fritz_43_busted_digital_highway_boards_leave


Most of the signs in the Herald's report were installed under the Big Dig project, or the pre-Big Dig "zipper lane" mitigation.  A number of these signs - including the one that was featured on the Herald front page this morning - are designed to only activate when an overheight vehicle trips the sensors.  And all of these signs, which are a combination of early LED and fiber-optic flip disc technology, are at least 20 years old.  But the Herald doesn't let facts get in the way of "shock horror" reporting.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on April 11, 2014, 11:25:32 PM
The MassDOT-Highway administrator doesn't help by claiming "most" of the signs are only eight years old.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on April 12, 2014, 02:45:21 PM
Wonder haw that number was derived by whomever provided it to the Administrator.  Even given the recent CMS installations north of Boston on I-93 and I-95, the average age of all the CMS boards on MassDOT highways (including the Big Dig and the Pike) is still greater than eight years.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on April 12, 2014, 10:53:58 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 11, 2014, 07:43:37 PM
Most of the signs in the Herald's report were installed under the Big Dig project, or the pre-Big Dig "zipper lane" mitigation.  A number of these signs - including the one that was featured on the Herald front page this morning - are designed to only activate when an overheight vehicle trips the sensors.  And all of these signs, which are a combination of early LED and fiber-optic flip disc technology, are at least 20 years old.  But the Herald doesn't let facts get in the way of "shock horror" reporting.

The one in that picture, if I'm not mistaken, is on the sign bridge on the southbound I-93/Zakim Bridge just before the tunnel entrance.  (The giveaway is the BGS, on the same bridge, for the half-mile warning to the 1A-Airport exit.)  That is not just an overheight warning and is in good working order.  (Great example of a broken sign, Herald.)  It regularly carries other messages, such as alerts about the weekend work on the I-90/Pru Tunnel or generic messages such as "State Law - Move Over/Slow Down for Emergency Vehicles."
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on April 14, 2014, 01:02:48 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on April 12, 2014, 10:53:58 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 11, 2014, 07:43:37 PM
Most of the signs in the Herald's report were installed under the Big Dig project, or the pre-Big Dig "zipper lane" mitigation.  A number of these signs - including the one that was featured on the Herald front page this morning - are designed to only activate when an overheight vehicle trips the sensors.  And all of these signs, which are a combination of early LED and fiber-optic flip disc technology, are at least 20 years old.  But the Herald doesn't let facts get in the way of "shock horror" reporting.

The one in that picture, if I'm not mistaken, is on the sign bridge on the southbound I-93/Zakim Bridge just before the tunnel entrance.  (The giveaway is the BGS, on the same bridge, for the half-mile warning to the 1A-Airport exit.)  That is not just an overheight warning and is in good working order.  (Great example of a broken sign, Herald.)  It regularly carries other messages, such as alerts about the weekend work on the I-90/Pru Tunnel or generic messages such as "State Law - Move Over/Slow Down for Emergency Vehicles."

Thanks for the clarification.  I was unaware that the use of that particular board was expanded to include regular MassDOT VMS messages.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on April 16, 2014, 11:30:12 AM
Quote from: roadman on April 11, 2014, 07:43:37 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 11, 2014, 06:40:41 PM
MassDOT is installing permanent travel-time signs to supplant the portable ones we've had the last few years.

http://m.wcvb.com/news/massachusetts-drivers-get-real-time-traffic-info/25431808

This is a continuation (although on a much larger scale) of the travel time sign installations on Cape Cod that were just turned on today.
Here, from the MassDOT press release, is an image of the new permanent travel time signs:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.mass.gov%2Ftransportation%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F2%2F2014%2F04%2FGo-Time-Traffic-Data-Sign-April-11-2014-200x300.jpg&hash=eb8a9cfc470f91deeda749400d8614b4013b24d1)
From the mile marker in the background, this is on MA 25 East. It will be interesting to see what 3 exits show up on the signs along I-93 north and south of Boston. For example, at Exit 6 NB the current VMS reports the time to I-90, would they add exits before or after, perhaps Neponset Ave or Morrissey Blvd before and/or US 1/Tobin Bridge after?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on April 16, 2014, 03:28:53 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on April 16, 2014, 11:30:12 AM
From the mile marker in the background, this is on MA 25 East. It will be interesting to see what 3 exits show up on the signs along I-93 north and south of Boston. For example, at Exit 6 NB the current VMS reports the time to I-90, would they add exits before or after, perhaps Neponset Ave or Morrissey Blvd before and/or US 1/Tobin Bridge after?

I would think every freeway would be listed, as well as MA 3A/203 and MA 16.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on April 16, 2014, 03:53:18 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on April 16, 2014, 11:30:12 AM
From the mile marker in the background, this is on MA 25 East.
The EAST 25 assurance shield in the background is even a bigger give-away.  :sombrero:

Quote from: 1 on April 16, 2014, 03:28:53 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on April 16, 2014, 11:30:12 AMIt will be interesting to see what 3 exits show up on the signs along I-93 north and south of Boston. For example, at Exit 6 NB the current VMS reports the time to I-90, would they add exits before or after, perhaps Neponset Ave or Morrissey Blvd before and/or US 1/Tobin Bridge after?
I would think every freeway would be listed, as well as MA 3A/203 and MA 16.
Given that these new Travel-Time Display BGS' are not full-blown VMS'; listing more than 3 locations/interchanges per sign (if I'm interpreting what you're stating correctly) would be a bit overkill IMHO.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on April 16, 2014, 04:01:52 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 16, 2014, 03:53:18 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on April 16, 2014, 11:30:12 AM
From the mile marker in the background, this is on MA 25 East.
The EAST 25 assurance shield in the background is even a bigger give-away.  :sombrero:

Quote from: 1 on April 16, 2014, 03:28:53 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on April 16, 2014, 11:30:12 AMIt will be interesting to see what 3 exits show up on the signs along I-93 north and south of Boston. For example, at Exit 6 NB the current VMS reports the time to I-90, would they add exits before or after, perhaps Neponset Ave or Morrissey Blvd before and/or US 1/Tobin Bridge after?
I would think every freeway would be listed, as well as MA 3A/203 and MA 16.
Given that these new Travel-Time Display BGS' are not full-blown VMS'; listing more than 3 locations/interchanges per sign (if I'm interpreting what you're stating correctly) would be a bit overkill IMHO.

Every freeway crossing I-93, as well as MA 3A/203 and MA 16, would be on at least one. Each sign would only have the closest 3, though.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on April 16, 2014, 06:16:14 PM
As I understand it, not all of the proposed signs under the "statewide" GoTime project (to use MassDOT's new branding) will have three destinations, especially on roads like I-90 and the lower end of I-495 where there is some distance between interchanges.  I've been told this is because, once you get beyond a certain distance (20 miles?), the travel time information does not quickly update and will become unreliable.
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 21, 2014, 12:19:39 PM
How about this?

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5512/14238330055_b9712e352d_c.jpg)

Are they serious about signing the Cape here, on Morrissey Blvd barely into Dorchester, or is this another case of replacement in kind over the years?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on May 21, 2014, 03:29:37 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 21, 2014, 12:19:39 PM
How about this?

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5512/14238330055_b9712e352d_c.jpg)

Are they serious about signing the Cape here, on Morrissey Blvd barely into Dorchester, or is this another case of replacement in kind over the years?
It's likely the latter.  Prior to the Expressway being built, this was the main route to the South Shore & Cape from Boston (MA C37).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on May 21, 2014, 09:28:19 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 16, 2014, 06:16:14 PM
As I understand it, not all of the proposed signs under the "statewide" GoTime project (to use MassDOT's new branding) will have three destinations, especially on roads like I-90 and the lower end of I-495 where there is some distance between interchanges.  I've been told this is because, once you get beyond a certain distance (20 miles?), the travel time information does not quickly update and will become unreliable.
I have been testing the accuracy of the temporary GoTime signs along MA 3 and I-93 into and out of Boston for the past month. There seems to be a wide difference in accurate times between signs. For example, the VMS just beyond the Brighton tolls heading east constantly overestimates the time it will get to Exit 15/Columbia Rd on I-93, sometimes by more than 50%. Yesterday, it indicated it would take 34 minutes to go the 5 miles, it took 17. A day the previous week it said it would take 26 minutes, it took 12. Could this vast discrepancy be do to the need to calculate speeds on two different highways.

The portable VMSs on I-93 South typically are more accurate with time estimates close to 5 minutes of the actual travel time. The time measured is that going from just after Mass Ave (Exit 18) the 10 miles to Exit 6 in Braintree. There is another sign at the 1/2 point, 5 miles to Exit 6 between off-ramps for Exits 11A and 11B. There is usually a lower estimated time from the 5 mile sign than you would expect from the Exit 18 estimate. For example, if at Exit 18 it says it would take 30 minutes to get to Exit 6, you would expect the 5 mile sign to indicate about 15 minutes, but usually that sign takes off a few minutes and would say 11 or 12, this despite the backups that occur approaching the Braintree Split which tend to increase the travel time to beyond what was indicated on the first sign. The VMS on MA 3 at I-93 seems fairly accurate, but typically overestimates the time by 5 to 10 minutes. Given that this is at off-peak, being the middle of the day, and traffic is typically going 5 to 10 mph over the speed limit, you would expect this overestimation (assuming time is calculated as if the max speed is the speed limit).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on May 22, 2014, 11:19:47 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 21, 2014, 09:28:19 PMthe VMS just beyond the Brighton tolls heading east constantly overestimates the time it will get to Exit 15/Columbia Rd on I-93, sometimes by more than 50%. Yesterday, it indicated it would take 34 minutes to go the 5 miles, it took 17. A day the previous week it said it would take 26 minutes, it took 12.

By contrast, during the PM rush the travel time to the Zakim Bridge on I-93 northbound, shown on the same sign, is pretty consistently *under*-estimated.  I've lost count of the number of times it shows travel times at ten minutes or less and the actual times are 30 minutes or more.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 22, 2014, 09:28:16 PM
Are the speeds calculated by cell phone signals?  And if so, are they rounded down to the speed limit?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 22, 2014, 09:44:27 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 21, 2014, 03:29:37 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 21, 2014, 12:19:39 PM
How about this?

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5512/14238330055_b9712e352d_c.jpg)

Are they serious about signing the Cape here, on Morrissey Blvd barely into Dorchester, or is this another case of replacement in kind over the years?
It's likely the latter.  Prior to the Expressway being built, this was the main route to the South Shore & Cape from Boston (MA C37).

Almost more puzzling is this sign a few hundred yards north of there on Mt. Vernon St>:

http://goo.gl/maps/KOYkQ

Route 3?  When was the last time Route 3 ran separately from 93?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on May 22, 2014, 11:47:00 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 22, 2014, 09:44:27 PM
Almost more puzzling is this sign a few hundred yards north of there on Mt. Vernon St>:

http://goo.gl/maps/KOYkQ

Route 3?  When was the last time Route 3 ran separately from 93?
That sign was probably replaced at the same time the other signs in the area, like the one below, were, earlier this year. The previous ones in this area had all been installed before I-93 was routed along the Expressway.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93signs2214e.jpg&hash=e56142e6f8cca12d3b4d6c88698ee950b55d2627)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on May 23, 2014, 11:52:14 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 22, 2014, 09:28:16 PM
Are the speeds calculated by cell phone signals?  And if so, are they rounded down to the speed limit?

Last I heard, they used Bluetooth signals.  They're not necessarily rounded down, either.  A few days ago I encountered a travel-time VMS on the MassPike which stated "27 MILES - 24 MINUTES."  That's 67.5mph in a 65 zone.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on May 23, 2014, 02:25:21 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 23, 2014, 11:52:14 AM
They're not necessarily rounded down, either.  A few days ago I encountered a travel-time VMS on the MassPike which stated "27 MILES - 24 MINUTES."  That's 67.5mph in a 65 zone.

VMS times going above the speed limit is not new. I have seen "16 miles 14 minutes".
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 23, 2014, 03:32:03 PM
I don't know -- those distances at 65mph are reached in the times posted plus sone fraction.  I'm not saying this is how they do it, but based on these examples if they do drop the fraction it works out. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on May 23, 2014, 07:58:42 PM
Depends on the state. NJ won't go above the limit, but it DOES average 55 and 65 zones (I-287 south from I-80: 14 miles, 14 minutes). Some states intentionally underestimate at 50-55 in a 65, other states just tell it like it is (I think Chicagoland is honest) regardless of speeding.


Quote(I think Chicagoland is honest)
EDIT: I think that's the first time anyone has typed that unironically.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 12, 2014, 10:15:13 PM
Is this another case of a DCR (Dept. of Conservation and Recreation, former MDC) Parkway Unit sign goof? The BBS (Big Brown Sign) on Soldiers Field Road westbound, seen below, recently replaced a BGS with the same info. I know there is some sort of educational institution near Harvard Square, but does the Square itself (or Cambridge as a whole) merit a completely brown sign?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fharvsign714.jpg&hash=0a54f92a8dc1072d61d039fd9f197d5fbf2f4449)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on July 12, 2014, 10:23:23 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 23, 2014, 07:58:42 PM
Depends on the state. NJ won't go above the limit, but it DOES average 55 and 65 zones (I-287 south from I-80: 14 miles, 14 minutes). Some states intentionally underestimate at 50-55 in a 65, other states just tell it like it is (I think Chicagoland is honest) regardless of speeding.


Quote(I think Chicagoland is honest)
EDIT: I think that's the first time anyone has typed that unironically.

As an aside, New York goes above the limit on Long Island. I've seen a VMS on the Northern State with a time that is only possible if you're going 70 (in a 55). No matter how I rounded it, you'd be speeding. Not that people actually go 55 on that road...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 14, 2014, 05:32:47 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 12, 2014, 10:15:13 PM
Is this another case of a DCR (Dept. of Conservation and Recreation, former MDC) Parkway Unit sign goof? The BBS (Big Brown Sign) on Soldiers Field Road westbound, seen below, recently replaced a BGS with the same info. I know there is some sort of educational institution near Harvard Square, but does the Square itself (or Cambridge as a whole) merit a completely brown sign?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fharvsign714.jpg&hash=0a54f92a8dc1072d61d039fd9f197d5fbf2f4449)
AFAIK, per current DCR Parkway signing standards, this sign should be green, not brown.  Even if the intent of the sign was to point people to Harvard University, it would still be green.  For signing purposes, colleges and universities are not considered historic (no matter how many decades they've been around), cultural, or recreational facilities.

fixed quoting -I
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 14, 2014, 07:51:09 PM
I don't think the dcr or MDC before it has ever viewed sign standards as particularly important.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 26, 2014, 06:57:06 PM
These three pictures were from I-95 North by the Merrimack River, in or near Newburyport and Amesbury, MA on June 17, 2014. There's a huge bridge replacement project going on in that region right now.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIGpQ6GY.jpg&hash=75b4dded6293aaedc445779713d622bfa150c406)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJxD5Zac.jpg&hash=2213260d3522ada13feacc0be074313b00c3d772)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3QXnKKl.jpg&hash=996297aa953bb7abee2a847243c167d417111fe4)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 26, 2014, 08:50:51 PM
I completely forgot I had pics of this somewhere to post.  Huge project–looks like lane realignments over 2-3 miles to accommodate staging construction with the current bridge there.

That blue I-beam, it should be noted, is about 10 feet tall.

This is a pretty large project to have so little chatter about here, much like the Crosby's Corner relocation, which I'll also post pics of if I ever get around to it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on July 26, 2014, 09:00:04 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 26, 2014, 08:50:51 PM
I completely forgot I had pics of this somewhere to post.  Huge project–looks like lane realignments over 2-3 miles to accommodate staging construction with the current bridge there.

That blue I-beam, it should be noted, is about 10 feet tall.

This is a pretty large project to have so little chatter about here, much like the Crosby's Corner relocation, which I'll also post pics of if I ever get around to it.
I'm upset about that truss disappearing, but shoulders are nice. Not just the bridge being reconstructed, but several small structures on either side of it. No chatter because it's a fairly cut-and-dried project with little intrigue and not a major new highway.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on July 26, 2014, 09:00:36 PM
I want a picture of something.

It's a VMS southbound on I-93, just a few feet after the "Exit 42" sign.

Notice the duplicated letters on the top row. What you see below is not exact, but it's close.

NIGHHT
WORK
AHEAD

M'CYCCLE
USE
CAUTION

MILLLED
SURFACE
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 26, 2014, 09:14:28 PM
Yes...that blue I-Beam was freakin' HUGE! Also, those three pictures were in order heading north on I-95. The first picture was in Newburyport, MA, north of Exit 57 (MA Route 113) and south of the Merrimack River.

There was this tiny picture heading southbound later that day:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7JP6SHe.jpg&hash=f5d12110c7eb53d3824c0fde5f183552cfefc248)

I couldn't help but notice that the state seal things are gone above each side of the road on the old bridge.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 26, 2014, 09:15:13 PM

Quote from: Alps on July 26, 2014, 09:00:04 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 26, 2014, 08:50:51 PM
I completely forgot I had pics of this somewhere to post.  Huge project–looks like lane realignments over 2-3 miles to accommodate staging construction with the current bridge there.

That blue I-beam, it should be noted, is about 10 feet tall.

This is a pretty large project to have so little chatter about here, much like the Crosby's Corner relocation, which I'll also post pics of if I ever get around to it.
I'm upset about that truss disappearing, but shoulders are nice. Not just the bridge being reconstructed, but several small structures on either side of it. No chatter because it's a fairly cut-and-dried project with little intrigue and not a major new highway.

Not much intrigue, but still something interesting to see.  The new bridge, it seems, will at least echo the arch of the old one, but with more style than substance:

http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/newburyport-whittier-bridgei-95-project-work-update/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 27, 2014, 12:49:06 PM
Today's Globe reports that further remnants of the abandoned I-95 project in Saugus are being removed after 40 years.  Sand from the 90-foot-wide berm across Rumney Marsh is being trucked down the road to replenish Winthrop Beach:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2014/07/26/state-driving-million-winthrop-beach-rumney-marsh-project/67XgkGLSjw1NoQeO7O4fRK/story.html

I believe part was already removed in the 1990s as part of the agreements permitting the Big Dig to proceed, but the article doesn't mention that.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 28, 2014, 11:09:10 AM
Quote from: 1 on July 26, 2014, 09:00:36 PM
I want a picture of something.

It's a VMS southbound on I-93, just a few feet after the "Exit 42" sign.

Notice the duplicated letters on the top row. What you see below is not exact, but it's close.

NIGHHT
WORK
AHEAD

M'CYCCLE
USE
CAUTION

MILLLED
SURFACE

Saw that VMS myself last Thursday, but couldn't snap a picture.  Glad to know I wasn't imagining things.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 29, 2014, 10:53:29 PM
Changing topics slightly to variable messages for motorists from permanent sign placements, or the lack of them. Coming back from a family trip to the Cape last weekend, we stopped to eat in Plymouth taking Exit 6 off of MA 3 North. If MassDOT is not considering decommissioning US 44 east of MA 3, then they are doing a good job in hiding the route's existence. While the pull through signs on MA 3 put up during the last sign replacement contract do indicate US 44 and MA 3 run between exits 6 and 7, the paddle signage at the end of the Exit 6 ramp only indicated Samoset Street East and West. There were also no US 44 shields between MA 3 and MA 3A with the lone exception of an End US 44 sign approaching MA 3A. Heading west from Plymouth there is an old paddle sign on Samoset approaching 3A indicating US 44 West is straight ahead, but the new signs put up on 3A itself refer to West MA 44. There were, again, no US 44 shields west of 3A to 3, except for a lone trailblazer for US 44 west at the MA 3 on-ramp. The paddle signs at the intersection only refer to MA 3 North. There was also only a MA 3 reassurance marker after Exit 6. Don't know if the same sign patterns occur for the southbound Exit 6A ramp. For US 3 fans, (or those who would prefer US 3 south of Boston) there still is an erroneous South US 3 route marker southbound after the MA 14 exit in Duxbury (an erroneous North US 3 sign put up during a bridge replacement after Exit 14 in Rockland last year has been replaced).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on August 01, 2014, 02:44:17 PM
Another photo I took over the weekend was one of the two greened-over and updated paddle/guide signs for the intersection of MA 53 and Derby Street in Hingham. Derby Street was officially MA 228 (and before that 128) up until at least 10 years ago. The signs have been up for at least 20 years indicating that MA 228 (North or South, depending on the sign) turned left onto Derby Street to get to MA 3. These were updated last month, and look like this now:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fma53228dst1.jpg&hash=d0f2a600c37ccc791694a6fafd60c8ea631db8b9)
However, none of the related trailblazer/reassurance markers at the intersection have been taken down, even the one a few feet behind where the photo was taken. One of the trailblazers in fact has even had its North banner replaced in the last couple years (that's the one you can see the back of across the intersection in the photo). It appears MassDOT can only fix one type of sign at a time.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on August 01, 2014, 03:21:15 PM
It's about time they fixed this!  I alerted MA DOT to this about 5 years ago and they were in complete shock when I told them.  They said they would take care of it.  Who knew it would be 5 years later!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on August 10, 2014, 11:38:17 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 01, 2014, 02:44:17 PM
Another photo I took over the weekend was one of the two greened-over and updated paddle/guide signs for the intersection of MA 53 and Derby Street in Hingham. Derby Street was officially MA 228 (and before that 128) up until at least 10 years ago. The signs have been up for at least 20 years indicating that MA 228 (North or South, depending on the sign) turned left onto Derby Street to get to MA 3. These were updated last month, and look like this now:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fma53228dst1.jpg&hash=d0f2a600c37ccc791694a6fafd60c8ea631db8b9)
However, none of the related trailblazer/reassurance markers at the intersection have been taken down, even the one a few feet behind where the photo was taken. One of the trailblazers in fact has even had its North banner replaced in the last couple years (that's the one you can see the back of across the intersection in the photo). It appears MassDOT can only fix one type of sign at a time.
Thought I'd provide a photo of the shields remaining beyond the intersection southbound:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fma53228dw3.jpg&hash=30b3d3bf4b0ef2a5a7d53c3f0e2bf4575e3dfc37)
These date from the 1980s, the directional banner is at least 10 years older. All the photos referred to above are on my Misc. Mass sign page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 11, 2014, 09:11:40 PM
How old are these signs? they're on the ramp from I-290 to I-190.

I thought the date on the front said 5-85 but that seems too late as I-190 opened in 1983 but the ramps might have been built as early as 1975.  If 5-85 is the correct date, it seems kinda late for non-reflective button copy.

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5589/14868545846_095c45b35d.jpg)

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3835/14704994197_0fe5e7f9f8.jpg)


Off topic: Why does MASS put button copy interstate shields on BGSs?  Is it because button copy is brighter than demountable?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 12, 2014, 09:14:24 AM
@doofy103  Massachusetts started putting button copy numerals on overhead sign Interstate shields in the mid 1980s.  This was after MassDPW had some bad experiences with numerals on silk screened shields prematurely fading.  For several years after the manufacturing of button copy was officially discontinued, at least one of MassHighway's sign fabricators continued to make the numerals in-house.

Most overhead signs on Massachusetts roadways with button copy numeral Interstate shields were installed during the "second generation" signing replacement projects completed between the early 1990s and the early 2000s.

In the late-2000s, MassDOT recognized that continued use of button copy numerals was impractical, and then changed their specifications to now require demountable HIP numerals on overhead sign Interstate shields instead.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on August 18, 2014, 12:40:55 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on August 11, 2014, 09:11:40 PM
How old are these signs? they're on the ramp from I-290 to I-190.

I thought the date on the front said 5-85 but that seems too late as I-190 opened in 1983 but the ramps might have been built as early as 1975.  If 5-85 is the correct date, it seems kinda late for non-reflective button copy.

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5589/14868545846_095c45b35d.jpg)

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3835/14704994197_0fe5e7f9f8.jpg)

For a brief period, some DPW projects used button-copy lettering for its BGS'; the BGS' now being replaced along the Southeast Expressway (I-93) were installed in the mid-80s also had button-copy lettering but used reflective backgrounds.

As far as those I-290 BGS' were concerned; the selection of non-reflective button-copy (lettering only) may have been done in order to match in kind with the older BGS' along I-290 beyond the interchange so there would be a more uniform look... if such was indeed erected in the mid-80s.

IMHO, I have to wonder if that 5-85 datestamp was a mistake and should've been 5-75
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on August 21, 2014, 01:59:11 AM
I was just browsing around the internet reading up (and of course virtually traveling the roads via GSV) and noticed a few things interesting about MA roads. 

First of all, I noticed that after reading the article on the Sumner Tunnel in Boston on Wikipedia that MA 1A is sort of discontinuous at its southern terminus with its parent in North Park, Boston since the Big Dig.  I see now the SB Sumner Tunnel defaults into either NB I-93 & US 1 or MA 3 NB (Storrow Drive), but has no ramps connecting to SB US 1 (or I-93 either).  Motorists are to use either the Ted Williams Tunnel or make a turnabout at the Government Center.

Second, I noticed that the MA- RI border on US 1 is signed as it was a simple town line as no mention of the states except NB where US 1 crosses under I-95 one half mile north of the actual state line.  Instead a two sided black on white sign reads Entering Pawtuckett going SB and Entering Attleboro going NB.

Finally the fact that Massachusetts will not allow for US 1A to be a US designation in Attleboro.  US 1A is not connected at its northern end except via 2 miles of MA Route 1A (Newport Avenue) which I find interesting as well.  Though many northerners do not care about designations like in the south many do not notice it, but I would figure that AASHTO would and force MA to sign it as US 1A and not its own alternate being that it is commissioned in Rhode Island as US 1 Alternate.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: yankee.peddler on August 21, 2014, 06:13:27 AM
roadman65,

Ironically, if MassDPW (now MassDOT) had kept US 1 on its pre-1989 alignment through Boston, instead of creating the nonsensical concurrency with I-93, MA 1A would have a full interchange with US 1 coming out of the Sumner Tunnel:  US 1 North via I-93 and US 1 South via Storrow Drive.

At state borders, the MassDOT Town Line paddle signs generally place the state in small black letters underneath the town name.  I believe the sign in question has "Massachusetts" and "Rhode Island" under "Attleboro" and "Pawtucket" respectively, unless the sign has been changed since I last passed it.  Sometimes the sign features an abbreviation of the state next to the town name.  This variation may be found on US 5 on the MA-VT border.

To my knowledge, the only US "A" route in Mass was US 5A, which was signed until about 1970 as a regional alternative to US 5 (pre I-91) between Hartford and Springfield.  As a native New Englander, it never bothered me that US 1A and MA 1A were signed differently:  it's the same number.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on August 21, 2014, 08:00:02 AM
Yeah I remember that when US 1 used Storrow Drive and the VFW Parkway.  I was thinking about that one as in those days it would have worked. 

Thanks for giving me the name of those interesting town border signs.  Paddle Signs they are called, so I now know.  To me they are quite attractive and much more than the WELCOME sign they have on US 1 which is too plain.

Yeah it is all the same as I point out designations whether state or US do not matter as its the route number.  Though I was pointing out how interesting that one is how it changes at the state line from US to state the same route.  Although Business US 1 & 9 in New Jersey used to change into NY 1A and NY 9A inside the Holland Tunnel as well years ago.  That went from a business to an alternate which is actually a different loop designation all together.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on August 21, 2014, 10:13:07 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 21, 2014, 08:00:02 AM
Yeah I remember that when US 1 used Storrow Drive and the VFW Parkway.  I was thinking about that one as in those days it would have worked. 

What would have worked?

QuoteThanks for giving me the name of those interesting town border signs.  Paddle Signs they are called, so I now know.  To me they are quite attractive and much more than the WELCOME sign they have on US 1 which is too plain.

Paddle signs is a roadgeek term to describe the small green guide signs used in Massachusetts. MassDOT Highway Division calls them D6 and D8 signs.

I've heard the town line signs called "bookleaf" signs, since they are meant to look like an open book.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on August 21, 2014, 10:18:03 AM
It is worth noting that the Big Dig exit ramps were designed years before the decision was made to reroute US 1 onto I-93.  Be that as it may, the main issue I have with the Big Dig ramp arrangement is that the interchange with the Sumner/Callahan Tunnels (MA 1A) as well as Mass Pike/Ted Williams Tunnel (I-90) aren't full/complete movement interchanges. 

Forget the 1A through-movements for a moment (such can be handled theoretically by exiting onto the surface streets and follow the the nearest on-ramps to the tunnels); during the Big Dig's relatively short existence those extra ramps could've come in handy when one of the tunnels is either closed for repairs/construction and/or accidents. 

While the tunnel ceiling collapse of 2006 did not occur on the actual Ted Williams Tunnel per say, it did happen far enough along the eastern end of the mainline I-90 tunnel (aka the Liberty Tunnel) that it indeed impacted would-be traffic coming from I-93 North (the tunnel in question was closed for repairs following the collapse) as well as through I-90 East traffic.  Had there been a direct ramp from I-93 North to the Callahan Tunnel (MA 1A North), like there was pre-Big Dig; the associated traffic headaches due to the tunnel closure for repairs would've been greatly reduced.

Similar could be said when the Callahan Tunnel was closed earlier this year for repairs (there is no direct access to I-90 East from I-93 South).

At least when the Sumner Tunnel is closed for similar repairs as its Callahan counterpart (sometime later this year or early next year (?)); those using the Ted Williams Tunnel have direct access to I-93 North as well as I-93 South.

From what I've been told, the reasoning behind rerouting US 1 onto I-93 was due to trucks either hitting the low clearance overpasses and getting stuck on Storrow Drive (despite the various NO TRUCKS - CARS ONLY signs posted).  Such was likely the rationale why MA 1A wasn't designated along Storrow Drive, which would've given motorists a signed alternate to US 1 in the immediate Boston area.  It's worth noting that Storrow Drive only had the US 1 designation for about 18 years (1971-1989); prior to 1971, it was part of MA C1.  The C routes were all discontinued (in most instances, redesignated to their parent numbers) circa 1971.

Truth be told, most motorists don't really know (nor care) that the XA routes technically run along their respective parent routes.  In MA, the only known signed US 1/MA 1A concurrency is the relatively short stretch of US between Newburyport & Salisbury; though it's only signed that way southbound on the Salisbury side.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on August 21, 2014, 10:57:11 AM
What I find even more interesting is the fact that the Sumner/ Callahan Tunnels cannot be anymore used for contraflow as before the Big Dig.  Now with the new ramp configurations it cannot be done unless they close off the Sumner Tunnel ramp to Goverment Center which is on the extreme left, but that would make it awkward for SB I-93 to reach the Sumner if the Callahan is closed.

If they could be contraflow tunnels again, either one could be closed with minimal impact on traffic.

However, I can see the logic in the missing ramps at the I-93/ Tunnels interchange as the Ted Williams Tunnel does now cover those missing movements.  Though I am surprised that MassDOT did not include a SB I-93 to EB I-90 ramp since you can go WB to NB very easily.

As far as XA routes go, I am very sure many do not even realize the meaning of the A suffix and just like me as a child considered it a route of its own as being a loop of the number it bears.  Like I said in another post, most northerners call all roads regardless of designation a "ROUTE" and hardly ever uses the "I" for interstate.  So whether you make it US 1 ALT or SR 1 ALT it will appear the same in people's eyes.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on August 21, 2014, 12:29:43 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 21, 2014, 10:57:11 AMHowever, I can see the logic in the missing ramps at the I-93/ Tunnels interchange as the Ted Williams Tunnel does now cover those missing movements.
Oh I know that and under normal operating circumstances, that's fine; however, as we've all seen or heard about over the last decade, those missing movements can be problematic (especially during peak times) when one of the tunnels is temporarily closed for whatever reason.

In contrast & IIRC, the various bridge & tunnel crossings in NYC & Philly have fully accessible interchanges w/connecting highways. 

Note: while I-95 does not have a direct ramp to the Ben Franklin Bridge (I-676/US 30 East); one can connect with such in a simple, logical matter and such routing is clearly marked & signed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on August 21, 2014, 07:39:05 PM
The issue of MA 1A in Attleboro is also lessened now that RI has "downgraded" its US 1A to just RI 1A.  About two years ago, all the US 1A shields in East Providence and Pawtucket were replaced with just RI 1A shields.   This was deliberate, these were the only shields changed on most assemblies and they got all of them.  Not sure about the stretch in Cranston/Providence, as I haven't been that way in a while.   The only US-1A shields I know still exist are the ones on the Exit 18 BGSs on I-95.       
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on August 22, 2014, 10:40:34 PM
I noticed that once US 1A (or RI 1A now as you say) according to street view does not have any signs whatsoever after it concurs with both I-195 and US 6 in East Providence.  Where 1A leaves I-195 at Exit 2 and through Providence there are no trailblazers for it at all even where US 44 is signed on Exit 2 as both of them routes have a small concurrency once free from the interstate.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on August 23, 2014, 02:39:44 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 22, 2014, 10:40:34 PM
I noticed that once US 1A (or RI 1A now as you say) according to street view does not have any signs whatsoever after it concurs with both I-195 and US 6 in East Providence.  Where 1A leaves I-195 at Exit 2 and through Providence there are no trailblazers for it at all even where US 44 is signed on Exit 2 as both of them routes have a small concurrency once free from the interstate.
Were the RI US 1A signs an error from the beginning, or just not replaced with the proper signs until recently? Looking through the AASHTO Route Log from 1989, there is no entry for a US 1 Alternate route in RI, there is one for CT though. Haven't looked through the earlier decisions posted recently yet.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on August 24, 2014, 11:49:01 AM
http://www.us-highways.com/altus.htm According to Robert V. Droz there is an Alternate bannered US 1 through the Greater Providence area and even has the MA 1A section included.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on August 26, 2014, 08:39:14 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 23, 2014, 02:39:44 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 22, 2014, 10:40:34 PM
I noticed that once US 1A (or RI 1A now as you say) according to street view does not have any signs whatsoever after it concurs with both I-195 and US 6 in East Providence.  Where 1A leaves I-195 at Exit 2 and through Providence there are no trailblazers for it at all even where US 44 is signed on Exit 2 as both of them routes have a small concurrency once free from the interstate.
Were the RI US 1A signs an error from the beginning, or just not replaced with the proper signs until recently? Looking through the AASHTO Route Log from 1989, there is no entry for a US 1 Alternate route in RI, there is one for CT though. Haven't looked through the earlier decisions posted recently yet.
I don't think Alternate routes are necessarily included in AASHTO logs. It definitely was official while it existed. I'm not changing my US 1A page.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Zeffy on September 19, 2014, 10:52:23 AM
This has probably been asked before, (and by myself no-less, but my memory is goddamned terrible) but in the case of Massachusetts paddle signs, is the top sign supposed to be larger than the sign below it? For example:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FviWhPRp.png&hash=b1808e52a22020021a68c6ad0bb757b9f0b92f66)
From Google Street View

I feel like it is much harder to attempt to read the second sign (for 128 South) than it is to the Northbound one because there's a significant size difference in the two signs.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 19, 2014, 11:08:06 AM
Yes. The little sign usually has a left turn, or in this case secondary right.  The larger sign is emphasizing "the turn's right here or very near," while in this instance the second turn is probably after crossing over or under 128, at which point it likely has its own large sign. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 19, 2014, 03:37:06 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 19, 2014, 10:52:23 AM
This has probably been asked before, (and by myself no-less, but my memory is goddamned terrible) but in the case of Massachusetts paddle signs, is the top sign supposed to be larger than the sign below it? For example:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FviWhPRp.png&hash=b1808e52a22020021a68c6ad0bb757b9f0b92f66)
From Google Street View

I feel like it is much harder to attempt to read the second sign (for 128 South) than it is to the Northbound one because there's a significant size difference in the two signs.

FWIW, that's an older spec'd D6/D8 sign (MassDOT's official term).  Newer signs now feature MA route shields with a black border (like the stand-alone trailblazers) and are usually the same size in both the upper (D6 aka Paddle) and lower (D8) panels.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 19, 2014, 06:21:56 PM
Current D6 signs are normally 5 feet wide, and current D8 signs are normally 4 feet wide.  Some D8 signs are 5 feet wide, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

Of course, once MassDOT finally develops and adopts the new D6/D8 sign design standards to reflect the transition to mixed-case lettering (which should happen sometime in 2015), it's highly likely that the current top-mounted signs and tubular posts will go away, to be replaced with extruded panels and steel-beam posts (if not the 'tuning fork' posts used in Downtown Boston for similar signs installed during the Big Dig).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on September 20, 2014, 03:11:23 AM
Out of curiosity, how does the lettering being mixed case necessitate the change in sign type and support? An extruded panel with steel beam post and associated foundation costs more than the current support types.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on September 20, 2014, 05:09:32 PM
Zeffy, here is our thread on the MA Paddle Signs if you want to catch up on it:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12514.0
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: yankee.peddler on September 21, 2014, 06:26:13 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on September 20, 2014, 03:11:23 AM
Out of curiosity, how does the lettering being mixed case necessitate the change in sign type and support? An extruded panel with steel beam post and associated foundation costs more than the current support types.

Perhaps it's an assumption (probably correct) that mixed-case lettering is going to necessitate a larger text size in order to be legible to drivers, and the larger text size is going to necessitate a wider sign and redesigned supports.

I have mixed feelings about the D6/D8 assemblies.  On one hand, they're generally quite durable and helpful to the motorist -- certainly more so than the surface road signage crap deposited then neglected by Connecticut and Rhode Island.  On the other hand, the aesthetic appearance of the D8 signs bothers me.  Whatever direction or destination posted on the D8 sign looks like an afterthought and less important than the direction or destination posted on the D6.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 22, 2014, 08:41:38 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 19, 2014, 06:21:56 PM
Current D6 signs are normally 5 feet wide, and current D8 signs are normally 4 feet wide.  Some D8 signs are 5 feet wide, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

Of course, once MassDOT finally develops and adopts the new D6/D8 sign design standards to reflect the transition to mixed-case lettering (which should happen sometime in 2015), it's highly likely that the current top-mounted signs and tubular posts will go away, to be replaced with extruded panels and steel-beam posts (if not the 'tuning fork' posts used in Downtown Boston for similar signs installed during the Big Dig).
Personally, I would hate to see the tubular post-mounts go away.  If the overall text heights aren't going to change; I don't see why MassDOT has to totally redo their mounting specs in the process.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 22, 2014, 06:02:46 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 22, 2014, 08:41:38 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 19, 2014, 06:21:56 PM
Current D6 signs are normally 5 feet wide, and current D8 signs are normally 4 feet wide.  Some D8 signs are 5 feet wide, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

Of course, once MassDOT finally develops and adopts the new D6/D8 sign design standards to reflect the transition to mixed-case lettering (which should happen sometime in 2015), it's highly likely that the current top-mounted signs and tubular posts will go away, to be replaced with extruded panels and steel-beam posts (if not the 'tuning fork' posts used in Downtown Boston for similar signs installed during the Big Dig).
Personally, I would hate to see the tubular post-mounts go away.  If the overall text heights aren't going to change; I don't see why MassDOT has to totally redo their mounting specs in the process.
Text heights are going from 6" uppercase to 8"/6" mixed case.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: adventurernumber1 on September 22, 2014, 06:52:22 PM
I, myself have a question.

Ok, so me and my family took a trip to Boston in June 2013. For a few days we went to Martha's Vineyard (an island off the southern coast of MA), and in Falmouth we had to take a ferry to get to the island. Nothing wrong with that at all, just a question; has MassDOT ever thought about building a bridge from Falmouth to Vineyard Haven or Oaks Bluff? If it would be really expensive, they could make it a toll. It could be a new state route for MA, and it could even serve some of the towns on the island. Just an idea.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 22, 2014, 07:04:34 PM
I suspect the idea of a bridge from Falmouth to either Vineyard Haven or Oaks Bluff would run into even more political resistance from the rich and entitled locals who live on the islands than the wind turbines have.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on September 22, 2014, 08:27:58 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 22, 2014, 07:04:34 PM
I suspect the idea of a bridge from Falmouth to either Vineyard Haven or Oaks Bluff would run into even more political resistance from the rich and entitled locals who live on the islands than the wind turbines have.
For reference, the two closest streets on the island are Golf Club Road and Yacht Club Road.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 22, 2014, 08:38:15 PM
I've never been to the Vineyard, but on Nantucket it seems like most people just drive off the ferry and park the car for the duration of the trip.  They don't need it because they already have a few cars they keep there for on-island use.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 23, 2014, 11:48:12 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 22, 2014, 06:02:46 PMText heights are going from 6" uppercase to 8"/6" mixed case.
And that's enough to change the whole spec.?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: yankee.peddler on September 23, 2014, 02:27:20 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 22, 2014, 06:02:46 PM
Text heights are going from 6" uppercase to 8"/6" mixed case.

I assume this covers just the destinations?  I imagine the directional prompts, such as "NEXT RIGHT", will remain 6" uppercase.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on September 23, 2014, 09:41:15 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 23, 2014, 11:48:12 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 22, 2014, 06:02:46 PMText heights are going from 6" uppercase to 8"/6" mixed case.
And that's enough to change the whole spec.?

sounds like a case of "if it ain't broke don't fix it"
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on September 24, 2014, 06:54:05 AM
sounds like a case of "if we want to keep using federal funds for signs we have to use Title Case legends like the MUTCD says"
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 24, 2014, 10:14:31 AM
Quote from: yankee.peddler on September 23, 2014, 02:27:20 PM
I assume this covers just the destinations?  I imagine the directional prompts, such as "NEXT RIGHT", will remain 6" uppercase.
Correct.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Zeffy on September 24, 2014, 10:19:06 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 24, 2014, 10:14:31 AM
Quote from: yankee.peddler on September 23, 2014, 02:27:20 PM
I assume this covers just the destinations?  I imagine the directional prompts, such as "NEXT RIGHT", will remain 6" uppercase.
Correct.

Are they going to continue using Series D or switch to E (maybe E(HM) for more legibility)?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on September 24, 2014, 10:19:24 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 22, 2014, 08:38:15 PM
I've never been to the Vineyard, but on Nantucket it seems like most people just drive off the ferry and park the car for the duration of the trip.  They don't need it because they already have a few cars they keep there for on-island use.

They park their cars probably because gridlock on the island (only 14 miles long and 3.5 miles wide) during the summer is legendary.  It's almost always faster to bike or walk to get around Nantucket.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 24, 2014, 10:27:13 AM
@PHLBOS - MassDOT's current D6/D8 specifications are based on the concept of using one of a number of standard sized sheet aluminum sign blanks, and formatting the legend of any particular sign to fit on a particular blank.  Changing to mixed case legend creates problems with this practice, especially for the top-mounted signs.

As such, going from sheet aluminum signs to extruded panels appears to be a logical move.  Even if MassDOT were to stick to sheet aluminum panels, it will be necessary to ditch the tubular posts and top-mounting of signs in favor of "traditional" steel beam (S or W beam) posts due to the increased loading of the larger signs.

BTW, the reason MassDOT is going to a 8/6 mixed case, in lieu of a 6/4.5 mixed case, for these signs is to maintain adequate legibilty.  They have determined that, at the distances drivers are normally expected to read a D6/D8 sign assembly, that going to 6/4.5. will result in texts that are less legible than with the current 6 inch uppercase.

Do not have a photo, but a good example of a mixed-case D6/D8 assembly was recently installed on Route 113 east at I-95 in Newburyport.  It replaced a larger extruded sign assembly, which was objected to by abutters due to the "excessive size" of the panels.

@Zeffy - MassDOT's current spec for D6/D8 legends calls for Series C font.  The sign I mentioned above was made with Series D font, which will likely become the new standard for D6/D8 signs.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on September 24, 2014, 10:39:57 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 24, 2014, 10:27:13 AM
@Zeffy - MassDOT's current spec for D6/D8 legends calls for Series C font.  The sign I mentioned above was made with Series D font, which will likely become the new standard for D6/D8 signs.

MassDOT's current spec allows for Series B for longer place names. (PROVIDENCE RI is one I recall running into.) I assume the use of extruded panels will mean Series D is used on all signs unless there is a horizontal clearance issue?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 24, 2014, 11:11:29 AM

Quote from: SidS1045 on September 24, 2014, 10:19:24 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 22, 2014, 08:38:15 PM
I've never been to the Vineyard, but on Nantucket it seems like most people just drive off the ferry and park the car for the duration of the trip.  They don't need it because they already have a few cars they keep there for on-island use.

They park their cars probably because gridlock on the island (only 14 miles long and 3.5 miles wide) during the summer is legendary.  It's almost always faster to bike or walk to get around Nantucket.

Actually, I was (half) kidding.  Most of them pack up a large, ostentatious vehicle and drive everywhere (hence the gridlock, though the army of trucks waging all-out total war on unkempt landscaping also contributes there). 

Biking on Nantucket is great, actually, because of the fact that the main cross-island roads have dedicated, fence-separated bike paths along them, and because most people drive. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 24, 2014, 11:11:51 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 24, 2014, 10:27:13 AMDo not have a photo, but a good example of a mixed-case D6/D8 assembly was recently installed on Route 113 east at I-95 in Newburyport.  It replaced a larger extruded sign assembly, which was objected to by abutters due to the "excessive size" of the panels.
The new D6/D8 assembly that you speak of (https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Newburyport,+MA&aq=0&oq=newbury&sll=40.002498,-75.118033&sspn=0.376076,0.602188&vpsrc=6&t=h&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Newburyport,+Essex+County,+Massachusetts&ll=42.815607,-70.920573&spn=0.000002,0.001176&z=20&layer=c&cbll=42.815578,-70.920702&panoid=pe2aTT4ZYb4Cb3f2pfB-5Q&cbp=12,106.97,,0,8.42) along MA 113 Eastbound prior to the I-95 interchange.  Remnants (post foundations) of the larger BGS assembly can be seen directly behind it.  The complaint about the larger BGS was due to it being placed in a residential area.

So this is the sign (no pun intended) of things to come in the Bay State?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 24, 2014, 01:22:00 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on September 24, 2014, 10:19:24 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 22, 2014, 08:38:15 PM
I've never been to the Vineyard, but on Nantucket it seems like most people just drive off the ferry and park the car for the duration of the trip.  They don't need it because they already have a few cars they keep there for on-island use.

They park their cars probably because gridlock on the island (only 14 miles long and 3.5 miles wide) during the summer is legendary.  It's almost always faster to bike or walk to get around Nantucket.

The quickest way in is to take Sandpiper Air right? Not a big fan of Aeromass, I hear their owner is a bit of a jerk.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 24, 2014, 04:34:28 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 24, 2014, 01:22:00 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on September 24, 2014, 10:19:24 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 22, 2014, 08:38:15 PM
I've never been to the Vineyard, but on Nantucket it seems like most people just drive off the ferry and park the car for the duration of the trip.  They don't need it because they already have a few cars they keep there for on-island use.

They park their cars probably because gridlock on the island (only 14 miles long and 3.5 miles wide) during the summer is legendary.  It's almost always faster to bike or walk to get around Nantucket.

The quickest way in is to take Sandpiper Air right? Not a big fan of Aeromass, I hear their owner is a bit of a jerk.

And deal with a schedule?  If you vacation on Nantucket, surely your own plane will be faster.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 24, 2014, 04:45:52 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 24, 2014, 04:34:28 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 24, 2014, 01:22:00 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on September 24, 2014, 10:19:24 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 22, 2014, 08:38:15 PM
I've never been to the Vineyard, but on Nantucket it seems like most people just drive off the ferry and park the car for the duration of the trip.  They don't need it because they already have a few cars they keep there for on-island use.

They park their cars probably because gridlock on the island (only 14 miles long and 3.5 miles wide) during the summer is legendary.  It's almost always faster to bike or walk to get around Nantucket.

The quickest way in is to take Sandpiper Air right? Not a big fan of Aeromass, I hear their owner is a bit of a jerk.

And deal with a schedule?  If you vacation on Nantucket, surely your own plane will be faster.

Sandpiper DOES only have one plane so you would have to plan carefully.

(Any other Wings fans on here?)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on September 24, 2014, 06:03:46 PM
Quote from: spooky on September 24, 2014, 06:54:05 AM
sounds like a case of "if we want to keep using federal funds for signs we have to use Title Case legends like the MUTCD says"

Actually I was referring to the change in sign support, not the change in lettering.



Quote from: roadman on September 24, 2014, 10:27:13 AMDo not have a photo, but a good example of a mixed-case D6/D8 assembly was recently installed on Route 113 east at I-95 in Newburyport.  It replaced a larger extruded sign assembly, which was objected to by abutters due to the "excessive size" of the panels.

It looks like these panels are the same size. Will this also be the case in the future? I know you said it will be extruded panels, will it be one panel with a horizontal dividing line?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 24, 2014, 07:03:32 PM
@mass citizen  The reason MassDOT is considering a change in the sign support design is threefold.  First, the top mounted (D6) signs currently require that the legend be designed so there is a vertical space of at least 6 inches on the bottom of the panel - this is so that the bracket used to mount the sign does not obscure any of the legend.  With the taller legend, and if the legend contains 'g's, 'y's, and the like, it is very difficult to maintain this spacing.  Unlike top-mounted signs on tubular posts, signs mounted to steel beam posts don't require a minimum bottom vertical spacing.

Second, with the new mixed case standard, many of the bottom bracket-mounted (D8) signs will have to be larger than the current standard sizes (PHLBOS's photo of the assembly on 113 in Newburyport is a good example and, yes, both panels are the same size).  This creates the potential for loading issues with the larger panels - traditional MassDPW/MassHighway/MassDOT tubular post design considers one large sign and one small one, not two large signs.

Lastly, as I mentioned in a previous post, MassDOT may opt to go to extruded aluminum panels for these signs - at least for signs with longer legends (such as approaching Interstate and freeway entrances).  Mounting extruded panels to tubular posts, apart from potential loading issues, would require custom mountings - such mountings will make sign installation more difficult.

Note that MassDOT has recently been transitioning to steel beam posts for larger regulatory, warning, and route marker assemblies used on Interstates and freeways.  Extending this practice to D6 and D8 guide signs seems to be a logical extension of this practice.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 24, 2014, 08:15:04 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 24, 2014, 04:45:52 PM
(Any other Wings fans on here?)

Enjoyed the show when it was in first run (my brother, his wife, and I used to watch it when I'd visit them for dinner).  However, I haven't seen an episode in years.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on September 25, 2014, 04:15:27 PM
Sounds like its the end of the paddle sign as we know it.  :ded:

Quote from: roadman on September 24, 2014, 07:03:32 PM

Note that MassDOT has recently been transitioning to steel beam posts for larger regulatory, warning, and route marker assemblies used on Interstates and freeways.  Extending this practice to D6 and D8 guide signs seems to be a logical extension of this practice.

Has this been incorporated into a new standard? I can't find anything on the MassDOT website. Or is it just an unwritten trial so far?

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 26, 2014, 07:16:13 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on September 25, 2014, 04:15:27 PM
Has this been incorporated into a new standard? I can't find anything on the MassDOT website. Or is it just an unwritten trial so far?

MassDOT is in the process of completely updating their Traffic Standard Details, which will again be issued as a separate document from the Construction Standards.  As part of this, the current Guide Sign Policy for Secondary State Highways will be expanded to include MassDOT-specific standards for all guide signing - including the use of steel beam posts for larger warning, regulatory, and route marker signs on Interstates and freeways.

The revised document is expected to be completed by late Spring of 2015.  At that time, it will be posted on MassDOT's public web site.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on September 26, 2014, 07:24:42 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on September 24, 2014, 06:03:46 PM
Quote from: spooky on September 24, 2014, 06:54:05 AM
sounds like a case of "if we want to keep using federal funds for signs we have to use Title Case legends like the MUTCD says"

Actually I was referring to the change in sign support, not the change in lettering.

I was suggesting that the change in lettering would result in an increase in size, which in turn would require a change in support. I also knew that the D6 sign requires a 6" space at the bottom for the mounting bracket. The Route 113 example does look to be the same size as a current D6 sign, but it only has one line of legend. Current standards have two lines of legend and a directional legend (NEXT RIGHT, SECOND LEFT, etc.) or an arrow.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on September 26, 2014, 02:49:54 PM
Quote from: spooky on September 26, 2014, 07:24:42 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on September 24, 2014, 06:03:46 PM
Quote from: spooky on September 24, 2014, 06:54:05 AM
sounds like a case of "if we want to keep using federal funds for signs we have to use Title Case legends like the MUTCD says"

Actually I was referring to the change in sign support, not the change in lettering.

I was suggesting that the change in lettering would result in an increase in size, which in turn would require a change in support. I also knew that the D6 sign requires a 6" space at the bottom for the mounting bracket. The Route 113 example does look to be the same size as a current D6 sign, but it only has one line of legend. Current standards have two lines of legend and a directional legend (NEXT RIGHT, SECOND LEFT, etc.) or an arrow.

I understand your and roadman's points but I am wondering has a structural analysis been done or is it based on simply engineering judgement? With the additional costs required not just for labor but for steel beam, extruded panels, and increased foundation size (current D6 foundations are unreinforced whereas steel beams will require steel reinforcement) I would hope there would be some kind of analysis to determine that, yes the additional lines of legend do require a different structure, or no we can keep the current system. I do understand roadmans other reasons he mentioned for the change but I also am wondering if the benefits to motorists are worth the additional costs, which will add up significantly on a statewide basis.

My point also applies to the warning/route signs which will go from a hollow steel tubular post (P5 post in the standards) driven into the ground to a steel beam post with concrete foundation. Let's keep in mind the increased maintenance cost to fix/replace one of these warning signs/foundations in instances of vehicle or plow collision.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 27, 2014, 12:03:34 PM
MassDOT has had previous experience with steel beam posts for D6/D8 assemblies (special circumstances where "standard' sized D8 panels could not be used - the newer signs at MA2/MA2A Concord Rotary are a good example), as well as with small extruded panels on single steel beam posts (Interstate/freeway town line signs are a good example of this).

Recent bit prices have shown that the cost differential between tubular posts and single steel beam posts, and .25 inch thick sheet aluminum panels versus extruded aluminum panels are not significant, especially when you consider the full cost of various MassDOT sign replacement and sign maintenance projects.  Also consider that, for larger regulatory, warning, and route marker signs on Interstates and freeways, the increase in cost for steel beam posts (as opposed to the current telescopic posts) is offset by the increased durability of the signs - which means fewer knockdowns due to things like wind and snow removal activities.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 29, 2014, 08:19:40 AM
Quote from: spooky on September 26, 2014, 07:24:42 AMThe Route 113 example does look to be the same size as a current D6 sign, but it only has one line of legend. Current standards have two lines of legend and a directional legend (NEXT RIGHT, SECOND LEFT, etc.) or an arrow
That's because the larger BGS' the new structure replaced only had one listed destination for each direction.  At the other side of the interchange, along 113 Westbound, the large BGS' remain.  Such gives a sense what the original BGS' along the 113 Eastbound looked like (granted the order of the I-95 directions are opposite, but one gets the general idea).

The smaller replacement was a match-in-kind with regards to the info.
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 05, 2014, 10:28:14 PM
Two questions and a comment regarding the roadside portable VMS signs now part of our permanent landscape here:

Q1:  is the VMS on 95 South two miles prior to the Mass. border owned and operated by Massachusetts?  It follows the Mass. conventions and today indicated time and distance to Mass. 113.

Q2:  Is there a timetable for statewide permanent signs as now exist on the Cape?

Comment:  A pitfall of the "helpful hint" messages that clutter our VMSes came up the other day entering the Sumner Tunnel.  While the BGSes clearly indicate "93–left lane only" and "Storrow Drive–right lane only," the adjacent VMS uselessly and confusingly says "Left lane travel for passing only."   

$&@%#!!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on October 06, 2014, 03:46:57 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 22, 2014, 07:04:34 PM
I suspect the idea of a bridge from Falmouth to either Vineyard Haven or Oaks Bluff would run into even more political resistance from the rich and entitled locals who live on the islands than the wind turbines have.

I've been a Vineyard-goer my whole life and this drives me crazy. It's "Oak Bluffs" not "Oaks Bluff". Why is it that everyone makes this mistake?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 06, 2014, 03:59:48 PM

Quote from: AMLNet49 on October 06, 2014, 03:46:57 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 22, 2014, 07:04:34 PM
I suspect the idea of a bridge from Falmouth to either Vineyard Haven or Oaks Bluff would run into even more political resistance from the rich and entitled locals who live on the islands than the wind turbines have.

I've been a Vineyard-goer my whole life and this drives me crazy. It's "Oak Bluffs" not "Oaks Bluff". Why is it that everyone makes this mistake?

I don't know. You should go down to Boston Commons or the Public Gardens and protest.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on October 06, 2014, 07:34:07 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 05, 2014, 10:28:14 PM
Q1:  is the VMS on 95 South two miles prior to the Mass. border owned and operated by Massachusetts?  It follows the Mass. conventions and today indicated time and distance to Mass. 113.

I will check into that for you and report back here.

Quote
Q2:  Is there a timetable for statewide permanent signs as now exist on the Cape?

Yes.  Bids for Phase II of the project were opened on September 30th.  The project, which encompasses approximately 150 signs and 230 Bluetooth readers across the remainder of the state's Interstates and freeways, is currently scheduled to be completed between late 2015 and early 2016.  see http://www.mhd.state.ma.us//default.asp?pgid=content/projectsRoot&sid=wrapper&iid=http://www.mhd.state.ma.us//ProjectInfo/

Quote

Comment:  A pitfall of the "helpful hint" messages that clutter our VMSes came up the other day entering the Sumner Tunnel.  While the BGSes clearly indicate "93—left lane only" and "Storrow Drive—right lane only," the adjacent VMS uselessly and confusingly says "Left lane travel for passing only."   

$&@%#!!

Groan.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 09, 2014, 08:29:53 PM

Quote from: roadman on October 06, 2014, 07:34:07 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 05, 2014, 10:28:14 PMComment:  A pitfall of the "helpful hint" messages that clutter our VMSes came up the other day entering the Sumner Tunnel.  While the BGSes clearly indicate "93—left lane only" and "Storrow Drive—right lane only," the adjacent VMS uselessly and confusingly says "Left lane travel for passing only."   

$&@%#!!

Groan.

The comedians at MassDOT have scored their latest hit with an ad on a bright LED billboard high up and off the side of I-93 south in Medford, urging drivers to end distracted driving and keep their eyes on the road. 

My passenger and I exchanged dumbfounded looks after passing this, further compounding the problem.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on October 10, 2014, 07:26:15 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 09, 2014, 08:29:53 PM

Quote from: roadman on October 06, 2014, 07:34:07 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 05, 2014, 10:28:14 PMComment:  A pitfall of the "helpful hint" messages that clutter our VMSes came up the other day entering the Sumner Tunnel.  While the BGSes clearly indicate "93—left lane only" and "Storrow Drive—right lane only," the adjacent VMS uselessly and confusingly says "Left lane travel for passing only."   

$&@%#!!

Groan.

The comedians at MassDOT have scored their latest hit with an ad on a bright LED billboard high up and off the side of I-93 south in Medford, urging drivers to end distracted driving and keep their eyes on the road. 

My passenger and I exchanged dumbfounded looks after passing this, further compounding the problem.

There's one of these on I-95 in Canton approaching I-93 as well. I found myself looking at it one day to figure out what it said, then chuckling to myself when I realized that I took my eyes off the road to take in a message combating distracted driving.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on October 10, 2014, 06:37:44 PM
The 'feel good' public messages you see on digital billboards are often a carrot the ad company will offer to the local community or state DOT to grease the wheels for approval of the display.

My biggest pet peeve with digital billboards is that companies that are allowed to install new digital displays, or convert existing static displays to digital, in an area where they already have a large number of other static billboards (Clear Channel is notorious for this - just count the number of billboards along I-93 between the Zakim Bridge and the Medford/Stoneham line) are not required to remove some of them in exchange for permission to install a digital one.  If a digital display can show between four and six separate ads, then logic dictates that between four and six adjacent static displays should be removed.

Unfortunately, we as a society are so ignorant or uncaring that we are failing to see how the marketing types are truly taking over and invading our privacy and quality of life.  Very unfortunate.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 19, 2014, 04:34:23 PM
Mass. 110 "television" shield on US 3:

http://goo.gl/maps/kVqpb

This outline catches my eye every time, but I usually forget about it.  I can't imagine what sign format was mistakenly used for this.  It looks like it's from a TV Guide listing.


Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 30, 2014, 07:28:58 PM
R.I.P. former Boston Mayor Thomas Menino 1942-2014. Damn! :(

To keep this with transit, was the Big Dig entirely during his time as mayor or most of it? I know he took over as mayor on an interim basis in 1993.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on October 30, 2014, 10:56:13 PM
Work on the Big Dig began in 1982 and opened to traffic in 2002.

He was never an "interim" mayor.  He became mayor when his predecessor, Ray Flynn, was named ambassador to the Vatican.  Per the city charter, when the mayor resigns or dies in office, the City Council president becomes mayor, and that's the office Menino held at the time.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on October 31, 2014, 10:59:37 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on October 30, 2014, 10:56:13 PM
Work on the Big Dig began in 1982
Maybe for design but not construction.  IIRC, ground wasn't broken for that project until Mayor Flynn's 2nd term (late 80s/early 90s); the first phase of construction being utility relocations.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on October 31, 2014, 03:14:20 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on October 30, 2014, 10:56:13 PM

He was never an "interim" mayor.  He became mayor when his predecessor, Ray Flynn, was named ambassador to the Vatican.  Per the city charter, when the mayor resigns or dies in office, the City Council president becomes mayor, and that's the office Menino held at the time.

Most people would consider an unelected official as holding an "interim" or "acting" position, whether that is the formal title or not. A google search of various articles also refers to interim/acting mayor Menino as winning 64% of the vote in his first election.

http://www.wbur.org/2014/10/30/menino-remembrance-boeri


http://www.wcvb.com/chronicle/the-death-of-thomas-menino/29446318
In this chronicle interview, Menino himself says  "I became acting mayor on June 12 at 5:00, can't forget that date"
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on October 31, 2014, 05:08:05 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 31, 2014, 10:59:37 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on October 30, 2014, 10:56:13 PM
Work on the Big Dig began in 1982
Maybe for design but not construction.  IIRC, ground wasn't broken for that project until Mayor Flynn's 2nd term (late 80s/early 90s); the first phase of construction being utility relocations.
Construction began on the Central Artery North Area (CANA) phase of the Big Dig (Charlestown City Square) in March of 1987.  Construction on the remaining portions of the project began in early 1989.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on October 31, 2014, 05:14:26 PM
Quote from: roadman on October 31, 2014, 05:08:05 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 31, 2014, 10:59:37 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on October 30, 2014, 10:56:13 PM
Work on the Big Dig began in 1982
Maybe for design but not construction.  IIRC, ground wasn't broken for that project until Mayor Flynn's 2nd term (late 80s/early 90s); the first phase of construction being utility relocations.
Construction began on the Central Artery North Area (CANA) phase of the Big Dig (Charlestown City Square) in March of 1987.  Construction on the remaining portions of the project began in early 1989.
Thanks for the info. 

Nonetheless while the CANA & Big Dig projects were be ultimately connected; the two were still considered to be separate projects.  The fore-mentioned utility relocations were in reference to the main Big Dig project and not the earlier CANA project.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on November 02, 2014, 03:39:43 PM
Drove to Newport for a meeting yesterday via MA 24. I haven't driven the whole length of 24 for awhile, and noticed a few new things. (Was not able to take any photos due to the rainy and windy weather):
They've placed a permanent 'real time' to 3 destinations sign southbound after the merge with MA 79. It had the distances to MA 79 South, US 6 and I-195. Northbound still used the temporary VMS to convey traffic times.
New style exit signage was put up for the Innovation Way Exit 8B opened in 2012, as well as advance signs for former Exit 8, now Exit 8A. Under milepost based numbering Exit 8B would be Exit 9 and Exit 8A Exit 8, so the exit will go from 8 to 8A back to 8 sometime in the near future.
No new overhead signage seen from the short drive along I-195/MA 24.
There were several orange ground mounted and VMS signs southbound discouraging people to take MA 79 to I-195 due to the reconstruction project in Fall River.
There was a newish looking South MA 24 reassurance shield with a heavy black border after leaving I-195 East toward the RI border. You could call it a CT style sign, but the numbers were in the standard MA font (a check on StreetView showed a traditional MA 24 sign there in the summer of 2012 with construction going on, so a poor contractor replacement?). As for getting to Newport, glad I didn't have to pay the 10 cent toll crossing the new bridge on RI 24.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on November 03, 2014, 01:08:22 PM
Slightly off-topic and probably for the RI 24 thread...but curious...Bob, did they remove the toll gantry yet?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on November 03, 2014, 10:56:32 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 03, 2014, 01:08:22 PM
Slightly off-topic and probably for the RI 24 thread...but curious...Bob, did they remove the toll gantry yet?
To be honest, with the rain and wind on the bridge I was concentrating on staying in my lane. However, I do not remember a gantry over the highway, just the interesting light fixtures that were there.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 23, 2014, 04:08:35 PM
I'm in Boston right now and I have one question............

Do you get a special prize for dragging out the green and white plate the longest? There are some rough looking ones out there. At what point does it just make more sense to get a "Spirit of America" plate?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2014, 05:07:03 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 23, 2014, 04:08:35 PM
I'm in Boston right now and I have one question............

Do you get a special prize for dragging out the green and white plate the longest? There are some rough looking ones out there. At what point does it just make more sense to get a "Spirit of America" plate?

Welcome.

You have to understand that in an area settled since 1630 that has a very high number of transplants (hand raised), you get an awful lot of pissing contests over "trust me, I been here a long time."  Just go into a bar and talk about the weather being exceptionally warm/cold/snowy/wet/odd.  Watch as several people pull out a weather event far enough back that you don't remember and say "This is nothin'." 

This is also a place where people periodically try to end arguments with "Are you from here?" because obviously if you're not originally, your opinion is worthless.

In other words, it's a badge of longevity and deep roots.  You can't get them anymore, you can't sell them, and you had to have been here 25 years ago to have them.  To some people this is a status symbol.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on November 23, 2014, 06:06:53 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 23, 2014, 04:08:35 PM
I'm in Boston right now and I have one question............

Do you get a special prize for dragging out the green and white plate the longest? There are some rough looking ones out there. At what point does it just make more sense to get a "Spirit of America" plate?
Many people (like one of my co-workers) don't like the idea that you are FORCED to give up your registration number for another one when you "upgrade" general issue red on white plates.  Additionally, there are many people out there who also object to the requirement of putting a plate on the front of their car, which wasn't necessary with the single green on white plates.

I know some of this may sound very silly.  But people in Massachusetts have always had a strange obsession with license plates.  This is why, in large part due to the local media that can't be bothered with dealing with REAL issues instead, the Registry of Motor Vehicles (Massachusetts' version of the DMV) now wastes their time and the taxpayer's money every year holding a "low number license plate lottery'.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on November 23, 2014, 06:13:21 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2014, 05:07:03 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 23, 2014, 04:08:35 PM
I'm in Boston right now and I have one question............

Do you get a special prize for dragging out the green and white plate the longest? There are some rough looking ones out there. At what point does it just make more sense to get a "Spirit of America" plate?

Welcome.

You have to understand that in an area settled since 1630 that has a very high number of transplants (hand raised), you get an awful lot of pissing contests over "trust me, I been here a long time."  Just go into a bar and talk about the weather being exceptionally warm/cold/snowy/wet/odd.  Watch as several people pull out a weather event far enough back that you don't remember and say "This is nothin'." 

This is also a place where people periodically try to end arguments with "Are you from here?" because obviously if you're not originally, your opinion is worthless.

In other words, it's a badge of longevity and deep roots.  You can't get them anymore, you can't sell them, and you had to have been here 25 years ago to have them.  To some people this is a status symbol.

Welcome to the northeast. New York is the same way. Yes, many people use that question to try and end arguments. Unfortunately, that's part of the culture. People use being here forever as a status symbol, partially because there are many transplants who come in and outside influences trying to change the way things are.
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2014, 06:18:18 PM
Perhaps worse here than New York, since that city is viewed as the taker and the ruiner of all that is pure and good in Deare Olde Boston.  It did not endear young me to the locals to show up here and remark regularly how things are not like New York, from whose environs I came.

The low number plate lottery was in response to the cultish coveting of said numbers and their provision mainly to the well connected.  I was tempted to enter because they invited all participants to a breakfast drawing and I wanted to see what oddballs are drawn to such a thing (plus: breakfast!) but I never did, and they moved it to Dan Rea's radio show, and I lost interest.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 23, 2014, 06:48:13 PM
In New Jersey one does not have to replace one's license plate (tag).  There are still some around from the sixties when they had three letters and three numbers separated be a dash (AAA-123) on them.  Now there are all sorts of letter/number combinations grouped in threes separated by the outline of the state.

At one time there were plates with seven letters/numbers on them.  They stopped issuing them when the state police said they were too hard to read.  However, some of them are still around.

Also, for a while their colour was changed from "straw" to blue.  They were eventually changed back to "straw".  There are still blue coloured plates being used.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on November 23, 2014, 06:54:09 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2014, 06:18:18 PM
Perhaps worse here than New York, since that city is viewed as the taker and the ruiner of all that is pure and good in Deare Olde Boston.  It did not endear young me to the locals to show up here and remark regularly how things are not like New York, from whose environs I came.

Can't be worse than Buffalo. They want all of New England and eastern New York to burn in hell.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2014, 07:45:56 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 23, 2014, 06:54:09 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2014, 06:18:18 PM
Perhaps worse here than New York, since that city is viewed as the taker and the ruiner of all that is pure and good in Deare Olde Boston.  It did not endear young me to the locals to show up here and remark regularly how things are not like New York, from whose environs I came.

Can't be worse than Buffalo. They want all of New England and eastern New York to burn in hell.

Why?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on November 23, 2014, 08:03:25 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2014, 07:45:56 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 23, 2014, 06:54:09 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2014, 06:18:18 PM
Perhaps worse here than New York, since that city is viewed as the taker and the ruiner of all that is pure and good in Deare Olde Boston.  It did not endear young me to the locals to show up here and remark regularly how things are not like New York, from whose environs I came.

Can't be worse than Buffalo. They want all of New England and eastern New York to burn in hell.

Why?

Good flipping question. I think they have envy. First day of school after I moved here, a teacher went on a rant about how the region and people from it to be cast out of this country. While not everyone hates the east coast, politicians often win elections on a strictly anti-downstate/Albany/eastern NY platform around here. I don't get it, because NYC tax dollars pay for everything up here, but they make Boston seem like somewhere that loves other cities.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2014, 08:17:54 PM
Clarifying, I get the loathing for downstate (always been that way), but New England? Aside from hardcore Patriots fans, I don't think people here have any animosity (or feelings whatsoever) toward Buffalo.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 23, 2014, 09:10:17 PM
This is probably a good time to mention what the point of my trip is. I'll be joining the ranks of Massachusetts transplants and am in town apartment hunting. I still have to finish school first so I won't be here permanently for at least another 6 months but I wanted a head start (and an excuse to use my school vacation to road geek). Got a gig lined up with a flexible start date that I literally just found out about.

I briefly considered joining the ranks of New Hampshire residents who commute to Boston but I simulated that commute and even with little traffic hated everyone around me.

I'm looking forward to joining the pissing contest of "I've been here longer than you."

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2014, 09:25:41 PM
Well, good luck.  It's obviously expensive but you just need to pick your priorities.  Feel free to PM with any neighborhood questions. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 23, 2014, 09:26:56 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2014, 09:25:41 PM
Well, good luck.  It's obviously expensive but you just need to pick your priorities.  Feel free to PM with any neighborhood questions.

Thanks! I used to live in New Hampshire so I'm familiar with the area in a macro sense. I felt like a country bumpkin walking around Boston today though, so much culture shock.

Yeah, the sticker shock is huge so far. You get what you pay for (to some degree) though, it is a great city.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on November 24, 2014, 09:11:12 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2014, 06:18:18 PM
Perhaps worse here than New York, since that city is viewed as the taker and the ruiner of all that is pure and good in Deare Olde Boston.  It did not endear young me to the locals to show up here and remark regularly how things are not like New York, from whose environs I came.

The low number plate lottery was in response to the cultish coveting of said numbers and their provision mainly to the well connected.  I was tempted to enter because they invited all participants to a breakfast drawing and I wanted to see what oddballs are drawn to such a thing (plus: breakfast!) but I never did, and they moved it to Dan Rea's radio show, and I lost interest.
OMG - some "well connected" people have a low number plate.  SO WHAT! - it's not like state government has any REAL problems to deal with.  And if the issue of low plate numbers is really that serious (considering that Jerry 'seat belt laws deprive drivers of a basic freedom" Williams and Howie "I made my living off of Whitey Bulger" Carr were two of the reporters who harrassed the state into dealing with the (non) scandal of low number plates, I really doubt it is serious), then why didn't the RMV just recall the plates when due for renewal and not re-issue them?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 24, 2014, 09:44:23 AM
I don't really know much of the story besides what I said.  I also don't get why they were so coveted that people used their political connections to snag them. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on November 24, 2014, 10:12:31 AM
A common urban legend that goes back several decades is that police were more likely to cut you a break if you had a low numbered plate.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Duke87 on November 24, 2014, 07:31:07 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2014, 05:07:03 PM
In other words, it's a badge of longevity and deep roots.  You can't get them anymore, you can't sell them, and you had to have been here 25 years ago to have them.  To some people this is a status symbol.

Does the registration have to have been kept continually the whole time? My parents still have their green MA plates sitting in a box in their garage for sentimental value but they haven't lived in Massachusetts since those plates were the current design. Would they in theory be able to use them again if they moved back to MA?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on November 25, 2014, 09:31:14 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 24, 2014, 07:31:07 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2014, 05:07:03 PM
In other words, it's a badge of longevity and deep roots.  You can't get them anymore, you can't sell them, and you had to have been here 25 years ago to have them.  To some people this is a status symbol.

Does the registration have to have been kept continually the whole time? My parents still have their green MA plates sitting in a box in their garage for sentimental value but they haven't lived in Massachusetts since those plates were the current design. Would they in theory be able to use them again if they moved back to MA?

No.  Actually, they should have turned their plate back in to the RMV.  I'm surprised their insurance company didn't verify this before cancelling the policy.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 25, 2014, 09:35:53 AM

Quote from: roadman on November 25, 2014, 09:31:14 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 24, 2014, 07:31:07 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2014, 05:07:03 PM
In other words, it's a badge of longevity and deep roots.  You can't get them anymore, you can't sell them, and you had to have been here 25 years ago to have them.  To some people this is a status symbol.

Does the registration have to have been kept continually the whole time? My parents still have their green MA plates sitting in a box in their garage for sentimental value but they haven't lived in Massachusetts since those plates were the current design. Would they in theory be able to use them again if they moved back to MA?

No.  Actually, they should have turned their plate back in to the RMV.  I'm surprised their insurance company didn't verify this before cancelling the policy.

You don't need to turn in plates to cancel a policy. You may, however, be required to either turn them in or submit an affidavit that they were lost or destroyed if you attempt to register another car in-state.  And, of course, if you reregister the car out-of-state, they couldn't care less what you did with your Mass. plates.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on November 25, 2014, 09:59:52 AM
Quote from: roadman on November 25, 2014, 09:31:14 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 24, 2014, 07:31:07 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2014, 05:07:03 PM
In other words, it's a badge of longevity and deep roots.  You can't get them anymore, you can't sell them, and you had to have been here 25 years ago to have them.  To some people this is a status symbol.

Does the registration have to have been kept continually the whole time? My parents still have their green MA plates sitting in a box in their garage for sentimental value but they haven't lived in Massachusetts since those plates were the current design. Would they in theory be able to use them again if they moved back to MA?

No.  Actually, they should have turned their plate back in to the RMV.  I'm surprised their insurance company didn't verify this before cancelling the policy.
Since many insurance companies operate in several states, they may have stayed with the same company when they transferred their registrations & insurance to another state.

Assuming that those old plates have long since expired I believe that the RMV considers the plate/registration in question number dead.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 26, 2014, 03:42:34 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 25, 2014, 09:31:14 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 24, 2014, 07:31:07 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2014, 05:07:03 PM
In other words, it's a badge of longevity and deep roots.  You can't get them anymore, you can't sell them, and you had to have been here 25 years ago to have them.  To some people this is a status symbol.

Does the registration have to have been kept continually the whole time? My parents still have their green MA plates sitting in a box in their garage for sentimental value but they haven't lived in Massachusetts since those plates were the current design. Would they in theory be able to use them again if they moved back to MA?

No.  Actually, they should have turned their plate back in to the RMV.  I'm surprised their insurance company didn't verify this before cancelling the policy.

Does any state actually enforce this though? I've seen a substantial number of license plates (even Massachusetts) at pawn shops over the years. They're fairly easy to get.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 26, 2014, 04:35:51 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 26, 2014, 03:42:34 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 25, 2014, 09:31:14 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 24, 2014, 07:31:07 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2014, 05:07:03 PM
In other words, it's a badge of longevity and deep roots.  You can't get them anymore, you can't sell them, and you had to have been here 25 years ago to have them.  To some people this is a status symbol.

Does the registration have to have been kept continually the whole time? My parents still have their green MA plates sitting in a box in their garage for sentimental value but they haven't lived in Massachusetts since those plates were the current design. Would they in theory be able to use them again if they moved back to MA?

No.  Actually, they should have turned their plate back in to the RMV.  I'm surprised their insurance company didn't verify this before cancelling the policy.

Does any state actually enforce this though? I've seen a substantial number of license plates (even Massachusetts) at pawn shops over the years. They're fairly easy to get.

In Mass. you will continue being charged annual excise tax on the car unless you turn the plates in or file a lost/stolen/etc. affidavit. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on November 26, 2014, 05:24:11 PM
When I changed from a standard MA plate to a charity MA plate, they instructed me to NOT return the plates and destroy them.  I've kept them in the event that they were wrong, but they haven't come after me yet and it's been 4 years!  I don't know if that's different when you leave the state...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DrSmith on November 26, 2014, 08:56:21 PM
I have twice had to return the plates before the insurance company would remove one of the vehicles off my insurance policy.  Until they could verify the plates were returned to the RMV, they would not remove the vehicle from my policy and continued to charge.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 27, 2014, 08:21:19 AM

Quote from: DrSmith on November 26, 2014, 08:56:21 PM
I have twice had to return the plates before the insurance company would remove one of the vehicles off my insurance policy.  Until they could verify the plates were returned to the RMV, they would not remove the vehicle from my policy and continued to charge.

I have an uninsured (and thus undriven, of course) car with plates sitting out back until it gets exempt from emissions come January.  The insurance company gladly let it go. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on November 28, 2014, 09:20:12 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 26, 2014, 05:24:11 PM
When I changed from a standard MA plate to a charity MA plate, they instructed me to NOT return the plates and destroy them.  I've kept them in the event that they were wrong, but they haven't come after me yet and it's been 4 years!  I don't know if that's different when you leave the state...
When I changed from my standard plate to my ham radio plates, the RMV specifically requested that I return the standard plate when I picked up the new plates.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: machias on November 28, 2014, 12:38:13 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 26, 2014, 04:35:51 PM



In Mass. you will continue being charged annual excise tax on the car unless you turn the plates in or file a lost/stolen/etc. affidavit. 

I still have my green on white plate from when I moved from Mass. to N.Y. in 1990 and I've never been tapped for any excise tax.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 28, 2014, 12:49:28 PM
The lesson here is that MA RMV is incredibly inconsistent when it comes to enforcing its own requirements.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 28, 2014, 01:10:38 PM

Quote from: upstatenyroads on November 28, 2014, 12:38:13 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 26, 2014, 04:35:51 PM



In Mass. you will continue being charged annual excise tax on the car unless you turn the plates in or file a lost/stolen/etc. affidavit. 

I still have my green on white plate from when I moved from Mass. to N.Y. in 1990 and I've never been tapped for any excise tax.

Move back to Mass. and try to register a car.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 28, 2014, 03:12:38 PM
I love reading about how obsessive states are over license plates. Just do what most states do, when the registration runs out, the plate is "dead" and flagged as unregistered. As for those low numbered plates, NJ has a system built around political connections, the "courtesy" plate. You can only get a tag with 3 letters and one number if you have permission from someone in state government.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Duke87 on November 28, 2014, 05:33:11 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 28, 2014, 01:10:38 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on November 28, 2014, 12:38:13 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 26, 2014, 04:35:51 PM
In Mass. you will continue being charged annual excise tax on the car unless you turn the plates in or file a lost/stolen/etc. affidavit. 
I still have my green on white plate from when I moved from Mass. to N.Y. in 1990 and I've never been tapped for any excise tax.
Move back to Mass. and try to register a car.

Makes sense. Massachusetts has no means of enforcing anything like this against people who no longer have any ties to the state. I suspect a lot of the plates you find in collections came from people who moved out of MA with no intention of ever returning and did not bother to cancel their registration or turn in their plates because they would have gained nothing by doing so.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: signalman on November 29, 2014, 07:10:00 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 28, 2014, 03:12:38 PMAs for those low numbered plates, NJ has a system built around political connections, the "courtesy" plate. You can only get a tag with 3 letters and one number if you have permission from someone in state government.
The three letters have significance.  The first is the county code from where the senator resides that "sponsored" the registrant.  The second and thrid letters are the registrants initials.  Also, courtesies are only numbered 1-20.  The regular format is in an ABC 1 format, there's also a reverse format; 1 ABC.

As far as Trenton is concerned, they are merely vanity plates.  However, they do serve a purpose with police.  Basically the registrant is saying, "Don't fuck with me, I have political connections.  Go bother someone else."
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Jim on November 29, 2014, 04:25:30 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 28, 2014, 05:33:11 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 28, 2014, 01:10:38 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on November 28, 2014, 12:38:13 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 26, 2014, 04:35:51 PM
In Mass. you will continue being charged annual excise tax on the car unless you turn the plates in or file a lost/stolen/etc. affidavit. 
I still have my green on white plate from when I moved from Mass. to N.Y. in 1990 and I've never been tapped for any excise tax.
Move back to Mass. and try to register a car.

Makes sense. Massachusetts has no means of enforcing anything like this against people who no longer have any ties to the state. I suspect a lot of the plates you find in collections came from people who moved out of MA with no intention of ever returning and did not bother to cancel their registration or turn in their plates because they would have gained nothing by doing so.

When I moved from Massachusetts to New York, I had no idea that my plates had to be turned in.  We canceled insurance, registered the cars in New York, and put the Mass plates up on the wall of the new garage.  Months later, I was contacted by a collection agency about overdue excise tax.  Somehow the government who wanted the tax money wasn't able to find me, but the collection agency could.  After many calls and letters, showing proof of insurance cancellation and registration in New York, and explaining that I never received any excise tax bill (the rest of my mail was forwarded by the USPS for a year or so, no idea why this one important piece would not have been), I was told there was nothing anyone could do.  I ended up driving back to Massachusetts to turn in the old plates.  I know I still had to pay the excise tax - it wasn't enough to fight any further but enough to be really annoying - but I think I eventually got them to waive the late fees.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on November 29, 2014, 06:27:55 PM
Quote from: signalman on November 29, 2014, 07:10:00 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 28, 2014, 03:12:38 PMAs for those low numbered plates, NJ has a system built around political connections, the "courtesy" plate. You can only get a tag with 3 letters and one number if you have permission from someone in state government.
The three letters have significance.  The first is the county code from where the senator resides that "sponsored" the registrant.  The second and thrid letters are the registrants initials.  Also, courtesies are only numbered 1-20.  The regular format is in an ABC 1 format, there's also a reverse format; 1 ABC.

As far as Trenton is concerned, they are merely vanity plates.  However, they do serve a purpose with police.  Basically the registrant is saying, "Don't fuck with me, I have political connections.  Go bother someone else."
There's a 9 ESQ living in my complex. I figured it was a personal plate saying he was a lawyer. OK, he has connections. That explains why he's such a fat asshole. (Note: He is both. I am not calling him an asshole for being fat, or vice versa.)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on December 01, 2014, 09:32:12 AM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on November 28, 2014, 12:38:13 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 26, 2014, 04:35:51 PM



In Mass. you will continue being charged annual excise tax on the car unless you turn the plates in or file a lost/stolen/etc. affidavit. 

I still have my green on white plate from when I moved from Mass. to N.Y. in 1990 and I've never been tapped for any excise tax.
Have you renewed the registration since then?  Standard registrations are renewed every 2 years via a plate sticker.  IIRC, the RMV likely considers a registration (& plate) dead several months (or even a year) after the registration expires.  If the registration is dead/long since expired; it's no longer considered to be legally registered in MA, and hence, not subject to the excise tax.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on January 03, 2015, 11:44:58 AM
Driving up MA 3 this morning toward the Braintree junction with I-93, I was treated to a view of some horrible new black graffiti on the diagrammatic BGS for I-93.  How long do you think it will take MassDOT to clean this up or replace the sign altogether?

Furthermore, why do these houligans risk their lives by climbing on a sign bridge over a very busy highway?  Since when did overhead BGSs become the new canvass for vandalism?  Whatever happened to the classic brick wall?  I frequently see graffiti on the reverse side of BGSs so that the vandals have more liberty for their ugly gang tags.

This is where pipe gantry is advantageous...you don't have these losers climbing on the structures defacing property and risking their lives for nothing.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Zeffy on January 03, 2015, 11:55:56 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on January 03, 2015, 11:44:58 AM
Furthermore, why do these houligans risk their lives by climbing on a sign bridge over a very busy highway?  Since when did overhead BGSs become the new canvass for vandalism?  Whatever happened to the classic brick wall?  I frequently see graffiti on the reverse side of BGSs so that the vandals have more liberty for their ugly gang tags.

The point is to make it noticable. If hundreds of people drive down the highway, they are going to see the graffiti compared to if they tagged a random brick wall in a shithole section of a city.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on January 03, 2015, 11:57:23 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on January 03, 2015, 11:55:56 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on January 03, 2015, 11:44:58 AM
Furthermore, why do these houligans risk their lives by climbing on a sign bridge over a very busy highway?  Since when did overhead BGSs become the new canvass for vandalism?  Whatever happened to the classic brick wall?  I frequently see graffiti on the reverse side of BGSs so that the vandals have more liberty for their ugly gang tags.

The point is to make it noticable. If hundreds of people drive down the highway, they are going to see the graffiti compared to if they tagged a random brick wall in a shithole section of a city.

I have seen some on the side of the highway (on a wall or on some rocks), and that doesn't require going up dangerously.

Or even the "Speed Limit 155" sign (the 1 is in spray paint, and it has been there for years), or Rudolph noses on the "deer crossing" signs (since removed).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on January 03, 2015, 03:18:42 PM
I've seen grafitti where someone tagged a speed limit sign on a sharp curve. The original speed limit was 35 but they changed it to 85. I've seen the "Rudolph nose" ones before too. There is also a pull-through sign on I-91 northbound near Hartford that had something tagged on it about 9/11..
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on January 03, 2015, 05:20:10 PM
Sadly, someone will have to die before they get the message that climbing on sign bridges is incredibly dangerous.  Ironically, the graffiti (on both sides of the sign) says "Sense Lives."  Apparently, Sense has 9 lives!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on January 03, 2015, 08:37:25 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on January 03, 2015, 11:44:58 AM
How long do you think it will take MassDOT to clean this up or replace the sign altogether?

Honestly imho I hope they do neither as the graffiti does not obstruct the sign's message and the labor and expense is not justified considering the current condition of our roads as well as the pending state budget deficit.  If you look at the state's history of deferring maintenance of bridge structural deficiencies then I just can't see spending money to fix something that is mostly aesthetic.

As for the potential argument that leaving it up will encourage others, I highly doubt there are many more people as brave as the person who climbed that gantry.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on January 04, 2015, 02:09:53 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on January 03, 2015, 08:37:25 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on January 03, 2015, 11:44:58 AM
How long do you think it will take MassDOT to clean this up or replace the sign altogether?

Honestly imho I hope they do neither as the graffiti does not obstruct the sign's message and the labor and expense is not justified considering the current condition of our roads as well as the pending state budget deficit.  If you look at the state's history of deferring maintenance of bridge structural deficiencies then I just can't see spending money to fix something that is mostly aesthetic.

As for the potential argument that leaving it up will encourage others, I highly doubt there are many more people as brave as the person who climbed that gantry.
Cleaning graffiti is a minimal expense compared to replacing a single bridge. They will clean it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on January 05, 2015, 07:11:01 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on January 03, 2015, 11:44:58 AM
Driving up MA 3 this morning toward the Braintree junction with I-93, I was treated to a view of some horrible new black graffiti on the diagrammatic BGS for I-93.  How long do you think it will take MassDOT to clean this up or replace the sign altogether?

Furthermore, why do these houligans risk their lives by climbing on a sign bridge over a very busy highway?  Since when did overhead BGSs become the new canvass for vandalism?  Whatever happened to the classic brick wall?  I frequently see graffiti on the reverse side of BGSs so that the vandals have more liberty for their ugly gang tags.

This is where pipe gantry is advantageous...you don't have these losers climbing on the structures defacing property and risking their lives for nothing.

The same moron(s) also hit a pair of BGS on the ramp from Burgin Parkway to MA 3 SB.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on January 05, 2015, 10:36:04 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on January 03, 2015, 08:37:25 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on January 03, 2015, 11:44:58 AM
How long do you think it will take MassDOT to clean this up or replace the sign altogether?

Honestly imho I hope they do neither as the graffiti does not obstruct the sign's message and the labor and expense is not justified considering the current condition of our roads as well as the pending state budget deficit.  If you look at the state's history of deferring maintenance of bridge structural deficiencies then I just can't see spending money to fix something that is mostly aesthetic.

As for the potential argument that leaving it up will encourage others, I highly doubt there are many more people as brave as the person who climbed that gantry.
So, if somebody were to commit an act of criminal vandalism by tagging your property, would you be content to leave it there under your premise of "what's the harm?"
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on January 05, 2015, 04:23:51 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2015, 02:09:53 AM

Cleaning graffiti is a minimal expense compared to replacing a single bridge. They will clean it.

The OP asked if the state would clean or replace, and I agree cleaning is the better option.

I was not referring to bridge replacements but bridge maintenance (deck repair, substructure repair, etc.) as well as roadway maintenance (potholes, drainage). This type of basic maintenance is deferred and underfunded statewide. While this sign is in a high visibility location and may receive attention, there are countless examples of graffiti on bridges and signs throughout the state that remains uncleaned. It just isn't a priority.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on January 05, 2015, 04:25:41 PM
Quote from: roadman on January 05, 2015, 10:36:04 AM

So, if somebody were to commit an act of criminal vandalism by tagging your property, would you be content to leave it there under your premise of "what's the harm?"

If my property consisted of thousands of similarly tagged items (road signs) and my home was in structural decay in need of repairs and my bank account was in the negative and I was living off credit, then yes sir you bet I would. And I'm sure you would too. Its about priorities. Considering the amount of graffiti out there between bridges, signs, etc. that the state leaves up, it seems they agree. People defer maintenance on their homes and cars all the time. If you have a major dent or scratch on your automobile (or if someone keys your car) and it needs a new head gasket at the same time, which repair would you prioritize?

As long as there is no vulgarity or racial slur that is visible to the public, then I just can't justify cleaning every instance of graffiti on a sign or highway overpass. What happens when the graffiti artist strikes again? Do we just engage in a cat and mouse game and throw more money at it? Unless we can develop a way of preventing people from climbing these bridges and signs, then its a game we cannot and will not ever win.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on January 05, 2015, 04:56:01 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on January 05, 2015, 04:25:41 PM
Unless we can develop a way of preventing people from climbing these bridges and signs, then its a game we cannot and will not ever win.
This is why pipe gantry should be mandatory, or a pipe stem with the truss attachment on top.  I was disappointed to see so many sign bridges replaced in MA that still have the truss structure.  You're just inviting this problem.

We can only hope the idiot that defaced the now more than 1 signs in the Braintree Junction area gets caught in the act, with a nice bill from MassDOT for the cleanup.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on January 06, 2015, 11:59:58 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on January 05, 2015, 04:25:41 PMAs long as there is no vulgarity or racial slur that is visible to the public, then I just can't justify cleaning every instance of graffiti on a sign or highway overpass. What happens when the graffiti artist strikes again? Do we just engage in a cat and mouse game and throw more money at it? Unless we can develop a way of preventing people from climbing these bridges and signs, then its a game we cannot and will not ever win.

Leaving graffiti alone lets it feed on itself.  Remember what happened to the NYC subways in the 1970's and 1980's when the MTA decided it didn't have the money to clean it up.  Subway cars ended up being wall-to-wall-to-ceiling-to-floor graffiti, rendering the maps, ads and destination signs unusable and ignoring the fact that the system's users had to just grin (more like grimace) and bear it.  Users had the feeling they were traveling in the midst of filth.

When graffiti is promptly removed, the graffiti artists move on and deface something else.  Seldom if ever do they target the same edifices more than once.  This has been proven again and again by the experiences of most large cities.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on January 07, 2015, 04:31:15 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on January 06, 2015, 11:59:58 AM

When graffiti is promptly removed, the graffiti artists move on and deface something else.  Seldom if ever do they target the same edifices more than once.  This has been proven again and again by the experiences of most large cities.

Not always. The state has twice sandblasted/painted the large RR bridge over I-190 in Worcester. Each time it would last about 3-6 months, then overnight you have a nice wall of graffiti. I think they (the state) have given up as it has been most recently defaced for about two years.

Even if the original artist doesn't return, there is always a new Picasso waiting in the wings. With so many different gangs each with their own tag all it takes is a newbie looking to make a name for himself.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on January 08, 2015, 07:04:08 AM
Looks like it was half cleaned - "Lives" is no longer visible, but "Sense" is still clear as day.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: ATLRedSoxFan on January 08, 2015, 08:19:28 AM
I saw the graffiti the other morning, and meant to have a look this am, but my attention was diverted by a stalled semi in the left lane, under the sign. I take that ramp every morning on my way to work to Rt. 3 South.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on January 08, 2015, 01:18:47 PM
Spooky, I noticed that too.  At least MassDOT knows it's there and hopefully they will finish the job.  The Burgin Parkway signage is going to be tougher to clean as the vandals hit the route shields and the text.  At least on the diagrammatic, they hit mainly the dead green space.  Even though they clean the signs, there is still going to be the "scarring" from the original damage.  It's just a shame considering how much $$ has been spent on the sign replacements.  Why couldn't the vandals have targeted the forgotten BGS on the Burgin Pkwy ramps from the 80s?  At least they could have had a reason to finally replace them!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 17, 2015, 10:04:34 AM
There's a proposal afoot to open the South Boston Haul Road to all vehicles:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/01/17/state-propose-opening-south-boston-bypass-road-all-drivers-pilot/O78MXZvaJQTE1nwdJy5rhP/story.html

I think building a new neighborhood in the core of the city that demands this much automobile access was dumb, and calculated (desirable demographics don't ride any Silver Line).  Serves them right to have all that congestion.

The Haul Road won't be enough anyway, and with no ways off between 93 and the convention center, will be backed up that whole way before long.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on January 17, 2015, 05:40:41 PM
Living South of Boston and not affected by the Callahan Tunnel closure, I thoroughly enjoyed using the "restricted" South Boston Bypass Road when the detour was in place.  I got into South Boston in a matter of minutes!  It was glorious...it was like sneaking into the "Secret Garden!"  I am completely in favor of them opening the road to everyone.  Yes, I understand that once it becomes popular, it will become more congested.  But at least it's a direct way into South Boston from the South Shore.  The off-ramp orgy to get into the same neighborhood via Exit 20 is much more time consuming.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: ATLRedSoxFan on January 24, 2015, 09:06:54 AM
I have been through the Rt. 3 interchange by Quincy Adams since Tuesday, either the sign bridge was cleaned, or the signs were replaced. No evidence of graffiti at all .Still puzzled how any one could even stay up there since there is no cat-walk.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on January 24, 2015, 12:14:50 PM
I noticed yesterday that the Burgin Pkwy signs are immaculate now.  They did a much better job cleaning those than they did the Exit 20 diagrammatic on Route 3, which has cleaning scars on it.  It seems like a rather quick turnaround to completely replace the signs altogether, but I am not familiar with the ease of cleaning paint off the new-generation BGSs.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on January 26, 2015, 09:49:31 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on January 24, 2015, 12:14:50 PM
I noticed yesterday that the Burgin Pkwy signs are immaculate now.  They did a much better job cleaning those than they did the Exit 20 diagrammatic on Route 3, which has cleaning scars on it.  It seems like a rather quick turnaround to completely replace the signs altogether, but I am not familiar with the ease of cleaning paint off the new-generation BGSs.

It's my understanding that the newer high intensity prismatic sheetings (Type VIII or better), which the Exit 20 diagrammatic was fabricated from, are more vunerable to damage from cleaning grafitti (scars)  than the older high intensity sheeting (Type III), which the older Burgin Parkway signs were fabricated from, is.  Also, from the photos I've seen, it appears that the tagging on the diagrammatic sign was more complex than on the Burgin Parkway signs.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 18, 2015, 06:42:06 PM
Any updates on the MA-79 demolition in Fall River?  I haven't been there since last summer.  I'm guessing this sign will be toast soon.

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5151/14118288934_5106237bbd_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nvzVqJ)Original non-reflective button copy. MA-138 NB Fall River, MA. Note: the original MA-79 shield still on the sign. (https://flic.kr/p/nvzVqJ) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/people/98731835@N05/), on Flickr


This was their preferred alt:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/34/docs/EA_ENF/Section5_ProjectAlternatives.pdf


Also, any updates on the MA-18 project by US-6?  GSV showed reconstruction around 2012.
and these beauties on US-6?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.637635,-70.922244,3a,75y,232.19h,96.57t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sa0YMIjaO6xAcCOQOO1XJaw!2e0
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 18, 2015, 07:42:22 PM
The Route 18 work in downtown New Bedford by the new hotel? Done several years ago.  It was not all that major, just tamed the road a bit. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on March 19, 2015, 07:12:07 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on March 18, 2015, 06:42:06 PM
Any updates on the MA-79 demolition in Fall River?  I haven't been there since last summer.  I'm guessing this sign will be toast soon.

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5151/14118288934_5106237bbd_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nvzVqJ)Original non-reflective button copy. MA-138 NB Fall River, MA. Note: the original MA-79 shield still on the sign. (https://flic.kr/p/nvzVqJ) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/people/98731835@N05/), on Flickr


This was their preferred alt:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/34/docs/EA_ENF/Section5_ProjectAlternatives.pdf

To the best of my knowledge that sign is being replaced not under the MA 79 viaduct project, but by the I-195 Seekonk to Dartmouth signining project.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 20, 2015, 10:00:32 AM
^ I-195 Seekonk to Dartmouth sign replacement project, which also includes the section of MA 24 between the Rhode Island line and I-195, is currently under construction.  However, installing the major ground-mounted and overhead signs and structures won't start until mid-spring of this year.  Contractor is Liddell Brothers, whose SOP on other projects has been to wait for the majority of sign panels and supports/structures to be fabricated before they begin installation.  A further complication is that little foundation work has been doen to date because of the severe winter we've had here.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 21, 2015, 02:42:22 PM
Does MASS DOT put any plans online? Some of their project pages have none.  Kinda surprised.  it's public knowledge isn't it? While all projects seem to be online in regards to their status.  I can't seem to find downloadable pdf plans for them.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Zeffy on March 21, 2015, 03:11:54 PM
Quote from: doofy103 on March 21, 2015, 02:42:22 PM
Does MASS DOT put any plans online? Some of their project pages have none.  Kinda surprised.  it's public knowledge isn't it? While all projects seem to be online in regards to their status.  I can't seem to find downloadable pdf plans for them.

According to https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12961.0, roadman posted:

Quote from: roadman on July 21, 2014, 06:13:06 PM
MassDOT does not currently post signing plans on-line, however, you can request plans for specific projects after the project has been awarded to a contractor.  A listing of current MassDOT design and construction projects, which can be sorted by community, District office, status, or other, is available at  http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/projectsRoot&sid=wrapper&iid=http://www.mhd.state.ma.us//ProjectInfo/

You can request plans from the Boston HQ Plans and Records Office - contact information is at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/Departments/PlansRecords.aspx

Electronic copies of plans are free - paper copies cost $1.00 per sheet.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 21, 2015, 07:14:19 PM
Unless we're talking very large format, $1.00 is borderline extortionate (and FOIA-unfriendly).  However, it's mostly a dead point since most people are gonna get it on .pdf anyway.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 23, 2015, 02:56:45 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 21, 2015, 07:14:19 PM
Unless we're talking very large format, $1.00 is borderline extortionate (and FOIA-unfriendly).  However, it's mostly a dead point since most people are gonna get it on .pdf anyway.
In Massachusetts at least, when granting an FOIA request, the agency is allowed to charge the applicant with both the time, which is based on the salary of the lowest grade employee knowlegeable enough to fufill the request, and a nominal cost for printing any copies of documents required to fufill the request.  The applicant is notified of these charges before the information is sent to them.  If they choose not to pay, they don't get the information.

This system is entirely fair, as it is designed to discourage frivilous requests.  What the agency cannot do is inquire as to why the information is being requested.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 23, 2015, 05:02:33 PM
I understand how these things work, but charging someone $50 for a copy of a 50-page document implies a ridiculous labor rate of something like $100+ per hour. 

I also understand the desire to spare valuable employee time from frivolous requests. I have known my share of people who have made requests of this type practically a lifestyle choice.  But the flipside of this is the tacit decision that requests by people without the means to spend at this rate are by nature frivolous, which does impose a certain judgment on the request even if it doesn't inquire about motivation.

"Fair" is a subjective term, and there are arguments on both sides, which is why the .pdf is a wonderful thing for everyone involved.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on March 23, 2015, 06:36:13 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 23, 2015, 02:56:45 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 21, 2015, 07:14:19 PM
Unless we're talking very large format, $1.00 is borderline extortionate (and FOIA-unfriendly).  However, it's mostly a dead point since most people are gonna get it on .pdf anyway.
In Massachusetts at least, when granting an FOIA request, the agency is allowed to charge the applicant with both the time, which is based on the salary of the lowest grade employee knowlegeable enough to fufill the request, and a nominal cost for printing any copies of documents required to fufill the request.  The applicant is notified of these charges before the information is sent to them.  If they choose not to pay, they don't get the information.

This system is entirely fair, as it is designed to discourage frivilous requests.  What the agency cannot do is inquire as to why the information is being requested.

Fair may be relative when the MBTA wants to charge $1500 to get a days worth of e-mails between 2 employees at the agency.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 24, 2015, 01:25:53 PM
Quote from: Cjzani on March 23, 2015, 06:36:13 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 23, 2015, 02:56:45 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 21, 2015, 07:14:19 PM
Unless we're talking very large format, $1.00 is borderline extortionate (and FOIA-unfriendly).  However, it's mostly a dead point since most people are gonna get it on .pdf anyway.
In Massachusetts at least, when granting an FOIA request, the agency is allowed to charge the applicant with both the time, which is based on the salary of the lowest grade employee knowlegeable enough to fufill the request, and a nominal cost for printing any copies of documents required to fufill the request.  The applicant is notified of these charges before the information is sent to them.  If they choose not to pay, they don't get the information.

This system is entirely fair, as it is designed to discourage frivilous requests.  What the agency cannot do is inquire as to why the information is being requested.

Fair may be relative when the MBTA wants to charge $1500 to get a days worth of e-mails between 2 employees at the agency.
When those two employees are the Director of Railroad Operations and the General Manager of Keolis, the company running the commuter rail, I could see how they could arrive at that price to gather the documents.  And shame on the media for submitting such a vague request (any and all correspondence) in the first place.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on March 25, 2015, 09:49:08 AM
Quote from: roadman on March 24, 2015, 01:25:53 PM
Quote from: Cjzani on March 23, 2015, 06:36:13 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 23, 2015, 02:56:45 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 21, 2015, 07:14:19 PM
Unless we're talking very large format, $1.00 is borderline extortionate (and FOIA-unfriendly).  However, it's mostly a dead point since most people are gonna get it on .pdf anyway.
In Massachusetts at least, when granting an FOIA request, the agency is allowed to charge the applicant with both the time, which is based on the salary of the lowest grade employee knowlegeable enough to fufill the request, and a nominal cost for printing any copies of documents required to fufill the request.  The applicant is notified of these charges before the information is sent to them.  If they choose not to pay, they don't get the information.

This system is entirely fair, as it is designed to discourage frivilous requests.  What the agency cannot do is inquire as to why the information is being requested.

Fair may be relative when the MBTA wants to charge $1500 to get a days worth of e-mails between 2 employees at the agency.
When those two employees are the Director of Railroad Operations and the General Manager of Keolis, the company running the commuter rail, I could see how they could arrive at that price to gather the documents.  And shame on the media for submitting such a vague request (any and all correspondence) in the first place.

The one I speak of is Beverly Johnson (soon to not be head of MBTA) and Joe Pesaturo (the Baghdad Bob of the MBTA), which Fox25 asked for. It does not cost that much to copy a bunch of e-mails and put them into a PDF. Hell, this same state charged a state rep $800 to get the EBT card balances exceeding $1000 to be put onto a 1 page piece of paper.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 25, 2015, 11:59:09 AM
Quote from: Cjzani on March 25, 2015, 09:49:08 AM
Quote from: roadman on March 24, 2015, 01:25:53 PM
Quote from: Cjzani on March 23, 2015, 06:36:13 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 23, 2015, 02:56:45 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 21, 2015, 07:14:19 PM
Unless we're talking very large format, $1.00 is borderline extortionate (and FOIA-unfriendly).  However, it's mostly a dead point since most people are gonna get it on .pdf anyway.
In Massachusetts at least, when granting an FOIA request, the agency is allowed to charge the applicant with both the time, which is based on the salary of the lowest grade employee knowlegeable enough to fufill the request, and a nominal cost for printing any copies of documents required to fufill the request.  The applicant is notified of these charges before the information is sent to them.  If they choose not to pay, they don't get the information.

This system is entirely fair, as it is designed to discourage frivilous requests.  What the agency cannot do is inquire as to why the information is being requested.

Fair may be relative when the MBTA wants to charge $1500 to get a days worth of e-mails between 2 employees at the agency.
When those two employees are the Director of Railroad Operations and the General Manager of Keolis, the company running the commuter rail, I could see how they could arrive at that price to gather the documents.  And shame on the media for submitting such a vague request (any and all correspondence) in the first place.

The one I speak of is Beverly Johnson (soon to not be head of MBTA) and Joe Pesaturo (the Baghdad Bob of the MBTA), which Fox25 asked for. It does not cost that much to copy a bunch of e-mails and put them into a PDF. Hell, this same state charged a state rep $800 to get the EBT card balances exceeding $1000 to be put onto a 1 page piece of paper.
As I expalined, the cost is not so much in reproducing the documents, but in the salaries of the "lowest paid knowlegeable person".  In the case of e-mails that Scott and Pesaturo personally generated, it would be the salaries of Scott and Pesaturo.

With respect, I believe the First Amendment does not justifiy Faux News conducting another of its unspecified fishing expeditions at the taxpayers time or expense.  But I presume you've never been directed to respond to FOIA requests as part of your job.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on March 25, 2015, 02:20:12 PM
Fox 25 is owned by Cox Communications out of San Francisco, so enough with the "Faux News" meme. I don't see any of the other stations trying to get this info. Media requesting this stuff has a tad bit more of caché than some anti-gov't nerd with too much time on his hand, and yes I do sympathize with having to deal with those types of people.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on March 25, 2015, 08:51:17 PM
If someone emails me asking for the latest traffic count report on a roadway, I just look it up and give it to them.  Takes 30 seconds.  Some people, however, insist on referring people to the FOIA process for any release of information, even when they're willing to give it.  To me, that seems like unnecessary bureaucratic overhead wasting everyone's time, as the request then has to go through legal and gets bounced through a dozen departments and has accompanying forms.  The purpose of FOIA was to force government agencies to share information that they were supposed to be sharing but weren't, not to keep a bunch of lawyers employed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Bickendan on March 26, 2015, 01:38:28 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 25, 2015, 08:51:17 PM
If someone emails me asking for the latest traffic count report on a roadway, I just look it up and give it to them.  Takes 30 seconds.  Some people, however, insist on referring people to the FOIA process for any release of information, even when they're willing to give it.  To me, that seems like unnecessary bureaucratic overhead wasting everyone's time, as the request then has to go through legal and gets bounced through a dozen departments and has accompanying forms.  The purpose of FOIA was to force government agencies to share information that they were supposed to be sharing but weren't, not to keep a bunch of lawyers employed.
And they said there's no such thing as welfare for lawyers...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on March 26, 2015, 10:03:05 PM
They also do things like advice on possible courses of action in a DOT plan, for example with a highway abandonment.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 26, 2015, 10:12:46 PM
Globe: Route 3 [south of Boston] could get express toll lanes:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/03/26/route-could-get-express-toll-lanes/i918GI798qz9u9DYf0W0fJ/story.html

Norwell to Braintree, four years, $600-800 million.

I'm curious how this plan emerged all of a sudden.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on March 27, 2015, 07:38:40 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 26, 2015, 10:12:46 PM
Globe: Route 3 [south of Boston] could get express toll lanes:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/03/26/route-could-get-express-toll-lanes/i918GI798qz9u9DYf0W0fJ/story.html

Norwell to Braintree, four years, $600-800 million.

I'm curious how this plan emerged all of a sudden.


I think this idea has been bouncing around for a while.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Zeffy on March 27, 2015, 10:49:53 AM
Were there any plans to upgrade MA 2 between Acton and Lexington? I noticed that there's a "gap" where MA 2 isn't a freeway between these two places.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on March 27, 2015, 12:03:11 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 27, 2015, 10:49:53 AM
Were there any plans to upgrade MA 2 between Acton and Lexington? I noticed that there's a "gap" where MA 2 isn't a freeway between these two places.
At present, the MA 2/2A intersection just east of Concord is being converted to an interchange.

I'm not presently aware of any other upgrades along that MA 2 corridor that will actually come to fruition.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 27, 2015, 12:07:33 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 26, 2015, 10:12:46 PM
Globe: Route 3 [south of Boston] could get express toll lanes:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/03/26/route-could-get-express-toll-lanes/i918GI798qz9u9DYf0W0fJ/story.html

Norwell to Braintree, four years, $600-800 million.

I'm curious how this plan emerged all of a sudden.

The proposal to widen the roadway has been around since the 1980s.  It's the "let's build it with express toll lanes to fund the construction" that's the new idea.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on March 27, 2015, 05:39:12 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 27, 2015, 10:49:53 AM
Were there any plans to upgrade MA 2 between Acton and Lexington? I noticed that there's a "gap" where MA 2 isn't a freeway between these two places.
Were there? Yes. They died awhile ago due to NIMBYism.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Zeffy on March 27, 2015, 05:44:28 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 27, 2015, 05:39:12 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 27, 2015, 10:49:53 AM
Were there any plans to upgrade MA 2 between Acton and Lexington? I noticed that there's a "gap" where MA 2 isn't a freeway between these two places.
Were there? Yes. They died awhile ago due to NIMBYism.

That's never shocking in the northeast.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Zeffy on March 27, 2015, 10:56:40 PM
Another question which I was reminded of by the "roundabout" warning sign in your pic - are Massachusetts' rotaries as they are called just traffic circles? They look safer than New Jersey's deathtraps, but they don't look as safe as roundabouts. Although, most of them are more circular in shape than New Jersey's circles.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 27, 2015, 11:04:44 PM
They are traffic circles.  Traffic in them has the right of way.

The new little roundabouts are usually not signed as rotaries.  Some similar smaller rotaries are, but they are not necessarily engineered as specifically as the modern roundabout.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on March 28, 2015, 12:53:15 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 27, 2015, 11:04:44 PM
They are traffic circles.  Traffic in them has the right of way.

The new little roundabouts are usually not signed as rotaries.  Some similar smaller rotaries are, but they are not necessarily engineered as specifically as the modern roundabout.
Traffic in rotaries generally has the right of way - similar to roundabouts, different from NJ's circles - though there are some exceptions. Rotaries are generally much larger than roundabouts, sometimes measured in tenths of a mile (the one at 2/2A/119 is about 0.2 miles around), and often do not have a round shape. Similar to traffic circles, rotaries do not maintain lane balances of incoming roads, so you have to guess at where your car should be laterally relative to other cars, and there's no rule as to whether someone in a "left lane" can exit at a given spoke. Another similarity to traffic circles is the unwritten rules of how it functions - all of the locals will know how to drive the rotary properly, but if you try to drive it like a roundabout, you'll be cut off at some point. Rotaries are generally much better signed than NJ's circles, on par with (though different than) modern roundabouts. Finally, rotary spokes do not have to enter "left of" the center, which is a common design rule with roundabouts - rotary spokes can be at shallower angles like traffic circles.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on April 22, 2015, 03:03:33 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 21, 2015, 07:14:19 PM
Unless we're talking very large format, $1.00 is borderline extortionate (and FOIA-unfriendly).  However, it's mostly a dead point since most people are gonna get it on .pdf anyway.

FYI full size plans are 24x36 sheets which I'm assuming is part of the reason behind that cost. You'd need a magnifying glass if they sent you 8.5x11 plan sheets.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 22, 2015, 08:37:08 AM

Quote from: mass_citizen on April 22, 2015, 03:03:33 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 21, 2015, 07:14:19 PM
Unless we're talking very large format, $1.00 is borderline extortionate (and FOIA-unfriendly).  However, it's mostly a dead point since most people are gonna get it on .pdf anyway.

FYI full size plans are 24x36 sheets which I'm assuming is part of the reason behind that cost. You'd need a magnifying glass if they sent you 8.5x11 plan sheets.

Look, someone is probably going to say it's too much to ask, but isn't it reasonable to have a different rate for 24x36 sheets than 8½x11?  There is everywhere else.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 06, 2015, 11:44:44 PM
If you're bored and lonely around Boston, they are surely hanging some of these at Wellington Circle tonight.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/363/19478844595_e110c86fd2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vFhaSc)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 07, 2015, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 06, 2015, 11:44:44 PM
If you're bored and lonely around Boston, they are surely hanging some of these at Wellington Circle tonight.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/363/19478844595_e110c86fd2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vFhaSc)
Hope they're not planning on reusing the existing trusses for these signs.

UPDATE - My contacts have informed me that the overhead signs at Wellington Circle have been replaced, but that the circa-1972 support structures were indeed retained.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 17, 2015, 07:38:27 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 07, 2015, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 06, 2015, 11:44:44 PM
If you're bored and lonely around Boston, they are surely hanging some of these at Wellington Circle tonight.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/363/19478844595_e110c86fd2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vFhaSc)
Hope they're not planning on reusing the existing trusses for these signs.

are the button copy signs for the Wellington T Station still up?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 20, 2015, 09:12:55 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 17, 2015, 07:38:27 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 07, 2015, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 06, 2015, 11:44:44 PM
If you're bored and lonely around Boston, they are surely hanging some of these at Wellington Circle tonight.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/363/19478844595_e110c86fd2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/vFhaSc)
Hope they're not planning on reusing the existing trusses for these signs.

are the button copy signs for the Wellington T Station still up?
As of this morning (7/20), they were still there.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on July 26, 2015, 03:51:51 AM
When did Massachusetts switch from the small exit tabs that look like they are built into the bigger part of the sign to the bigger tabs with a border between the tab and the main sign, (similar to how New Hampshire does it)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on July 26, 2015, 02:22:10 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on July 26, 2015, 03:51:51 AM
When did Massachusetts switch from the small exit tabs that look like they are built into the bigger part of the sign to the bigger tabs with a border between the tab and the main sign, (similar to how New Hampshire does it)

It was around 2002-2003, when the Big Dig was being completed. The first signs with the new style were put up as part of the Big Dig. However, there was still some overlap depending on signing contracts. For example, just after the Big Dig, the new style of signs were put up on I-495 in southern Mass. However, at the same time, the signs put up for the US-44 extension and several other isolated projects used the old style for several more years.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 27, 2015, 05:34:36 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on July 26, 2015, 03:51:51 AM
When did Massachusetts switch from the small exit tabs that look like they are built into the bigger part of the sign to the bigger tabs with a border between the tab and the main sign, (similar to how New Hampshire does it)
Actually, the Big Dig sign design had no bearing on MassHighway's decision to switch to the larger exit tabs on their signs.  When the 1978 MUTCD was issued, one of the changes was to go from an 18 inch high exit tab to a 24 inch high one.  At the time, MassDPW convinced FHWA that omitting the border underneath the exit tab and overlapping the numerals onto the main sign panel (often referred to as the "integral exit tab" design) was an acceptable alternative to requiring a fully separate exit tab.  The rationale given at the time to retain the 18 inch design with modifications instead of going to the 24 inch height was to minimize the need for support changes when signs were updated in the future.
 
About the time the 2003 MUTCD was issued, which called for 30 inch high exit tabs, MassHighway had a handful of instances where, due to fabrication errors that were not caught before installation, signs for some left side exits were placed with right-justified tabs.  Because of the omitted border and the overlapping numerals, fixing this problem was more involved than just moving the tab to the opposite side of the panel.

As a result of the 2003 MUTCD changes, and in light of the problems with incorrectly fabricated signs, MassHighway made the decision to forego the "integral exit tab" design in favor of the current practice.  The first signs to be designed and fabricated to this new standard were on I-95 at the "Task A" interchange with Route 128 in Peabody, and on Route 140 between Taunton and New Bedford.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 28, 2015, 07:12:00 PM
I heard that Massachusetts was going to change it's exit numbers to mileage-based in the near future. Is this accurate, or did I mishear about that?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 29, 2015, 09:53:28 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 28, 2015, 07:12:00 PM
I heard that Massachusetts was going to change it's exit numbers to mileage-based in the near future. Is this accurate, or did I mishear about that?
The contract for exit number conversion is scheduled to be advertised for bids in September.  It will involve changing exit numbers on most routes through a blanket conversion with overlays.  The sole exception is the MassPike - I-90, as those numbers will be changed when the signs are replaced under the pending West Stockbridge to Auburn (advertised, bid opening in September) and Auburn to Boston (to be advertised in October) projects.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on July 29, 2015, 10:01:16 AM
...and another state bordering NY switches to mileage-based exit numbering.  Hopefully, NY gets its act together.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on July 29, 2015, 10:37:53 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 29, 2015, 09:53:28 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 28, 2015, 07:12:00 PM
I heard that Massachusetts was going to change it's exit numbers to mileage-based in the near future. Is this accurate, or did I mishear about that?
The contract for exit number conversion is scheduled to be advertised for bids in Spetember.  It will involve chainging exit numbers on most routes through a blanket conversion with overlays.  The sole exception is the MassPike - I-90, as those numbers will be changed when the signs are replaced under the pending West Stockbridge to Auburn (advertised, bid opening in September) and Auburn to Boston (to be advertised in October) projects.

Very interesting. If the MassPike signs are let as separate contracts, wouldn't that suggest that there could be a period where some numbers are changed and some aren't? I suppose that is inevitable though even if it were one contract.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 29, 2015, 10:42:43 AM
The plan for the MassPike contracts is to coordinate the actual sign installation so this phase of the work is done one interchange at a time.  Yes, there will be a point where some interchanges have the new numbers while others continue to have the old ones.  However, this will also be the case (although to a lesser degree) with the number conversions on all other routes.  ALso note that MassDOT's original longer term "route by route" plan has been changed to a short term "blanket" replacement plan (similar to PA) - this was requested by FHWA as a condition of receiving Federal money for the conversions.

Additionally, the exit numbering contract will have a large PR coordination effort as part of the Contractor's work.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on July 29, 2015, 11:10:53 AM
Thanks as always for the inside info, roadman.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: yakra on July 29, 2015, 11:50:43 AM
Any info yet on what the new exit numbers are to be?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 29, 2015, 12:41:47 PM
Quote from: yakra on July 29, 2015, 11:50:43 AM
Any info yet on what the new exit numbers are to be?
Here's an unofficial list (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/intexits.html) of possible exit number changes for MA Interstate & state highways made by one of users from this site.

The official ones shouldn't be too far off what's listed in the above-link.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on July 29, 2015, 02:20:04 PM
MA 213 shouldn't change, as it is already coincidentally mile-based (starting at 1 instead of 0).

The route that would probably cause the most confusion with the change is I-93, as several current exit numbers are only 1 or 2 away from their mile numbers.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 29, 2015, 11:37:51 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 29, 2015, 12:41:47 PM
Quote from: yakra on July 29, 2015, 11:50:43 AM
Any info yet on what the new exit numbers are to be?
Here's an unofficial list (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/intexits.html) of possible exit number changes for MA Interstate & state highways made by one of users from this site.

The official ones shouldn't be too far off what's listed in the above-link.
It will be interesting to see how the actual numbers do compare with the ones in the lists. I tried not to be too strict in adhering to mileposts when assigning numbers if I thought drivers would benefit by keeping it simpler. For example at the southern end of I-93, both current Exits 1 (SB) and 2 could be assigned to milepost 1 (assuming MassDOT isn't going to be using Exit 0), but I figured it would be easier to keep the exits as is rather than a southbound driver seeing Exits 1D, 1C, 1B and 1A. And, though my list may say differently, you could keep the I-93 exit numbers as is between I-95 and Exit 12 without causing too much driver confusion.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 30, 2015, 09:25:37 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 29, 2015, 11:37:51 PMAnd, though my list may say differently, you could keep the I-93 exit numbers as is between I-95 and Exit 12 without causing too much driver confusion.
IMHO, that's what will likely happen there.  Similar was done with I-95 in PA during its conversion circa 2000 (the first 10 exits from the DE state line to the first PA 291 exit did not have their numbers changed).

IMHO, once CT finally fully changes over; the first 9 interchanges along I-84 (from the NY state line eastward) probably won't change either.

OTOH and back to MA; exit numbers along the Lowell Connector could indeed become alphabet soup.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 30, 2015, 10:27:33 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 29, 2015, 10:42:43 AM
The plan for the MassPike contracts is to coordinate the actual sign installation so this phase of the work is done one interchange at a time.  Yes, there will be a point where some interchanges have the new numbers while others continue to have the old ones.  However, this will also be the case (although to a lesser degree) with the number conversions on all other routes.  ALso note that MassDOT's original longer term "route by route" plan has been changed to a short term "blanket" replacement plan (similar to PA) - this was requested by FHWA as a condition of receiving Federal money for the conversions.

Additionally, the exit numbering contract will have a large PR coordination effort as part of the Contractor's work.
It sounds like, under this short-term blanket plan, numbers will be changed on existing signs for routes scheduled for sign replacement in the next few years. In particular, US 6 /Mid-Cape Highway in 2016, MA 24 north of I-195 in 2016/17, and I-95 south of MA 128 in 2018. Couldn't the FHWA be convinced to wait to switch those routes when the new signs were put up?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on August 02, 2015, 10:27:16 PM
Looking forward to the US 6/Cape sign replacement project next year.  There are many BGSs in really rough shape along that stretch.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 03, 2015, 01:01:20 AM
I was on Route 6 today, and wondered if anyone knows when the nifty travel time signs out there will make it to the rest of the state.  These seem to have been in discussion and development for a long time.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 03, 2015, 09:03:23 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 03, 2015, 01:01:20 AM
I was on Route 6 today, and wondered if anyone knows when the nifty travel time signs out there will make it to the rest of the state.  These seem to have been in discussion and development for a long time.
The project (MassDOT Project #607422) to expand the travel time sign system to other Interstates and freeways statewide is presently under construction - all signs are expected to be installed and operational by mid to late fall of 2015.

Once the permanent "hybrid" signs are in place, the portable CMS panels currently conveying this information on certain routes (I-93, MassPike) will be removed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 03, 2015, 03:04:26 PM
Massachusetts FYA conversions continue:

http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-flashing-yellow-arrow-traffic-signal-project/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on August 07, 2015, 10:52:42 AM
MassDOT has released its Draft 2016-2019 STIP document: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/17/docs/STIP/DraftSTIP2016_2019.pdf (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/17/docs/STIP/DraftSTIP2016_2019.pdf)

Among the projects listed for FY 2016 are, as Roadman indicated above, the "Statewide-Conversion of Interstate and Freeway Exit Numbers to Milepost-Based" Project 608024, "Route 6 Sign Upgrades, Sandwich to Orleans" Project 605367 and Raynham to Bolton, Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement on I-495, Project 606620. The conversion project, 608024, is estimated to cost $2 Million in 2016 with the feds contributing $1.8 million of it ($4 million has already been committed in 2015, according to the 2015-2018 TIP). For comparison, the US 6 project is estimated at $4.1 Million, $3.7 Million in Federal funds and the I-495 project $6 Million, $5.4 Million in Federal funding.

MA 24 Sign Replacement from Randolph to Fall River is scheduled for FY 2017 (Project 607916) while FY 2018 has sign replacement projects for I-495 from Bolton to Lowell (Project 607919) and I-290 from Auburn to Worcester (Project 607919) scheduled, along with I-95 from Attleboro to Canton (Project 608204). Upgrading I-95 signage from Reading to Peabody is to occur in FY 2019 (Project 608205) along with upgrading signage on US 1 from Chelsea to Danvers (Project 608206) (will that include exit numbers?) and I-495 from Haverhill to Amesbury (what about between Lowell and Haverhill?) (Project 608187).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on August 08, 2015, 11:30:31 AM
I'm delighted to see the widening of Rte 18 in Weymouth/Abington for 2016...at least a decade overdue in my opinion!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on August 08, 2015, 12:04:01 PM
Does anyone know if there any widening projects planned or proposed for the Cape? Obviously it's very hard to do now because of the development, but I'd be interested to see if they ever even thought about widening roads such as MA 28 or even US 6.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on August 08, 2015, 01:43:37 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on August 08, 2015, 12:04:01 PM
Does anyone know if there any widening projects planned or proposed for the Cape? Obviously it's very hard to do now because of the development, but I'd be interested to see if they ever even thought about widening roads such as MA 28 or even US 6.

I can't imagine MA 28 would ever be widened.  Too many mini-golf courses would have to be taken out. :D
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 08, 2015, 02:10:55 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on August 08, 2015, 12:04:01 PM
Does anyone know if there any widening projects planned or proposed for the Cape? Obviously it's very hard to do now because of the development, but I'd be interested to see if they ever even thought about widening roads such as MA 28 or even US 6.

I don't know anything about it, but merely talking out of my ass I would guess that between wetlands, the aquifer, and the Cape Cod Commission, it's got to be extra hard to widen Route 6.  It's also fairly pointless–I don't usually see bad traffic on the super-2 section other than at the lane drop (mitigating which doesn't warrant 12 additional lane-miles each way).  North of the rotary I could see a passing lane or two, but most of the problems there are just due to a narrow spit being very popular to visit.  At the Sagamore there is no sense building lanes to simply store traffic waiting to cross a narrow bridge (and there's another thread alread on that situation).

Plus, the Cape is in some ways an overblown competitor for highway dollars.  It's the state's biggest tourist region, but for four months a year, after which it's another semi-rural county suffering from economic depression, rampant substance abuse, brain drain, and nature's guaranteed-successful plan to eliminate it altogether.  Not exactly a growth area.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on August 13, 2015, 12:40:08 PM
I noticed they put up one of those new travel time signs that MassDOT has been installing on the Cape on I-195 east in Swansea just before the large construction zone. This one was orange though, is this due to it being temporary because of the road work zone?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 13, 2015, 04:01:52 PM
Quote from: JakeFromNewEngland on August 13, 2015, 12:40:08 PM
I noticed they put up one of those new travel time signs that MassDOT has been installing on the Cape on I-195 east in Swansea just before the large construction zone. This one was orange though, is this due to it being temporary because of the road work zone?
Correct.  Once the Route 79 project is completed, the travel time signs on I-195 and Route 24 will be converted to standard white on green travel time signs.   My spies tell me that the revised signs will likely have different destinations than those on the current signs, which indicate routes and destinations relevant to the Route 79 project, though.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on August 17, 2015, 10:27:59 PM
I'm not sure if this has been addressed, but when the mileage based exit numbers are installed, will I-395 and I-290 be treated as two separate routes? Or will mileage on both of them start from the state line as is currently the case with the exit numbers?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 18, 2015, 09:07:52 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on August 17, 2015, 10:27:59 PM
I'm not sure if this has been addressed, but when the mileage based exit numbers are installed, will I-395 and I-290 be treated as two separate routes? Or will mileage on both of them start from the state line as is currently the case with the exit numbers?
As the mile merkers reset at the I-395/I-290 divide, the current plan is for I-395 and I-290 to be treated as separate routes for the exit numbers.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on August 18, 2015, 10:55:40 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 07, 2015, 10:52:42 AMUpgrading I-95 signage from Reading to Peabody is to occur in FY 2019 (Project 608205)
Weren't those signs already replaced not too long ago (less than 10 years)?  Such can't be just for exit number conversions.

Quote from: bob7374 on August 07, 2015, 10:52:42 AMalong with upgrading signage on US 1 from Chelsea to Danvers (Project 608206) (will that include exit numbers?)
Somehow, I don't think that US 1 will be getting its own set of exit numbers but if it did (a la limited-access stretches of MA 2); such would only be for the Northeast Expressway (Chelsea to Revere/Saugus) stretch.  North of there (to the Danvers/Topsfield line), US 1 is a Jersey-type, arterial highway.  While highways of that ilk have interchanges; they're not typically numbered.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 18, 2015, 11:03:34 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 18, 2015, 10:55:40 AM
Weren't those signs already replaced not too long ago (less than 10 years)?  Such can't be just for exit number conversions.

Most on the signs on I-95 from Reading to Peabody were last updated in 1999 and 2000.  The signs on I-95 north at the Lynnfield/Peabody line for the Route 128 split were replaced in 2006 and will be retained as part of the new project.

QuoteSomehow, I don't think that US 1 will be getting its own set of exit numbers but if it did (a la limited-access stretches of MA 2); such would only be for the Northeast Expressway (Chelsea to Revere/Saugus) stretch.  North of there (to the Danvers/Topsfield line), US 1 is a Jersey-type, arterial highway.  While highways of that ilk have interchanges; they're not typically numbered.

US 1 between Chelsea and the Danvers/Topsfield line will not be getting exit numbers as part of either the exit renumbering project or the eventual sign replacement.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 24, 2015, 11:44:36 AM
Route 9 interchange changes to start shortly:  http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/needham-wellesley-i-95-add-a-lane-project-ramp-changes-ahead/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on September 13, 2015, 09:44:19 PM
While not yet on the MassDOT website, the Saturday Boston Globe had their weekly public notice of upcoming Highway Division Proposals which this week included the ad for the project "Exit Signage Conversion to Milepost-based Numbering System along various Interstates, Routes, and the Lowell Connector (608024)" Project Value $2.08 Million. The bids are to be opened on November 17.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on September 23, 2015, 09:47:46 AM
QUESTION:  Do MA 3 and US 3 share a mileage log, or does US 3 reset the mileage log in Cambridge when the designation changes?  Just curious for the eventual mileage-based exit numbering...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 23, 2015, 10:03:09 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on September 23, 2015, 09:47:46 AM
QUESTION:  Do MA 3 and US 3 share a mileage log, or does US 3 reset the mileage log in Cambridge when the designation changes?  Just curious for the eventual mileage-based exit numbering...
According to Despite MassDOT's Route Log, which implies that US 3 and MA 3 have separate mileposting unless you look at the data closely enough, the mileposting is continuous for both the MA and US sections for Route 3.  So the new exit numbers on each route will not indeed be related.  Of course, MA 3 will use the new I-93 exit numbers north of Braintree.

https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/MapsDataandReports/Maps/HighwayRouteLog.aspx

Thanks to PHLBOS for the clarification - my bad for not reading the Route Log information more closely
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on September 23, 2015, 10:06:16 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 13, 2015, 09:44:19 PM
While not yet on the MassDOT website, the Saturday Boston Globe had their weekly public notice of upcoming Highway Division Proposals which this week included the ad for the project "Exit Signage Conversion to Milepost-based Numbering System along various Interstates, Routes, and the Lowell Connector (608024)" Project Value $2.08 Million. The bids are to be opened on November 17.

We knew this was coming within the next year or two, so not a shock. Glad to see it's actually moving forward.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 23, 2015, 10:17:56 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 23, 2015, 10:03:09 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on September 23, 2015, 09:47:46 AM
QUESTION:  Do MA 3 and US 3 share a mileage log, or does US 3 reset the mileage log in Cambridge when the designation changes?  Just curious for the eventual mileage-based exit numbering...
According to MassDOT's Route Log, US 3 and MA 3 have separate mileposting.  So the new exit numbers on each route will not be related.  Of course, MA 3 will use the new I-93 exit numbers north of Braintree.

https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/MapsDataandReports/Maps/HighwayRouteLog.aspx
At present & in the real world, US 3 mile markers contradict such and are indeed a continuation of MA 3.

Mile Marker 72.2 along northbound US 3 in Burlington (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4841998,-71.2251776,3a,75y,6.17h,73.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3VN_X_YSHkFRL7E-DBvBYg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 23, 2015, 10:57:23 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 23, 2015, 10:17:56 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 23, 2015, 10:03:09 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on September 23, 2015, 09:47:46 AM
QUESTION:  Do MA 3 and US 3 share a mileage log, or does US 3 reset the mileage log in Cambridge when the designation changes?  Just curious for the eventual mileage-based exit numbering...
According to MassDOT's Route Log, US 3 and MA 3 have separate mileposting.  So the new exit numbers on each route will not be related.  Of course, MA 3 will use the new I-93 exit numbers north of Braintree.

https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/MapsDataandReports/Maps/HighwayRouteLog.aspx
At present & in the real world, US 3 mile markers contradict such and are indeed a continuation of MA 3.

Mile Marker 72.2 along northbound US 3 in Burlington (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4841998,-71.2251776,3a,75y,6.17h,73.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3VN_X_YSHkFRL7E-DBvBYg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

Thanks.  My bad for not reading the Route Log Info more closely - it's not the best site for getting info "at a glance".  I've corrected my original post.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on September 23, 2015, 12:28:46 PM
Quote from: cl94 on September 23, 2015, 10:06:16 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 13, 2015, 09:44:19 PM
While not yet on the MassDOT website, the Saturday Boston Globe had their weekly public notice of upcoming Highway Division Proposals which this week included the ad for the project "Exit Signage Conversion to Milepost-based Numbering System along various Interstates, Routes, and the Lowell Connector (608024)" Project Value $2.08 Million. The bids are to be opened on November 17.

We knew this was coming within the next year or two, so not a shock. Glad to see it's actually moving forward.
The Project Bid Information page for the contract is now online, so far it only features a general contractor notice:
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-16-1030-0H100-0H002-00000005477&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-16-1030-0H100-0H002-00000005477&external=true&parentUrl=bid)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 23, 2015, 12:59:24 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 23, 2015, 10:57:23 AMThanks.  My bad for not reading the Route Log Info more closely - it's not the best site for getting info "at a glance".  I've corrected my original post.
No problem.  I have to wonder if the state's reasoning behind having the US/MA 3 mile markers continuous was for location purposes.  If the mile markers on US 3 were reset to 0; it would be very possible to a duplicate set of mile markers (and soon interchange numbers) along MA 3 in the South Shore and US 3 north of I-95.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on September 23, 2015, 09:12:26 PM
It is also due to the fact that Massachusetts does not distinguish between classes of routes. I-95 is officially Route 95, just like Route 2 is Route 2. So both Mass 3 and US-3 are simply Route 3.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on September 23, 2015, 10:01:10 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 23, 2015, 12:59:24 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 23, 2015, 10:57:23 AMThanks.  My bad for not reading the Route Log Info more closely - it's not the best site for getting info "at a glance".  I've corrected my original post.
No problem.  I have to wonder if the state's reasoning behind having the US/MA 3 mile markers continuous was for location purposes.  If the mile markers on US 3 were reset to 0; it would be very possible to a duplicate set of mile markers (and soon interchange numbers) along MA 3 in the South Shore and US 3 north of I-95.

Also probably the same reason why exit numbers on US 3 were never changed from the "#25 is Route 128" model.  Exits on MA 3 are from #1-20.  If there was exit #1 on US 3, it could very well cause confusion. 

Just another reason why US 3 and MA 3 should either be merged or segregated... I suggest I-89 for US 3 north of 128/95. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 23, 2015, 10:19:28 PM
While in Massachusetts on Tuesday, I just had to ask again...when the hell is this sign in Auburn going to get changed out?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOOxLbS7.jpg&hash=085e2a8b3c7c382ee5540222fa05f3a0225f13d2)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 24, 2015, 05:07:48 AM

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 23, 2015, 10:19:28 PM
While in Massachusetts on Tuesday, I just had to ask again...when the hell is this sign in Auburn going to get changed out?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOOxLbS7.jpg&hash=085e2a8b3c7c382ee5540222fa05f3a0225f13d2)

This thread has been abuzz with talk of Mass Pike sign replacement bid specs recently being published, so it is in the works.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Jim on September 24, 2015, 11:43:35 AM
While I am happy to hear that mileage-based exit numbers are coming very soon to the Mass Pike, I will be sad to see the one just posted in Auburn with the old pilgrim hat and the CT-style MA 33 outline shield westbound approaching Chicopee go away.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on September 24, 2015, 02:26:30 PM
Quote from: Jim on September 24, 2015, 11:43:35 AM
While I am happy to hear that mileage-based exit numbers are coming very soon to the Mass Pike, I will be sad to see the one just posted in Auburn with the old pilgrim hat and the CT-style MA 33 outline shield westbound approaching Chicopee go away.

I believe the new signage will also no longer have MA 12 on it, either, which makes me sad.  I remember when it was I-290 / MA 12 / MA 52... *sigh*
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on September 24, 2015, 05:36:55 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 24, 2015, 02:26:30 PM
Quote from: Jim on September 24, 2015, 11:43:35 AM
While I am happy to hear that mileage-based exit numbers are coming very soon to the Mass Pike, I will be sad to see the one just posted in Auburn with the old pilgrim hat and the CT-style MA 33 outline shield westbound approaching Chicopee go away.

I believe the new signage will also no longer have MA 12 on it, either, which makes me sad.  I remember when it was I-290 / MA 12 / MA 52... *sigh*
Yes, just I-290 and I-395, (and no reference to Auburn, both will be on auxiliary signage) as shown on this sign plan:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi90exit90sign.jpg&hash=e8bff4057c545f447d0a7fff6bb479f80ffb3611)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 24, 2015, 07:18:04 PM

Quote from: bob7374 on September 24, 2015, 05:36:55 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 24, 2015, 02:26:30 PM
Quote from: Jim on September 24, 2015, 11:43:35 AM
While I am happy to hear that mileage-based exit numbers are coming very soon to the Mass Pike, I will be sad to see the one just posted in Auburn with the old pilgrim hat and the CT-style MA 33 outline shield westbound approaching Chicopee go away.

I believe the new signage will also no longer have MA 12 on it, either, which makes me sad.  I remember when it was I-290 / MA 12 / MA 52... *sigh*
Yes, just I-290 and I-395, (and no reference to Auburn, both will be on auxiliary signage) as shown on this sign plan:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi90exit90sign.jpg&hash=e8bff4057c545f447d0a7fff6bb479f80ffb3611)

Are these sign plans unavailable for public download?  They'd be fun to skim through.

If not, are hyper-interested people like us the reason why?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on September 24, 2015, 10:08:16 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 24, 2015, 07:18:04 PM

Are these sign plans unavailable for public download?  They'd be fun to skim through.

If not, are hyper-interested people like us the reason why?
I got the above plan from an addendum to the contract posted on the project's bid page. MassDOT contract plans typically are made available to the public once the project gets awarded. Perhaps Roadman can tell us if that is now the case, or whether we have to wait for a while longer.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on September 24, 2015, 11:13:43 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 24, 2015, 10:08:16 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 24, 2015, 07:18:04 PM

Are these sign plans unavailable for public download?  They'd be fun to skim through.

If not, are hyper-interested people like us the reason why?
I got the above plan from an addendum to the contract posted on the project's bid page. MassDOT contract plans typically are made available to the public once the project gets awarded. Perhaps Roadman can tell us if that is now the case, or whether we have to wait for a while longer.

Me?  I don't work for MassDOT. :D
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 25, 2015, 09:32:14 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 24, 2015, 11:13:43 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 24, 2015, 10:08:16 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 24, 2015, 07:18:04 PM

Are these sign plans unavailable for public download?  They'd be fun to skim through.

If not, are hyper-interested people like us the reason why?
I got the above plan from an addendum to the contract posted on the project's bid page. MassDOT contract plans typically are made available to the public once the project gets awarded. Perhaps Roadman can tell us if that is now the case, or whether we have to wait for a while longer.

Me?  I don't work for MassDOT. :D
@Rothman - He meant me.  And to answer the question, MassDOT project plans are not available to the general public until after a project has been awarded to the winning contractor.  Bids on 606619 West Stockbridge to Auburn were recently opened, so the project should be awarded shortly.  You can then request plans from the MassDOT Plans and Records Office - https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/Departments/PlansRecords.aspx

BTW, it is unusual for copies of plan sheets to show up in the CommBuys listing for a project, except when an addendum involving plan changes is issued - a half sized copy of the changed plans are included to expedite the bidding process.  My guess is that is a holdover from the pre-electronic universe days, when plans were paper sets.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 25, 2015, 09:41:19 AM
What's the thinking in doing them by request rather than simply posting them?  I'm curious for the same reason most of us are–I like plans–but it also seems like it would save a lot of labor in the long run.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 25, 2015, 09:43:45 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 25, 2015, 09:41:19 AM
What's the thinking in doing them by request rather than simply posting them?  I'm curious for the same reason most of us are—I like plans—but it also seems like it would save a lot of labor in the long run.
Frankly, I do not have an answer to that question.  And, personally, I agree with you that plans should be posted on-line.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 29, 2015, 09:24:37 AM
FYI, 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).  Such was detailed on the I-90 signage thread.

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

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on September 29, 2015, 08:12:15 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 29, 2015, 09:24:37 AM
FYI, 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).  Such was detailed on the I-90 signage thread.

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



Well done!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on September 30, 2015, 12:22:32 AM
I hope they arrange the shields as 290/395/12.  I hate the current 290/12/395 placement.  The state shield seems so awkward in-between the two interstate shields.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 30, 2015, 08:49:25 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on September 30, 2015, 12:22:32 AM
I hope they arrange the shields as 290/395/12.  I hate the current 290/12/395 placement.  The state shield seems so awkward in-between the two interstate shields.
One needs to keep in mind that the interchange was originally built for just MA 12 only; I-290 and subsequently I-395 (originally MA 52) came along later.  So the BGS legends likely evolved from (the first one is just a guess):

  EXIT 10
     12
  Auburn
Worcester


to

  EXIT 10
  290  12
  Auburn
Worcester


to

   EXIT 10
290  12  52
  Auburn
Worcester


to

       EXIT 10
290  12  395
   Auburn
Worcester


Granted, the shield layouts should've been rearranged and an I-395 (old MA 52) destination should've been included when these 1990s-vintage BGS' were erected; but the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority simply carried over the older layout onto the newer panels.
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 30, 2015, 10:02:25 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 24, 2015, 02:26:30 PM
Quote from: Jim on September 24, 2015, 11:43:35 AM
While I am happy to hear that mileage-based exit numbers are coming very soon to the Mass Pike, I will be sad to see the one just posted in Auburn with the old pilgrim hat and the CT-style MA 33 outline shield westbound approaching Chicopee go away.

I believe the new signage will also no longer have MA 12 on it, either, which makes me sad.  I remember when it was I-290 / MA 12 / MA 52... *sigh*

All this talk of 52 makes me realize that I can't remember if I ever considered 52 until the little bits of white corners were sticking out from under the "395" pasted atop "52" on these signs.  My guess without looking it up is that this was 1984.

Edit: 1983, in fact–my first guess.  Always trust yer gut.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 30, 2015, 11:54:47 AM
Speaking of signing contracts: Are the MA-33 NRBC on tap to be replaced? I think it's the biggest batch still in existence in the state.

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8823/16944860187_b9a51bc290_c.jpg)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/307/20077005808_51546423bd_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on October 06, 2015, 03:24:02 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on September 30, 2015, 11:54:47 AM
Speaking of signing contracts: Are the MA-33 NRBC on tap to be replaced? I think it's the biggest batch still in existence in the state.

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8823/16944860187_b9a51bc290_c.jpg)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/307/20077005808_51546423bd_c.jpg)
These signs are not presently scheduled to be replaced as part of any active or planned MassDOT signing contract.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on October 06, 2015, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on September 30, 2015, 12:22:32 AM
I hope they arrange the shields as 290/395/12.  I hate the current 290/12/395 placement.  The state shield seems so awkward in-between the two interstate shields.

Good suggestion.  I believe that configuration can easily be arranged (no pun intended).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 21, 2015, 01:30:16 PM
Anyone know the status of the signing project on MA-16?  A while back I members of the forum said these signs were thisclose to being replaced.

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/738/22374117301_0daa2de9b2_c.jpg)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/287/20156182336_43cfc91d64_c.jpg)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/550/20156180486_4f6f35787c_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on October 22, 2015, 11:28:56 PM
Traveled through the I-95 Add-A-Lane Project zone this afternoon. Whether it's official or not, traffic is now using the new fourth lane in both directions between MA 109 and Great Plain Ave. Here's a view northbound, the only remaining work seems to be the final lane striping:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95addalane102215b.jpg&hash=fa64fdee11652a3aacb8fe83094471139f8914bc)

Southbound has still more work to do, but traffic is using the new lane, open or not:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95addalane102215h.jpg&hash=f67375978ce85bb5986e2a864524832f0786cd2e)

I have photos of progress along the final segment to be built through Needham on my I-95 photo page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on October 25, 2015, 08:36:04 PM
With the add-a-lane, are they finally barring people from using the breakdown lane as a travel lane during rush hour?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on October 25, 2015, 09:10:45 PM
Yeah, sections with the new lanes completed no longer allow breakdown lane travel.   I believe this laves only the section between Great Plain Ave and MA-9 with breakdown travel during rush hour. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on October 27, 2015, 11:00:20 AM
QUESTION ABOUT THE NEW PADDLE SIGNS:
We're starting to see the new generation paddle signs emerge.  I haven't seen the smaller square affixed to the pole...did they do away with that?  How are they going to handle intersections with left and right turns?  Double large paddle signs?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: TravelingBethelite on October 27, 2015, 11:01:44 AM
In other sign-related news, I found a pretty old sign on the cover of an AMS report from 1987:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlFgUgNH.jpg&hash=935c2869c323922609ec6196060808d7fd512c61)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on October 27, 2015, 12:53:48 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on October 27, 2015, 11:01:44 AM
In other sign-related news, I found a pretty old sign on the cover of an AMS report from 1987:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlFgUgNH.jpg&hash=935c2869c323922609ec6196060808d7fd512c61)
Photo's from the imfamous Blizzard of '78 along I-93 North/then-still MA 128 South at what's now Exit 2B.  The BGS is early-70s vintage.

Quote from: southshore720 on October 27, 2015, 11:00:20 AM
QUESTION ABOUT THE NEW PADDLE SIGNS:
We're starting to see the new generation paddle signs emerge.  I haven't seen the smaller square affixed to the pole...did they do away with that?  How are they going to handle intersections with left and right turns?  Double large paddle signs?
Here's how such was recently done for I-95 exit signage along MA 113 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8156056,-70.9205792,3a,75y,123.09h,89.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAtWBb27SWSY25sAkDZRiog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on October 27, 2015, 10:46:32 PM
Thanks for the link!  I don't know how crazy I am about that font, though...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on October 28, 2015, 11:06:33 AM
Specifications and detail sheets for the MassDOT statewide milepost exit numbering conversion project have just been posted on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts bidding site:

https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-16-1030-0H100-0H002-00000005477&external=true&parentUrl=bid

Bid opening is scheduled for Tuesday, November 17, 2015.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on October 28, 2015, 01:18:46 PM
I guess they're not going to wait for new sign contracts to change the numbering as there are instructions to overlay numbers on the existing 90's era BGS with the "depressed" exit tab.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on October 28, 2015, 01:25:00 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on October 28, 2015, 01:18:46 PM
I guess they're not going to wait for new sign contracts to change the numbering as there are instructions to overlay numbers on the existing 90's era BGS with the "depressed" exit tab.
Correct.  Although the original plan was to integrate the exit renumbering into sign update projects as much as possible over a ten year period (i.e. only the newest signs would get overlays immediately), this changed when the Feds agreed to allow MassDOT to use Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds to do the work.  Now, all exit numbers in the state (excluding the Mass. Pike, which is having signs changed anyway) will be changed out - mostly through overlays - by late 2017/early 2018.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on October 28, 2015, 01:33:35 PM
I was wondering how they were going to handle the "Formerly Exit XX" signage, but they are going to stay consistent with their prior practice.  I believe the most recent exit renumbering was on MA 25, when they finally acknowledged I-195 as an exit.  IIRC, the "Formerly Exit XX" signs are still up to this day, all these years later.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on October 28, 2015, 06:09:35 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on October 28, 2015, 01:33:35 PM
I was wondering how they were going to handle the "Formerly Exit XX" signage, but they are going to stay consistent with their prior practice.  I believe the most recent exit renumbering was on MA 25, when they finally acknowledged I-195 as an exit.  IIRC, the "Formerly Exit XX" signs are still up to this day, all these years later.
How many years are we talking about?  On many PennDOT and PTC highways; there's still a bunch of those old OLD EXIT XX square signs remaining even after 15-16 years. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on October 28, 2015, 06:29:56 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 28, 2015, 06:09:35 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on October 28, 2015, 01:33:35 PM
I was wondering how they were going to handle the "Formerly Exit XX" signage, but they are going to stay consistent with their prior practice.  I believe the most recent exit renumbering was on MA 25, when they finally acknowledged I-195 as an exit.  IIRC, the "Formerly Exit XX" signs are still up to this day, all these years later.
How many years are we talking about?  On many PennDOT and PTC highways; there's still a bunch of those old OLD EXIT XX square signs remaining even after 15-16 years.

A bunch? There are few that aren't still in place. At this point, a lot of people on the roads never drove when the old numbers were in place.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on October 29, 2015, 02:18:37 PM
I-95 northbound traffic to shift to new Whitter Bridge on November 4th.

http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/whittier-bridge-project-milestone-traffic-shift-to-new-span/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on November 03, 2015, 09:40:35 PM
Installation of AET equipment on the MassPike has begun.  Footings for the toll gantries and the equipment sheds have been installed at the sites in Lee, Blandford, and Westfield.  Probably farther east, too, but I haven't been that far east yet.   I think the target date for implementation  is still next summer. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on November 03, 2015, 09:54:01 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on November 03, 2015, 09:40:35 PM
Installation of AET equipment on the MassPike has begun.  Footings for the toll gantries and the equipment sheds have been installed at the sites in Lee, Blandford, and Westfield.  Probably farther east, too, but I haven't been that far east yet.   I think the target date for implementation  is still next summer.

Does anyone know what the schedule is for implementation of the new guide signage, and is it designed to correspond with the AET project (which I assume will need new signage anyway)?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on November 04, 2015, 09:54:45 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on November 03, 2015, 09:54:01 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on November 03, 2015, 09:40:35 PM
Installation of AET equipment on the MassPike has begun.  Footings for the toll gantries and the equipment sheds have been installed at the sites in Lee, Blandford, and Westfield.  Probably farther east, too, but I haven't been that far east yet.   I think the target date for implementation  is still next summer.

Does anyone know what the schedule is for implementation of the new guide signage, and is it designed to correspond with the AET project (which I assume will need new signage anyway)?
Contractor for West Stockbridge to Auburn has been issued NTP.  New BGS and support installation on this section should start mid to late Spring of 2016.  The Auburn to Boston section is to be let for bids by late November.  Given a likely NTP of Jaunary 2016, new BGS and support installation on this section should start mid to late Summer of 2016.

During the design of both projects, there has been extensive coordination with both the AET installation and the eventual legacy toll plaza demolition contracts.  Giude signing that will be impacted by these other contracts has been retained under the signing work.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Henry on November 04, 2015, 10:56:09 AM
I think it's nice that MA is finally getting mileage-based exits after all those years! Now the guessing game is on as to which of the remaining sequential-numbering states will be the next to convert (CT, NH, NY, RI, VT).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on November 04, 2015, 11:01:47 AM
Quote from: Henry on November 04, 2015, 10:56:09 AM
I think it's nice that MA is finally getting mileage-based exits after all those years! Now the guessing game is on as to which of the remaining sequential-numbering states will be the next to convert (CT, NH, NY, RI, VT).

Not NY.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on November 04, 2015, 11:08:55 AM
Quote from: Henry on November 04, 2015, 10:56:09 AM
I think it's nice that MA is finally getting mileage-based exits after all those years! Now the guessing game is on as to which of the remaining sequential-numbering states will be the next to convert (CT, NH, NY, RI, VT).

Connecticut already started on some highways.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on November 04, 2015, 11:58:53 AM
Quote from: Henry on November 04, 2015, 10:56:09 AM
I think it's nice that MA is finally getting mileage-based exits after all those years! Now the guessing game is on as to which of the remaining sequential-numbering states will be the next to convert (CT, NH, NY, RI, VT).
It's rumored that NH has also gotten FHWA permission to use Federal safety funds for exit number conversion, though I've yet to see any plans from NHDOT as to when or how the conversion will be implemented.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on November 04, 2015, 12:56:43 PM
Quote from: Henry on November 04, 2015, 10:56:09 AM
I think it's nice that MA is finally getting mileage-based exits after all those years! Now the guessing game is on as to which of the remaining sequential-numbering states will be the next to convert (CT, NH, NY, RI, VT).
Don't forget DE.  I-95 and I-495 are both sequential.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on November 04, 2015, 01:43:52 PM
I saw somewhere that Vermont is supposedly putting provisions for new numbers on their new signs. New York has nothing official, but US 15 got renumbered not too long ago and the previously-unnumbered Taconic is getting mile-based numbers.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on November 04, 2015, 01:57:41 PM
As far as I can discern, all newly-numbered roads in NY are/will be mile based, and US 15 got converted due to becoming I-99.

Vermont does appear to be putting provisions for mile-based numbers on new signs, but who knows if/when they'll convert, since they're most of the way through a statewide signage rehab that went through prior to the 2009 MUTCD.  There are new signs for most exits across all their freeways, all except a few on I-91 designed exclusively for sequential (and would need new tabs in a conversion).  Based on an article I read, that appears to be the main stumbling block towards converting VT.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 04, 2015, 03:36:06 PM
Is it me, or is there recently a big wave of states moving to change MUTCD non-compliance issues?  Is there a reason behind this?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on November 04, 2015, 03:42:36 PM
Probably the fact that the FHWA is much stricter about enforcing MUTCD non-compliance issues than ever before.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 04, 2015, 04:28:49 PM
I get that that is their job, but it saddens me a little that innovation decreasingly comes from the bottom up.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on November 04, 2015, 07:07:03 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 04, 2015, 03:36:06 PM
Is it me, or is there recently a big wave of states moving to change MUTCD non-compliance issues?  Is there a reason behind this?
Probably really because of the shovel-ready initiatives during the recession, and signage problems are quick and easy to fix.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: froggie on November 05, 2015, 08:27:33 AM
QuoteI saw somewhere that Vermont is supposedly putting provisions for new numbers on their new signs.

News to me.  Last time I emailed VTrans about it, they were intending to hold out as long as possible and put a request in for an extension...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on November 05, 2015, 11:42:36 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 04, 2015, 01:57:41 PM
As far as I can discern, all newly-numbered roads in NY are/will be mile based, and US 15 got converted due to becoming I-99.

Makes you wonder how many roads will be "newly-numbered" in NY.  My bet:  Not many.  I'm still surprised the Taconic's getting new numbers and wonder how the Regions justified that expense or what pushed them to do so.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on November 05, 2015, 03:29:08 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 05, 2015, 08:27:33 AM
QuoteI saw somewhere that Vermont is supposedly putting provisions for new numbers on their new signs.

News to me.  Last time I emailed VTrans about it, they were intending to hold out as long as possible and put a request in for an extension...

The pictures were in shadyjay's photo posts a few months ago, though the picutures appear to have been removed.

This is the thing I was reading:
Quote
When is Vermont going to enter the 21st century and renumber our interstate exits by mile marker?

VTRANS: This is a story where timing is everything. Back in 2009, federal requirements were passed mandating that each state move to the new mileage-based exits, but we were right in the middle of replacing our signs to bring them up to current retro-reflectivity standards (very shiny). We'd already made all the signs, and it seemed wasteful to trash them, since they're supposed to last about 15 years.

Changing to the mileage-based numbering system is going to mean changing a lot of other things. If you're a business with an exit number in your name, or if you make tourist maps, you should be planning your letterhead order so that it runs out around 2020. VTrans plans to do a lot of work with the regional planning commissions and chambers of commerce on this front in the coming years in advance of the rollout, as it will be a culture shock to some.
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/wtf-while-we-were-driving-part-2/Content?oid=2535889

Quote from: Rothman on November 05, 2015, 11:42:36 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 04, 2015, 01:57:41 PM
As far as I can discern, all newly-numbered roads in NY are/will be mile based, and US 15 got converted due to becoming I-99.

Makes you wonder how many roads will be "newly-numbered" in NY.  My bet:  Not many.  I'm still surprised the Taconic's getting new numbers and wonder how the Regions justified that expense or what pushed them to do so.
Might have something to do with the 2009 MUTCD stating that ALL freeways MUST have exit numbers.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on November 05, 2015, 04:41:41 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 05, 2015, 03:29:08 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 05, 2015, 11:42:36 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 04, 2015, 01:57:41 PM
As far as I can discern, all newly-numbered roads in NY are/will be mile based, and US 15 got converted due to becoming I-99.

Makes you wonder how many roads will be "newly-numbered" in NY.  My bet:  Not many.  I'm still surprised the Taconic's getting new numbers and wonder how the Regions justified that expense or what pushed them to do so.
Might have something to do with the 2009 MUTCD stating that ALL freeways MUST have exit numbers.
If they wanted to, they could argue that Taconic is not a freeway, with a few remaining grade crossings and several RIROs that were former grade crossings. Exit numbers certainly help people find their way, so it's very welcome to have them on a rural, unlit freeway where unfamiliar travelers have no idea how far until their destination or how many exits to pass.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on November 05, 2015, 05:07:47 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 05, 2015, 08:27:33 AM
QuoteI saw somewhere that Vermont is supposedly putting provisions for new numbers on their new signs.

News to me.  Last time I emailed VTrans about it, they were intending to hold out as long as possible and put a request in for an extension...


As there is no compliance date for exit number conversion (there was one in the 2007 NPA but it was deleted in the final 2009 MUTCD), all VT has to demonstrate to FHWA is that they have a plan for eventual conversion.  Unless they're looking for Federal funding for the conversion (like MA got for their conversion project), the timeframe VT cites doesn't really matter to FHWA.

Requesting a waiver of the milepost numbering requirement won't work.  Upon issuance of the Final Rule for the 2009 MUTCD, most of the "sequential number" states formally appealed the new requirement to FHWA.  Their request was denied.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on November 05, 2015, 06:08:35 PM
The most recent resigning project in VT, on I-91 from the Mass state line to just north of Exit 6 definitely left extra space in the exit tabs for double digit numbers.  See this shot of NB Exit 6, which will become an exit in the 20s-30s "at some point in time".  The "6" is definitely not centered, and other secondary BGSs left space for double digit exit numbers:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/21294835573/in/album-72157659395066232/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on November 13, 2015, 10:30:45 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 05, 2015, 03:29:08 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 05, 2015, 11:42:36 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 04, 2015, 01:57:41 PM
As far as I can discern, all newly-numbered roads in NY are/will be mile based, and US 15 got converted due to becoming I-99.

Makes you wonder how many roads will be "newly-numbered" in NY.  My bet:  Not many.  I'm still surprised the Taconic's getting new numbers and wonder how the Regions justified that expense or what pushed them to do so.
Might have something to do with the 2009 MUTCD stating that ALL freeways MUST have exit numbers.

Meh.  I doubt it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on November 27, 2015, 07:07:19 PM
I was reading Wikipedia about MA Route 3A and found it interesting that MA considers both segments to be continuous even though the two are 20 miles apart.  In addition one is an alternate for US 3 while the other is for MA 3.

Apparently MA considers the two to be concurrent with both MA and US 3 in Boston, even though not signed.  So overall MA 3A is 97 miles long with 20 of them miles being silent.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on November 27, 2015, 07:16:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 27, 2015, 07:07:19 PM
I was reading Wikipedia about MA Route 3A and found it interesting that MA considers both segments to be continuous even though the two are 20 miles apart.  In addition one is an alternate for US 3 while the other is for MA 3.

Apparently MA considers the two to be concurrent with both MA and US 3 in Boston, even though not signed.  So overall MA 3A is 97 miles long with 20 of them miles being silent.

Mile markers confirm this.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on November 27, 2015, 07:25:35 PM
Wiki does, anyway.  I do not know how accurate that is as we all know all it takes is one troll to go on there and change things at will.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on November 27, 2015, 07:31:03 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 27, 2015, 07:25:35 PM
Wiki does, anyway.  I do not know how accurate that is as we all know all it takes is one troll to go on there and change things at will.

Mile markers for MA 3A in Burlington are in the 70s. Wikipedia is correct.

On the other hand, Google Maps once decided that the unsigned section of MA 3A should be signed. Then it got changed to MA 3 (replacing both US 3 and MA 3A), and it needs to be fixed back to US 3.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on November 27, 2015, 07:37:46 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 27, 2015, 07:07:19 PM
I was reading Wikipedia about MA Route 3A and found it interesting that MA considers both segments to be continuous even though the two are 20 miles apart.  In addition one is an alternate for US 3 while the other is for MA 3.

Apparently MA considers the two to be concurrent with both MA and US 3 in Boston, even though not signed.  So overall MA 3A is 97 miles long with 20 of them miles being silent.

This is also true of other Alternate routes in Massachusetts including 1A and 6A. As for 3A being an alternate of both US 3 and MA 3, the state doesn't consider US 3 and MA 3 to be seperate routes. So for example, under the new mile-based exit numbers project, the exits on the freeway portion of US 3 near the New Hampshire border will have numbers corresponding with the distance to Plymouth.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on November 27, 2015, 08:27:28 PM
That will be interesting to see when they complete the numbering scheme. 

I wonder though if US 6 and US 44 will have exit numbers on their freeway segments being so short.  US 44, IMO, should as its not that hard to calculate being only 38 miles within the state.  US 6 could use them still using the two lane mileage west of MA 3, but are they willing to spend $$$?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on November 27, 2015, 10:08:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 27, 2015, 08:27:28 PM
I wonder though if US 6 and US 44 will have exit numbers on their freeway segments being so short.  US 44, IMO, should as its not that hard to calculate being only 38 miles within the state.  US 6 could use them still using the two lane mileage west of MA 3, but are they willing to spend $$$?
US 6 will have the new milepost based numbers, US 44 will not. MassDOT decided not to apply numbers to any route currently without them. The exceptions being the MA 28 expressway on the Cape and the short MA 57 expressway west of Springfield.
The future US 6 numbers are here:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/us6exits.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/us6exits.html)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on November 28, 2015, 01:16:58 PM
Makes sense that short freeways without numbers should not get them from the financial standpoint.  In reality it would really help even for the shortest freeways, but that is a different story right now.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on November 28, 2015, 01:30:01 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 28, 2015, 01:16:58 PM
Makes sense that short freeways without numbers should not get them from the financial standpoint.  In reality it would really help even for the shortest freeways, but that is a different story right now.
To give them some credit, they are applying them to a couple of highways that didn't have them previously, which is more than I expected to be sure. US-44 might be made completely limited access between I-495 and MA-3 at some point (they are already going to replace the rotary at the west end of the Super-2), so they might wait on that. But I also saw in one of the comments that US-6 has a "very short" freeway segment which isn't true, the segment is quite sizable and has 13 interchanges.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on November 28, 2015, 01:59:35 PM
I wonder why US 44 was not truncated to MA 3 at the freeway end?  Considering that, according to GSV, the signage east of MA 3 on its original alignment is not all that good.  Even from MA 3A you have only a small green sign on the SW corner of the intersection of US 44 and MA 3A, with a large "44" on it with its control cities beneath it, but no shields or even a "US" text.  So I am guessing the state does not maintain the two routes inside Plymouth.

However, city or state maintained the section east of the freeway might as well be removed from the state and US route list.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 29, 2015, 09:49:35 AM
Probably to aid the steady stream of visitors into the center of Plymouth.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on November 29, 2015, 04:00:57 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 29, 2015, 09:49:35 AM
Probably to aid the steady stream of visitors into the center of Plymouth.
I guess it would as Plymouth is a tourist destination being the Mayflower landed there to start this great new world for freedom from England several centuries ago.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 29, 2015, 04:34:00 PM

Quote from: roadman65 on November 29, 2015, 04:00:57 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 29, 2015, 09:49:35 AM
Probably to aid the steady stream of visitors into the center of Plymouth.
I guess it would as Plymouth is a tourist destination being the Mayflower landed there to start this great new world for freedom from England several centuries ago.

Yes.  People love to go look at the last remnant of the rock that it's unlikely anyone of significance ever set foot on.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on November 29, 2015, 04:39:35 PM
Then you have St. Augustine where some will dispute that its the first sign of the white man in the new world, then others  will say Jamestown.  History has many firsts, but all like to touch the ground its made on.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: froggie on November 29, 2015, 07:48:40 PM
There's no dispute.  St. Augustine predates Roanoke Island by 2 decades, Jamestown by 4 decades, and Plymouth by almost 6.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 29, 2015, 07:58:52 PM
There's also the unsuccessful Popham Colony in Maine that was founded at the same time as Jamestown. They had A LOT fewer deaths than Jamestown but after surviving one New England winter, they ran back to England.

Makes you wonder though how different the world would be today if they had stuck it out.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on November 30, 2015, 01:28:17 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 27, 2015, 10:08:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 27, 2015, 08:27:28 PM
I wonder though if US 6 and US 44 will have exit numbers on their freeway segments being so short.  US 44, IMO, should as its not that hard to calculate being only 38 miles within the state.  US 6 could use them still using the two lane mileage west of MA 3, but are they willing to spend $$$?
US 6 will have the new milepost based numbers, US 44 will not. MassDOT decided not to apply numbers to any route currently without them. The exceptions being the MA 28 expressway on the Cape and the short MA 57 expressway west of Springfield.
The future US 6 numbers are here:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/us6exits.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/us6exits.html)
Worth noting: the exit numbered intersections (Exits 9, 10 & 11) along MA 128 in Gloucester are slated to be eliminated once the mile-marker based exit tabs are erected.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on December 03, 2015, 11:05:26 AM
Similar was mentioned on Facebook but I do not believe that such has been yet mentioned here (at least not on this thread until now); some interchanges (approaching key ramps) now have route shields painted on pavement per MUTCD Figure 3B-25.

The westbound I-90 lanes approaching the I-84 interchange now has such markings.  It was commented on FB that a couple other interchanges elsewhere in the Bay State are now sporting such.
____________________________________________

A recent (likely temporary) replacement sign for this 1970s-vintage BGS (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5475731,-70.9365468,3a,75y,6.95h,82.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD4V_xWtXqreGLR3d8XLeFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) along MA 128 has no been erected.  I say temporary because such is small LGS similar to what one sees along the southern end of NJ 55 or the small Exit 24 sign along I-84 westbound in Waterbury, CT; it's about the size of a D8 LGS.  It includes a small version of the exit tab (now right-justified, the old one was centered per older standards) but there's grey duct-tape with a 24 hand-written w/a black Sharpie marker next to the EXIT text.

One has to wonder whether the fabricator jumped the gun and placed the mile-marker based 40 (per contract documents discussed earlier) for the exit number instead of the current 24.

I'm guessing that the old BGS was damaged in a recent accident.  I believe that this BGS may have been one of if not the last remaining old 1970s-vintage BGS along this stretch of 128 through Peabody, Danvers & Beverly.  The others were either replaced as part of an overall construction project or match-in-kind replacement for damaged signs.

Unfortunately, I couldn't get a decent photo of the new small sign (the sun glare bleaches out the duct tape portion with the hand-drawn number).
_____________________________________________

No photo of such but apparently the old-school NH-MAINE destination listings is still appearing on new sign (D6 Paddle) installations.  Brand new replacement D6 LGS' at Bell Circle (MA 1A/16/60) in Revere still use the listing for its MA 60 westbound (To US 1) signage.  Even more interesting is that the one new sign directing 1A northbounders to 60 west (via the rotary cut-through) still uses Saugus (such predated the 1978 MA 60 reroute to Bell Circle).  All the other new 60 West signs use Malden along with NH-MAINE.  The old overhead gantry w/BGS', mainly directed towards those coming from MA 16 eastbound, still remain.

At locations where previous twin-D6 Paddles were mounted on one post (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4094916,-71.0015466,3a,75y,259.7h,81.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sShc3aGgaAiiSH1RcxMKg4w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656); the replacements are now two separate D6 panels and posts erected next to each other (there's a few inches of spacing between the sign edges).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 03, 2015, 09:50:17 PM
I noticed this while passing through Newburyport, MA earlier: At least the northbound side of the new I-95/Merrimack River Whittier Bridge is in use. I don't know who John Greenleaf is though.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fc3cMDOR.jpg&hash=7f0e5e896fa30cd4121f954dc98735b33db08072)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 03, 2015, 10:01:42 PM
John Greenleaf Whittier, of the Whittier Bridge above.  Poet, abolitionist, Quaker.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kkt on December 03, 2015, 10:38:26 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 03, 2015, 10:01:42 PM
John Greenleaf Whittier, of the Whittier Bridge above.  Poet, abolitionist, Quaker.

Yeah, but why did they leave off his last name?  I like him fine and all, but I didn't think we were on a first name basis.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on December 03, 2015, 10:41:41 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 03, 2015, 09:50:17 PM
I noticed this while passing through Newburyport, MA earlier: At least the northbound side of the new I-95/Merrimack River Whittier Bridge is in use. I don't know who John Greenleaf is though.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fc3cMDOR.jpg&hash=7f0e5e896fa30cd4121f954dc98735b33db08072)
That font though.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 03, 2015, 11:08:07 PM
"WHITTIER BRIDGE" is on the other side of the state seal.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on December 04, 2015, 09:00:30 AM
I guess that the advance-notice BGS for MA 110 will be on a separate cantilevered structure; so it won't block the displayed bridge name.  On the old bridge, such was mounted on the camel hump truss itself.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on December 04, 2015, 02:42:07 PM
I noticed today that MA DOT applied "green-out" to the graffiti-scar on the MA 3 diagrammatic for Exit 20.  They had applied green-out to the auxiliary signs on the Burgin Pkwy on-ramps that also received the graffiti treatment, so I don't know why they didn't do this for this particular BGS from the start.  The green-out doesn't look that great - but short of replacing the sign altogether, I don't know what more they could do to fix this eyesore.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 05, 2015, 12:35:27 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYBH8NIv.jpg&hash=acb662233b9558b8612386c22af1b5fd5912a81b)

I know it's not the best picture, as I was on a Concord Coach Lines bus in the second row. With that said, you may have noticed which bridge the southbound I-95 traffic was using. It wasn't like that on Thursday.  :clap:
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 05, 2015, 02:09:24 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 05, 2015, 12:35:27 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYBH8NIv.jpg&hash=acb662233b9558b8612386c22af1b5fd5912a81b)

I know it's not the best picture, as I was on a Concord Coach Lines bus in the second row. With that said, you may have noticed which bridge the southbound I-95 traffic was using. It wasn't like that on Thursday.  :clap:

Nice shot, and impressive work.  They didn't dawdle.  The old Whittier Bridge looks tired and small in that pic.  A little sad to me–I will miss the "bell curve" flare out at the bottom–but not terribly since the new bridge is so nice.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 18, 2015, 11:41:34 PM
I noticed this by Columbus Avenue in Springfield tonight. I think MassDOT covered up "Holyoke".  :hmmm:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiTRzCrL.jpg&hash=de480869406661d5adc17126d71e051b9f75b784)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: noelbotevera on December 19, 2015, 08:12:19 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 18, 2015, 11:41:34 PM
I noticed this by Columbus Avenue in Springfield tonight. I think MassDOT covered up "Holyoke".  :hmmm:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiTRzCrL.jpg&hash=de480869406661d5adc17126d71e051b9f75b784)
Yup. The covered destination is Holyoke. That might be an old contractor error, because of the one way sign. That ramp only leads to I-91 south, so the patch is correct, and what's under it is incorrect.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DrSmith on December 19, 2015, 02:57:56 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/6CLk5QSkP9y
That's the old sign.  But it was correct, that is until the viaduct rehabilitation project.  You could turn left onto Hall of Fame Ave (previously Columbus) and either directly onto 91 South or go down and make a u-turn under 91 back onto the other side for the State St ramp.  However, the onramps from Union St and State St are being closed during construction, so the green out and adding South reflects the current configuration available.

http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/i91viaductrehab/Traffic.aspx
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on December 28, 2015, 10:34:39 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on November 03, 2015, 09:40:35 PM
Installation of AET equipment on the MassPike has begun.  Footings for the toll gantries and the equipment sheds have been installed at the sites in Lee, Blandford, and Westfield.  Probably farther east, too, but I haven't been that far east yet.   I think the target date for implementation  is still next summer. 

I've seen equipment shelters, vertical gantry supports and repaved sections with sensors being installed near the State Police barracks and maintenance depot in Weston, and about a mile west of the current Allston/Brighton toll plaza.  I also saw a crew from Verizon pulling fiber-optic cable near the equipment shelter at the latter location, with MassDOT people present, so I'd guess that's tied in with the AET project too.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on December 28, 2015, 11:09:31 PM
Probably is.  The sites in Ludlow, Warren, Charlton and Hopkinton are all being assembled.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on January 02, 2016, 03:25:20 PM
Coming out of my lurkdom for a few notes:

1. The US 3 paving project from NH to route 128 is basically done. The road's all striped (finally). The good news is that the 128 South to US 3 ramp now adds a lane instead of merges on to the highway. In the past, the mailine road widened to all 3 lanes after the bridge that crossed 128, then the ramp would merge. This was dumb, since the road was just starting. Now US 3 N stays two lanes all the way from the bridge, and 128's ramp adds the third. However, the signage has not been updated to account for this; Yield and Merge signs are still standing and need to be replaced with Add Lane signs instead.

2. New signs for the Lowell Connector are waiting to be installed, they're sitting in the Industrial Drive loop ramp green areas. This means that the center-tab Exit 1N sign's (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6088206,-71.3212347,3a,75y,213.88h,89.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVONRFrfMFA660EjIp7xPOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) days are numbered.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on January 02, 2016, 05:10:48 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on January 02, 2016, 03:25:20 PM
Coming out of my lurkdom for a few notes:

2. New signs for the Lowell Connector are waiting to be installed, they're sitting in the Industrial Drive loop ramp green areas. This means that the center-tab Exit 1N sign's (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6088206,-71.3212347,3a,75y,213.88h,89.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVONRFrfMFA660EjIp7xPOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) days are numbered.

According to the project page, the signs were to be installed in December. Certainly the weather didn't delay the work. Not only are the center tab sign's days numbered, but also the number for the US 3 North exit, which will become 1C under the new milepost system. Too bad they couldn't have done the sign replacement and the exit number change at the same time.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on January 02, 2016, 07:24:46 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 02, 2016, 05:10:48 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on January 02, 2016, 03:25:20 PM
Coming out of my lurkdom for a few notes:

2. New signs for the Lowell Connector are waiting to be installed, they're sitting in the Industrial Drive loop ramp green areas. This means that the center-tab Exit 1N sign's (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6088206,-71.3212347,3a,75y,213.88h,89.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVONRFrfMFA660EjIp7xPOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) days are numbered.

According to the project page, the signs were to be installed in December. Certainly the weather didn't delay the work. Not only are the center tab sign's days numbered, but also the number for the US 3 North exit, which will become 1C under the new milepost system. Too bad they couldn't have done the sign replacement and the exit number change at the same time.

Signs further up the Connector are already installed. The last group of signs will be the ones for Exits 1A/B/N I-495/US 3. I drive on it often enough that I should have the ones already replaced memorized, but I don't have an exact inventory in my head.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on January 04, 2016, 12:38:15 PM
With the new year, thought I'd post a summary of current MassDOT sign replacement projects, based on the information on the MassDOT site, and note the upcoming ones for this year.
Among those listed as under construction in the MassDOT project listings,
3 are still listed, though 100% complete: 604937 I-95 between Newton and Lexington, 605442 I-91 between Longmeadow and W. Springfield, and 606157 Toll Plaza signing along the Mass Pike.
1, as discussed above, is almost complete: 606014, the Lowell Connector.
The rest are partially completed: 605444 I-195 between Seekonk and Dartmouth (including MA 24 south of I-95), 83% complete as of 12/8/15; 605703 I-495 between Lowell and Methuen, listed as 10% complete but with a Spring 2016 completion date; 605833 I-91 between W. Springfield and Bernardston, 50% complete with a Spring 2016 completion date; 606212 I-290 between Worcester and Marlborough, 93% complete, though was to be completed in the Winter of 2014/15; and the 606619 I-90 W. Stockbridge to Auburn project, no completion % listing yet.

These projects are due to start in 2016: 606620 I-495 Raynham to Bolton, to start in Spring 2016; 606712 I-90 Mass Pike Auburn to Boston, to start in Spring 2016; 607918 US 6 Mid-Cape Highway from Sandwich to Orleans, to start in Fall 2016; 607916 MA 24 Fall River to Randolph, to start in Winter 2016/17, and, of course, 608024, Statewide conversion of Interstate and Freeway-Based Exit numbers to Mileage Based, starting January 2016 (?).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on January 05, 2016, 03:02:21 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on December 28, 2015, 11:09:31 PM
Probably is.  The sites in Ludlow, Warren, Charlton and Hopkinton are all being assembled.

According to an item in TollRoadsNews dated today (1/5/2016), at least one of the gantries was erected this past weekend spanning the Turnpike at the Weston State Police barracks.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 05, 2016, 06:54:51 PM
I think there was already a gantry there, but just to support a VMS sign eastbound. As for Charlton, would it be closer to the Sturbridge town line after the big hill heading east?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on January 05, 2016, 08:14:18 PM
The Charlton location is about 1/4 mile west of the westbound service plaza, next to the Stafford Road overpass.

The Lee location is at the entrance to the Lee maintenance facility.

The Blandford location is at the entrance to the Blandford Maintenance facility.

The Westfield location is between Exit 3 and the state police barracks.

The Ludlow location is at the west end of the Chicopee River bridge.

The Warren location is at the entrance to the Warren maintenance facility.

The Hopkinton location is just east of the Westboro service plaza.

Not sure where the Southboro or Framingham locations are.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 05, 2016, 08:22:01 PM
Makes me wonder what could be done to make the Mass Pike/128 interchange high-speed once the tolls are gone.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: dcbjms on January 05, 2016, 08:34:23 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 04, 2016, 12:38:15 PM
The rest are partially completed: 605444 I-195 between Seekonk and Dartmouth (including MA 24 south of I-95),

Most of the signs on 195 in that stretch are more or less OK and don't need replacing; it's the remaining signs on the RI side that need replacing.  You don't need this much greenout for this sign, for example.
https://goo.gl/maps/ZRoXebwpnP22
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on January 05, 2016, 09:51:33 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 05, 2016, 06:54:51 PM
I think there was already a gantry there, but just to support a VMS sign eastbound.

The VMS gantry is eastbound, directly in front of the ramp overpass to the barracks.  The AET gantry is just west of the barracks and maintenance depot and spans both directions.  I went through there this evening and could plainly see the flat-plate antennas already mounted on the gantry.  It was right at dusk, so I couldn't see whether the cameras had been mounted.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on January 06, 2016, 08:42:20 AM
Quote from: dcbjms on January 05, 2016, 08:34:23 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 04, 2016, 12:38:15 PM
The rest are partially completed: 605444 I-195 between Seekonk and Dartmouth (including MA 24 south of I-95),

Most of the signs on 195 in that stretch are more or less OK and don't need replacing; it's the remaining signs on the RI side that need replacing.  You don't need this much greenout for this sign, for example.
https://goo.gl/maps/ZRoXebwpnP22
Agreed, but RIDOT doesn't replace signs as often as MassDOT (and its predecessors).  Believe it or not, those particular BGS' are from the late 70s/early 80s.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on January 06, 2016, 09:43:11 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 05, 2016, 08:22:01 PM
Makes me wonder what could be done to make the Mass Pike/128 interchange high-speed once the tolls are gone.
MassDOT is already developing contracts (MassDOT Projects # 607580, 607581, 607582, and 607971) to remove the existing toll plazas once AET is up and running.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on January 06, 2016, 11:22:13 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 05, 2016, 08:22:01 PM
Makes me wonder what could be done to make the Mass Pike/128 interchange high-speed once the tolls are gone.
Given its surroundings and adjacent interchanges (MA 30 along I-95/MA 128 in particular); I don't think any major ramp alterations aside from removing the toll booths are in the works.

With the tollbooths gone; the Weston interchange will probably function similar to the US 1 interchange (Exit 44 off I-95/MA 128) in Peabody/Lynnfield.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on January 06, 2016, 11:55:03 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 06, 2016, 11:22:13 AM
Given its surroundings and adjacent interchanges (MA 30 along I-95/MA 128 in particular); I don't think any major ramp alterations aside from removing the toll booths are in the works.

I can certainly imagine a total redesign which has flyover ramps between the two roads, but it would require a major, multi-year project costing mucho bucks...IOW, not in the cards right now.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on January 08, 2016, 07:06:10 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on January 06, 2016, 11:55:03 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 06, 2016, 11:22:13 AM
Given its surroundings and adjacent interchanges (MA 30 along I-95/MA 128 in particular); I don't think any major ramp alterations aside from removing the toll booths are in the works.

I can certainly imagine a total redesign which has flyover ramps between the two roads, but it would require a major, multi-year project costing mucho bucks...IOW, not in the cards right now.

Agree. I figure the Pike will eventually be shifted a bit to the north within the confines of the interchange.

Hey, that's a good fantasy topic- design a new Weston interchange while maintaining full access (minus the Liberty Mutual exit).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on January 09, 2016, 11:53:40 PM
Surveyed the signs on the connector today, only the following old signs remain up:

Exit 3 NB pullthrough for Industrial Drive.

Exit 1N / 495 SB center-tab signs.

1/2 and 1/4 mile advance signs for exits 5A-B-C are still up.

The old Exit 5A/B/C signs are still up at the terminus of the connector, but the new signs are up right behind them. They are simply waiting to be removed.

The replacement signs for Exit 1N have Exit 2B exit tabs as seen from the sign of the road. 495S will be 2A. This ends a multi-decade signing error, even though I'll miss those center tabs.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 10, 2016, 02:47:06 PM
Found this on Sturbridge FD's Facebook page this morning.  The MA 15 legacy is apparently alive and well.

At 3:59, Public Safety Dispatcher Tyler Bresse received a 911 call reporting flames from a room at the Publick House motor lodges off Haynes Street/Route 15.
A second alarm was immediately struck, followed by a third alarm at 4:15 bring in multiple area fire departments mutual aid for building search and firefighting operations.
All parties staying at the lodge were safely evacuated while fire suppression operations were underway.
At 4:59 a fourth alarm was struck for man power bringing in personnel to relieve firefighters already working the fire scene.
Shortly after 5am all personnel were cleared from the building due to structural compromise and all firefighting activity moved to an exterior operation.
There are currently over 10 agencies working the fire scene.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on January 10, 2016, 05:09:27 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on January 05, 2016, 08:14:18 PM
The Charlton location is about 1/4 mile west of the westbound service plaza, next to the Stafford Road overpass.

The Lee location is at the entrance to the Lee maintenance facility.

The Blandford location is at the entrance to the Blandford Maintenance facility.

The Westfield location is between Exit 3 and the state police barracks.

The Ludlow location is at the west end of the Chicopee River bridge.

The Warren location is at the entrance to the Warren maintenance facility.

The Hopkinton location is just east of the Westboro service plaza.

Not sure where the Southboro or Framingham locations are.

So there aren't any between Exits 4 and 7?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on January 10, 2016, 05:16:55 PM
I haven't kept close enough watch on the AET thing. So this is going to turn the Mass Pike into a open system? I assumed they would just replace every toll booth on the ramps with AET facilities and continue the current closed system.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on January 10, 2016, 05:28:19 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 10, 2016, 02:47:06 PM
Found this on Sturbridge FD's Facebook page this morning.  The MA 15 legacy is apparently alive and well.

At 3:59, Public Safety Dispatcher Tyler Bresse received a 911 call reporting flames from a room at the Publick House motor lodges off Haynes Street/Route 15.
A second alarm was immediately struck, followed by a third alarm at 4:15 bring in multiple area fire departments mutual aid for building search and firefighting operations.
All parties staying at the lodge were safely evacuated while fire suppression operations were underway.
At 4:59 a fourth alarm was struck for man power bringing in personnel to relieve firefighters already working the fire scene.
Shortly after 5am all personnel were cleared from the building due to structural compromise and all firefighting activity moved to an exterior operation.
There are currently over 10 agencies working the fire scene.
If one gets a receipt from the Pilot station along Haynes (near I-84's Exit 1); it will list the address as Route 15.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on January 10, 2016, 06:52:44 PM
Unfortunately the MassPike is indeed becoming an open system.  10 barriers across the system.  No toll to travel the exits near Springfield.  IMO closed systems are more convenient.  Just one line on that E-ZPass statement, not up to 10.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 10, 2016, 06:58:51 PM
Sounds like the trip between I-290/395 and MA 146 is a freebie too.  Easy way to get from Auburn to the Southwest Cutoff if you're taking US 20
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on January 10, 2016, 07:37:41 PM
Damn, I guess I'm gonna have to affix my EZPass to my windshield now. Currently I pull it out only at toll gates and otherwise keep it in the metallic pouch. I don't really want that adhesive on my windshield.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on January 10, 2016, 08:59:32 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 10, 2016, 05:09:27 PM
[So there aren't any between Exits 4 and 7?

According to MassDOT's map, and assuming no changes since that map was published, the AET collection points are:

West Stockbridge, near exit 1
Blandford, between exits 2 and 3
Westfield, just east of exit 3
Ludlow, between exits 7 and 8
Warren, between exits 8 and 9
Charlton, between exits 9 and 10
Hopkinton, between exits 11 and 11A
Southborough, between exits 11A and 12
Framingham, between exits 12 and 13
Weston, between exits 13 and 14/15
Newtonville, between exits 16 and 17
Brighton, between exits 17 and 18/19/20
Allston, just east of exits 18/19/20
South Boston (Ted Williams Tunnel EB)
East Boston (Ted Williams Tunnel WB)
East Boston (Sumner Tunnel entrance on MA 1A)

The collection points are contrived to allow toll-free local trips in the Springfield (exits 4-7) and Worcester (exits 10-11) areas.  In Boston, not so much.  A commuter entering at exit 12, on their way to downtown Boston (a commonly made trip from MetroWest), would pass five collection points.  Someone entering the Pike from 128, another common trip, would pass three collection points on their way to downtown Boston.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on January 10, 2016, 11:48:57 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on January 10, 2016, 08:59:32 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 10, 2016, 05:09:27 PM
[So there aren't any between Exits 4 and 7?

According to MassDOT's map, and assuming no changes since that map was published, the AET collection points are:

West Stockbridge, near exit 1
Blandford, between exits 2 and 3
Westfield, just east of exit 3
Ludlow, between exits 7 and 8
Warren, between exits 8 and 9
Charlton, between exits 9 and 10
Hopkinton, between exits 11 and 11A
Southborough, between exits 11A and 12
Framingham, between exits 12 and 13
Weston, between exits 13 and 14/15
Newtonville, between exits 16 and 17
Brighton, between exits 17 and 18/19/20
Allston, just east of exits 18/19/20
South Boston (Ted Williams Tunnel EB)
East Boston (Ted Williams Tunnel WB)
East Boston (Sumner Tunnel entrance on MA 1A)

The collection points are contrived to allow toll-free local trips in the Springfield (exits 4-7) and Worcester (exits 10-11) areas.  In Boston, not so much.  A commuter entering at exit 12, on their way to downtown Boston (a commonly made trip from MetroWest), would pass five collection points.  Someone entering the Pike from 128, another common trip, would pass three collection points on their way to downtown Boston.
So much for my old cheat of Storrow->Newton, onto the Pike to MA 16, then down to 9. Not sure that's actually faster than just taking 9, anyway.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on January 11, 2016, 08:30:44 PM
I took a quick road trip on Sunday along part of the I-95/128 corridor. I checked out some of the new guide or paddle signs installed as part of the renovation of the University Ave/RR Station exit in Westwood. I also checked out progress on the Add-A-Lane project in the Needham area. Clearing the area for bridge work in the MA 9 area has removed the existing overhead BGSs that were replaced by temporary signage.

All of the photos can  be reached through my I-95 in Mass. photo page. Click on the link at the top to get to the Add-A-Lane photos:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on January 13, 2016, 09:11:59 AM
RIP the center-tab Exit 1N sign; as of yesterday all of the remaining signs are up on the Lowell connector. There is still a gantry of old signs that needs to be taken down on Industrial ave, but the new signs are directly behind them and will probably be removed in the next few days.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on January 14, 2016, 11:23:12 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 11, 2016, 08:30:44 PM
I took a quick road trip on Sunday along part of the I-95/128 corridor. I checked out some of the new guide or paddle signs installed as part of the renovation of the University Ave/RR Station exit in Westwood. I also checked out progress on the Add-A-Lane project in the Needham area. Clearing the area for bridge work in the MA 9 area has removed the existing overhead BGSs that were replaced by temporary signage.

All of the photos can  be reached through my I-95 in Mass. photo page. Click on the link at the top to get to the Add-A-Lane photos:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html)

Will Kendrick St. become the new Exit 19A and Highland Ave. become Exits 19B-C?  Is Kendrick St. only accessible from 95/128 SB?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on January 15, 2016, 11:13:48 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on January 14, 2016, 11:23:12 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 11, 2016, 08:30:44 PM
I took a quick road trip on Sunday along part of the I-95/128 corridor. I checked out some of the new guide or paddle signs installed as part of the renovation of the University Ave/RR Station exit in Westwood. I also checked out progress on the Add-A-Lane project in the Needham area. Clearing the area for bridge work in the MA 9 area has removed the existing overhead BGSs that were replaced by temporary signage.

Will Kendrick St. become the new Exit 19A and Highland Ave. become Exits 19B-C?  Is Kendrick St. only accessible from 95/128 SB?
On the map at the project website the Kendrick St. exit is labeled 19A (though by the time it is completed next fall, the number could be 35A), the Highland Avenue exit is not labeled. Kendrick St. will be accessible from both directions with a C/D ramp built between Kendrick St. and Highland Ave. There will be a new flyover ramp that will take traffic from Kendrick St. to I-95 North. Hard to tell if southbound traffic from Highland Ave. will be able to access I-95 directly or only from the new on-ramp from Kendrick St.

The MassDOT website: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/HighlightedProjects/NeedhamWellesleyI95AddALane.aspx (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/HighlightedProjects/NeedhamWellesleyI95AddALane.aspx)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on January 25, 2016, 12:04:02 PM
Over the weekend MassDOT posted an advertisement for bids on the next sign replacement contract along I-495 from Raynham to Bolton (Current Exits 8 to 27/ Future Exits 22 to 70), Project Number 606620. The winning bidder is to be announced March 8.

The contract page is up, but nothing for now, except the general notice to contractors: https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-16-1030-0H100-0H002-00000006897&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-16-1030-0H100-0H002-00000006897&external=true&parentUrl=bid)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 28, 2016, 05:25:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 10, 2016, 11:48:57 PM
So much for my old cheat of Storrow->Newton, onto the Pike to MA 16, then down to 9. Not sure that's actually faster than just taking 9, anyway.

I don't think it is unless there's an exceptional backup on the Mass Pike.  I got off at 128 to 16 back to the Pike (and off at Newton Corner to Nonantum Road) a few times when I lived in Allston.  Cheaper toll at 128, but negligible enough not to go fussing around with traffic lights and slower roads.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 05, 2016, 01:12:32 PM
Just noticed yesterday that the neat little drawbridge ("Woods Memorial Bridge") that carries Route 16 over the Malden River is being replaced.  It's in rough shape and apparently hasn't opened in 30 years.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbridgehunter.com%2Fphotos%2F23%2F52%2F235286-M.jpg&hash=23df0dd66bdd74efb5822abd5649036756335b65)

http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=ViewProject&PROJECT_NO=604660

All that seems to have happened so far is some land clearance north of the approaches, and some lane narrowing.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kkt on February 05, 2016, 01:57:17 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 05, 2016, 01:12:32 PM
Just noticed yesterday that the neat little drawbridge ("Woods Memorial Bridge") that carries Route 16 over the Malden River is being replaced.  It's in rough shape and apparently hasn't opened in 30 years.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbridgehunter.com%2Fphotos%2F23%2F52%2F235286-M.jpg&hash=23df0dd66bdd74efb5822abd5649036756335b65)

http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=ViewProject&PROJECT_NO=604660

All that seems to have happened so far is some land clearance north of the approaches, and some lane narrowing.

That bridge looks very much like the drawbridges over Seattle's ship canal -- Ballard, Fremont, University and Montlake Bridges.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 05, 2016, 02:44:20 PM

Quote from: kkt on February 05, 2016, 01:57:17 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 05, 2016, 01:12:32 PM
Just noticed yesterday that the neat little drawbridge ("Woods Memorial Bridge") that carries Route 16 over the Malden River is being replaced.  It's in rough shape and apparently hasn't opened in 30 years.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbridgehunter.com%2Fphotos%2F23%2F52%2F235286-M.jpg&hash=23df0dd66bdd74efb5822abd5649036756335b65)

http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=ViewProject&PROJECT_NO=604660

All that seems to have happened so far is some land clearance north of the approaches, and some lane narrowing.

That bridge looks very much like the drawbridges over Seattle's ship canal -- Ballard, Fremont, University and Montlake Bridges.

The very short Malden River is basically a glorified canal at this point, and a disused one at that, hence the replacement of this bridge with a fixed span.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mroad860 on February 15, 2016, 11:30:00 PM
I've been reading here about the "paddle sign" replacements.. And I have not seen one yet in my travels through Massachusetts.. Are they really getting rid of the paddles? And what about the town line signs? Please don't tell me they are getting rid of those! I think Massachusetts' road signs are full of personality and help give the state its unique character.. I don't see them causing any harm.. We get around Mass just fine with them..
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on February 16, 2016, 01:10:04 PM
Quote from: mroad860 on February 15, 2016, 11:30:00 PM
I've been reading here about the "paddle sign" replacements.. And I have not seen one yet in my travels through Massachusetts.. Are they really getting rid of the paddles? And what about the town line signs? Please don't tell me they are getting rid of those! I think Massachusetts' road signs are full of personality and help give the state its unique character.. I don't see them causing any harm.. We get around Mass just fine with them..
I haven't heard anything regarding the town border Book-Leaf paddle signs (Roadman can chime in on this) design being changed.

There are a couple examples of the new D6/D8 LGS style presently (featuring mixed-case control city/destination lettering) out there.

Along MA 113 eastbound near I-95 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8155804,-70.9206906,3a,75y,113.92h,75.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfPM5DcASVcvpAfc0yCX6ZA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  Note the foundation remnants of a larger BGS installation that was replaced with the current LGS' in response to residences complaining about the size of the larger signs (i.e. a bit overkill for a residential street).

Scroll down to 9/29/15 photo showing new D6 LGS along MA 16 at I-95 South on-ramp (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on February 16, 2016, 01:50:03 PM
Quote from: mroad860 on February 15, 2016, 11:30:00 PM
I've been reading here about the "paddle sign" replacements.. And I have not seen one yet in my travels through Massachusetts.. Are they really getting rid of the paddles? And what about the town line signs? Please don't tell me they are getting rid of those! I think Massachusetts' road signs are full of personality and help give the state its unique character.. I don't see them causing any harm.. We get around Mass just fine with them..


At this time, MassDOT has no plans to change the design of the 'bookleaf' town line signs used on secondary state highways.  As for the D6/D8 'paddle' guide signs, MassDOT is still finalizing the new design standards, which are expected to be similar to the sign on MA 16 at I-95 south (extruded panel on steel beam post).  This will allow the use of larger mixed case legends (8"/6") on these signs, which is now not possible with many legends due to the limited sizes of the sheet aluminum panels traditionally specified for D6 and D8 signs.

For now, MassDOT has issued interim design guidelines allowing for the use of mixed-case legends on D6 and D8 signs in limited circumstances.  In summary, mixed case legends are to be used on new signs if the legends can be reasonably fit on standard size blanks mounted to either tubular posts ("paddle" mounting) or single steel beam posts, and if all signs at a given location are able to be upgraded to the larger mixed-case legends.  For now, D6 and D8 signs that are replaced as 'one-offs', such as through accident recovery or the District maintenance contracts, will be replaced with signs retaining the all uppercase legends.

Clear as mud, right?  Now, would anyone like me to explain the purpose of the blue lines in hockey (old Mad Magazine routine)?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 16, 2016, 04:09:31 PM
Here is something I have always found interesting. Why do SR 24 and SR 128 have service areas when the roads were never tolled?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 04:28:06 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 16, 2016, 04:09:31 PM
Here is something I have always found interesting. Why do SR 24 and SR 128 have service areas when the roads were never tolled?

Because they were built before the Interstate system. Several expressways and parkways in New York (including I-87 in the Bronx) have (or in most cases, had) service areas and they were mostly free roads.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 16, 2016, 05:07:40 PM
I am aware that the expressways and parkways of New York had gas station service areas. Most of them were torn down in the late 1970's, and only a few remain (Belt, Grand Central, Hutchinson River, Major Deegan, Palisades Interstate in NJ).
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 16, 2016, 08:55:24 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 16, 2016, 05:07:40 PM
I am aware that the expressways and parkways of New York had gas station service areas. Most of them were torn down in the late 1970's, and only a few remain (Belt, Grand Central, Hutchinson River, Major Deegan, Palisades Interstate in NJ).

Palisades Parkway in New York, too (including one turned into a bookstore).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on February 16, 2016, 10:20:45 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 16, 2016, 01:10:04 PM
Quote from: mroad860 on February 15, 2016, 11:30:00 PM
I've been reading here about the "paddle sign" replacements.. And I have not seen one yet in my travels through Massachusetts.. Are they really getting rid of the paddles? And what about the town line signs? Please don't tell me they are getting rid of those! I think Massachusetts' road signs are full of personality and help give the state its unique character.. I don't see them causing any harm.. We get around Mass just fine with them..
I haven't heard anything regarding the town border Book-Leaf paddle signs (Roadman can chime in on this) design being changed.

There are a couple examples of the new D6/D8 LGS style presently (featuring mixed-case control city/destination lettering) out there.

Along MA 113 eastbound near I-95 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8155804,-70.9206906,3a,75y,113.92h,75.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfPM5DcASVcvpAfc0yCX6ZA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  Note the foundation remnants of a larger BGS installation that was replaced with the current LGS' in response to residences complaining about the size of the larger signs (i.e. a bit overkill for a residential street).

Scroll down to 9/29/15 photo showing new D6 LGS along MA 16 at I-95 South on-ramp (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html)


Boo hiss on the loss of one of the few signs with 95 in text (not in a shield) to still remain when the gigantic BGS were installed, only to be replaced by the sorry paddle sign replacements.  :D  Sorry, I'm a paddle sign appreciator.  (Old google street view shows the old text sign, not completely unique but pretty rare even then.)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on February 17, 2016, 02:40:30 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on February 16, 2016, 10:20:45 PMBoo hiss on the loss of one of the few signs with 95 in text (not in a shield) to still remain when the gigantic BGS were installed, only to be replaced by the sorry paddle sign replacements.  :D  Sorry, I'm a paddle sign appreciator.  (Old google street view shows the old text sign, not completely unique but pretty rare even then.)
Here's one from 1977 (lower/D8 panel) (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5123003,-71.0436526,3a,75y,1.16h,75.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svVg8Gj4hV1FaDkI0BC6AdA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) that's still there.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on February 17, 2016, 03:43:56 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 17, 2016, 02:40:30 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on February 16, 2016, 10:20:45 PMBoo hiss on the loss of one of the few signs with 95 in text (not in a shield) to still remain when the gigantic BGS were installed, only to be replaced by the sorry paddle sign replacements.  :D  Sorry, I'm a paddle sign appreciator.  (Old google street view shows the old text sign, not completely unique but pretty rare even then.)
Here's one from 1977 (lower/D8 panel) (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5123003,-71.0436526,3a,75y,1.16h,75.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svVg8Gj4hV1FaDkI0BC6AdA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) that's still there.
Meanwhile, approaching the southbound on-ramp (and at the ramp) there's a recent paddle sign with both I-95 and 128 shields: https://goo.gl/maps/5TCKNmXNMzw (https://goo.gl/maps/5TCKNmXNMzw)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on February 18, 2016, 02:59:16 AM
Random MA Highway questions:

Is there some official policy to avoid ground mounted big green signs on interstates (except the Mass Pike). Ive been on most of all the interstates in MA except 190 195 and 391. Only highway in MA that I've seen that has them are Route 2 and Route 128, but there are still many many highways in MA that I haven't been on.

If Lowell Connector is state maintained how come they never assigned a number to it or even an unsigned number, there was Business Spur 495 but I meant like MA 203 or MA 595 or something?

When did the N/S/E/W suffixes end in MA? I remember seeing a few of those randomly many years back (2000) on a trip to Salem MA on Route 128.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on February 18, 2016, 08:52:54 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on February 17, 2016, 03:43:56 PMMeanwhile, approaching the southbound on-ramp (and at the ramp) there's a recent paddle sign with both I-95 and 128 shields: https://goo.gl/maps/5TCKNmXNMzw (https://goo.gl/maps/5TCKNmXNMzw)
Those were installed by an independent contractor that obviously didn't get the memo regarding the prohibition of MA 128 shields on guidance signs along the I-95 portion of the Yankee Division Highway.  IMHO, those particular LGS' are actually better looking (in terms of overall layout and I-95 shields) than the actual MassHighway/DOT erected ones nearby.

Quote from: mariethefoxy on February 18, 2016, 02:59:16 AMIs there some official policy to avoid ground mounted big green signs on interstates (except the Mass Pike). Ive been on most of all the interstates in MA except 190 195 and 391. Only highway in MA that I've seen that has them are Route 2 and Route 128, but there are still many many highways in MA that I haven't been on.
I believe the current MassDOT policy is to have all major BGS' overhead-mounted even along 4-laners.  Supplemental BGS' can be and usually are ground-mounted.

The ground-mounted major BGS' one sees along I-90, MA 2 & 128 are older and predate the current policy.  IIRC, most if not all of the older ground-mounted BGS' along 128 have since been replaced with newer overhead-mounted BGS'.

Quote from: mariethefoxy on February 18, 2016, 02:59:16 AM
If Lowell Connector is state maintained how come they never assigned a number to it or even an unsigned number, there was Business Spur 495 but I meant like MA 203 or MA 595 or something?
Since 1971, MA 203 has been taken.  At the time the Connector was built, not every highway in the Bay State was given a route number.  Prior to 1971, the Southeast Expressway between Neponset Circle/Granite Ave. and Mass Ave. had no route number assigned to it (MA 3 exited and followed the current MA 203).

Prior to the mid-70s, the I-90 designation along the Mass Pike used to end at the Allston toll plaza (I-90 was originally supposed to end where the cancelled I-695/Inner Belt would've crossed).  The Pike Extension from there to its pre-Big Dig terminus, the South Station Tunnel/Pulaski Skyway part of the Expressway (then unsigned I-95/now I-93) was for the first decade of its life unnumbered.

Quote from: mariethefoxy on February 18, 2016, 02:59:16 AMWhen did the N/S/E/W suffixes end in MA? I remember seeing a few of those randomly many years back (2000) on a trip to Salem MA on Route 128.
If you're referring to exit numbers; such were largely phased out during the mid-to-late 1980s.  Routes that retained older exit numbers, like US 3, the Lowell Connector & MA 128 east of I-95, only retained the old-school N/S/E/W exit suffixes due to the signs yet not being replaced. 

Along 128, the suffixed exits for MA 114 (Exit 25) changed from E/W (way back when such was S/N) to the current A/B sometime during the early 90s (maybe even late 80s).

The suffixes for MA 1A (Exit 20) changed from S/N to B/A sometime during the 90s when the overhead BGS' replaced the ground-mounted BGS'.

The suffixes for MA 35 (Exit 23S-N) and MA 62 (Exit 22E-W for the exit ramps off northbound 128) were recently dropped when the interchanges were completely reconfigured to diamond/SPUI-type interchanges.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on February 18, 2016, 08:58:04 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 18, 2016, 08:52:54 AM
IIRC, most if not all of the older ground-mounted BGS' along 128 have since been replaced with newer overhead-mounted BGS'.

Not all. Exits 25 and 26 (not on I-95) still have at least one ground-mounted BGS each.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on February 18, 2016, 09:13:14 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 18, 2016, 08:58:04 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 18, 2016, 08:52:54 AM
IIRC, most if not all of the older ground-mounted BGS' along 128 have since been replaced with newer overhead-mounted BGS'.

Not all. Exits 25 and 26 (not on I-95) still have at least one ground-mounted BGS each.
I think you mean between Exits 24 and 25.  All current major signage for the Lowell St. interchange (Exit 26) is now overhead-mounted.

The remaining ground-mounted BGS' for MA 114 (Exit 25) are along southbound 128 for the advance notice BGS (with no exit tab) and the BGS for the westbound 114 exit (25B).  Both of which are the oldest interchange-related signage for that location.

All the signage for the Endicott St. interchange (Exit 24) are still ground-mounted, including a recent smallish temporary sign along 128 northbound.  Such replaced a 1977-vintage BGS (that featured a center-mounted exit tab).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alex on February 18, 2016, 09:55:42 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 18, 2016, 08:52:54 AM
Prior to the mid-70s, the I-90 designation along the Mass Pike used to end at the Allston toll plaza (I-90 was originally supposed to end where the cancelled I-695/Inner Belt would've crossed).  The Pike Extension from there to its pre-Big Dig terminus, the South Station Tunnel/Pulaski Skyway part of the Expressway (then unsigned I-95/now I-93) was for the first decade of its life unnumbered.

Thanks for posting that. I amended the history section of the I-90 page (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-090.html) on interstate-guide to reflect the lack of numbering east of the Allston toll plaza at that time. Were the ramps at Exit 18 built in anticipation of the Inner Belt freeway and then repurposed for Cambridge Street?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on February 18, 2016, 01:23:57 PM
Quote from: Alex on February 18, 2016, 09:55:42 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 18, 2016, 08:52:54 AM
Prior to the mid-70s, the I-90 designation along the Mass Pike used to end at the Allston toll plaza (I-90 was originally supposed to end where the cancelled I-695/Inner Belt would've crossed).  The Pike Extension from there to its pre-Big Dig terminus, the South Station Tunnel/Pulaski Skyway part of the Expressway (then unsigned I-95/now I-93) was for the first decade of its life unnumbered.

Thanks for posting that. I amended the history section of the I-90 page (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-090.html) on interstate-guide to reflect the lack of numbering east of the Allston toll plaza at that time. Were the ramps at Exit 18 built in anticipation of the Inner Belt freeway and then repurposed for Cambridge Street?
Actually, the Inner Belt was to cross the Pike east of the Allston toll plaza.

(https://www.architects.org/sites/default/files/images/architectureboston/2012winter/luberoff-2.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F41.media.tumblr.com%2F3b90a17f327ea6acc3d76c130b81611c%2Ftumblr_nv5ldjkzoF1syx7edo2_1280.jpg&hash=b63cdc29093e7db1cfbf76b7ed5d2b9dffec613b)


Hint of a pre-extension signage of I-90 east of Allston (taken following the Blizzard of '78, note the TO posted above the I-90 shield on the left gantry post)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ec0.pinimg.com%2F236x%2F04%2Fd3%2F42%2F04d342a339b7d6b4e3d68b5f057ccc94.jpg&hash=72d3f0d302a0c6ab826a8c60754aeb6f20abb9aa)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on February 18, 2016, 05:21:16 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on February 18, 2016, 02:59:16 AM
Is there some official policy to avoid ground mounted big green signs on interstates (except the Mass Pike). Ive been on most of all the interstates in MA except 190 195 and 391. Only highway in MA that I've seen that has them are Route 2 and Route 128, but there are still many many highways in MA that I haven't been on.

There is a policy as a previous poster said. A good example is MA-140, which used to have tons of ground mounted signage. Every exit aside from Exit 6 (a left exit) and Exit 2 (an Interstate) used to use ground mounted signage. Now, every guide sign on the route is overhead-mounted.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on February 18, 2016, 05:30:02 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 18, 2016, 05:21:16 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on February 18, 2016, 02:59:16 AM
Is there some official policy to avoid ground mounted big green signs on interstates (except the Mass Pike). Ive been on most of all the interstates in MA except 190 195 and 391. Only highway in MA that I've seen that has them are Route 2 and Route 128, but there are still many many highways in MA that I haven't been on.

There is a policy as a previous poster said. A good example is MA-140, which used to have tons of ground mounted signage. Every exit aside from Exit 6 (a left exit) and Exit 2 (an Interstate) used to use ground mounted signage. Now, every guide sign on the route is overhead-mounted.

I-91 has a bunch of ground-mounted stuff north of Holyoke
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on February 18, 2016, 09:33:10 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 18, 2016, 05:30:02 PM
I-91 has a bunch of ground-mounted stuff north of Holyoke

... and it's all on borrowed time.  Foundations are in for the new signs, as of Christmas 2015.  Haven't been down that way since then so I can't inform on any new signage going up.  Given its winter, I doubt any real progress won't be made until the spring.  Although its entirely possible, given the warm winter we've had thus far, that the contractor may still be active in the field.  Just haven't had a chance to confirm that.

With sign replacement contracts in the works for I-91 and I-90, that will make most of Mass interstates BGSs overhead. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on February 18, 2016, 11:52:09 PM
Interestingly about the 128 exits with the directional suffixes, the BGS at the exits did not have the cardinal directions spelled out with the shields--that was left entirely to the E/W/N/S suffix on the exit number.  When the Route 114 exits were changed to A-B from E-W (with A and B in the wrong order, incidentally), they should have added EAST and WEST text to the old signs, but never did.  The signs, even a one-off replacement southbound made faithfully with square 114 shield and centered tab, only said 114 and destination.  The combining of the direction into the exit number was a neat thing that saved space but was certainly too subtle and couldn't be sustained with the move to A-B from directional suffixes.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DrSmith on February 19, 2016, 12:53:37 AM
New signage is going up on I-91. A few new overheads were installed near Exits 24 and 25. Mostly newer ground level stuff was installed at least as of a week ago.  Looks like paddle sign replacement was done in many places already. And lots of foundations for new overhead signs are there too
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on February 19, 2016, 07:17:39 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on February 18, 2016, 11:52:09 PM
Interestingly about the 128 exits with the directional suffixes, the BGS at the exits did not have the cardinal directions spelled out with the shields--that was left entirely to the E/W/N/S suffix on the exit number.  When the Route 114 exits were changed to A-B from E-W (with A and B in the wrong order, incidentally), they should have added EAST and WEST text to the old signs, but never did.  The signs, even a one-off replacement southbound made faithfully with square 114 shield and centered tab, only said 114 and destination.  The combining of the direction into the exit number was a neat thing that saved space but was certainly too subtle and couldn't be sustained with the move to A-B from directional suffixes.
Speaking of which, what's with the aversion to directional suffixes? Are they specifically banned in the MUTCD? NYSDOT region 8 uses them almost exclusively and they've become an expected trope, very intuitive.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on February 19, 2016, 07:41:39 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on February 19, 2016, 07:17:39 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on February 18, 2016, 11:52:09 PM
Interestingly about the 128 exits with the directional suffixes, the BGS at the exits did not have the cardinal directions spelled out with the shields--that was left entirely to the E/W/N/S suffix on the exit number.  When the Route 114 exits were changed to A-B from E-W (with A and B in the wrong order, incidentally), they should have added EAST and WEST text to the old signs, but never did.  The signs, even a one-off replacement southbound made faithfully with square 114 shield and centered tab, only said 114 and destination.  The combining of the direction into the exit number was a neat thing that saved space but was certainly too subtle and couldn't be sustained with the move to A-B from directional suffixes.
Speaking of which, what's with the aversion to directional suffixes? Are they specifically banned in the MUTCD? NYSDOT region 8 uses them almost exclusively and they've become an expected trope, very intuitive.

Yes, the MUTCD says to use A-B-C.  I believe the main point is that with mileage-based exit numbering, you may end up with more than two ramps per mile.  Therefore, the MUTCD recommends alphabetical suffixes rather than directional.

That said, I prefer the directional suffixes and am amused by Region 10's ridiculous exit numbering system on parkways (e.g., Sunken Meadow: SM3A, SM4W, SM4E, etc.).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on February 18, 2016, 11:52:09 PMWhen the Route 114 exits were changed to A-B from E-W (with A and B in the wrong order, incidentally),
I believe that such may have been intentional in a premature anticipation of the exit numbers changing; especially in terms of the direction order. 

As most here (including yourself) know, the current interchange numbers along 128 are the only remaining ones in the Bay State in reverse order (increasing southbound rather than northbound).

Quote from: SidS1045 on January 10, 2016, 08:59:32 PM
According to MassDOT's map, and assuming no changes since that map was published, the AET collection points are:
...
South Boston (Ted Williams Tunnel EB)
East Boston (Ted Williams Tunnel WB)
East Boston (Sumner Tunnel entrance on MA 1A)
If that list is correct and current, it appears that they're doing away with one-way tolls at the Ted Williams Tunnel but keeping one-way tolls at the Sumner and Tobin Bridge (the latter is already AET).

Bad idea, either tolled crossing should have the same collection mode (either all one-way or all two-way).  Having a mixture would only increase shunpiking.

Personally; AET or no AET, all the harbor crossing tolls should stay one-way.  I would also make the Allston plaza/gantry a one-way collection for eastbound I-90/Pike traffic.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on February 19, 2016, 09:50:34 AM
QuoteIf that list is correct and current, it appears that they're doing away with one-way tolls at the Ted Williams Tunnel but keeping one-way tolls at the Sumner and Tobin Bridge (the latter is already AET).

When AET "goes live" in Fall of 2016, two-way tolling will be reinstated for all the harbor crossings, including the Callahan Tunnel and the Tobin Bridge northbound.  As I understand it, the current 'inbound' tolls will be reduced by 50% when that happens.

QuotePersonally; AET or no AET, all the harbor crossing tolls should stay one-way

The reason one way tolls were originally implemented in the 1970s 1983 (thanks PHLBOS for the correction) was to reduce congestion caused manual collection at the toll booths.  With AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2016, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 08:31:58 AMIf that list is correct and current, it appears that they're doing away with one-way tolls at the Ted Williams Tunnel but keeping one-way tolls at the Sumner and Tobin Bridge (the latter is already AET).

Bad idea, either tolled crossing should have the same collection mode (either all one-way or all two-way).  Having a mixture would only increase shunpiking.

Personally; AET or no AET, all the harbor crossing tolls should stay one-way.  I would also make the Allston plaza/gantry a one-way collection for eastbound I-90/Pike traffic.


Shunpiking across Boston Harbor?  There's really not much in the way of easy shunpikes into East Boston from the other side of the crossings. You're talking about using the Meridian Street bridge between Chelsea and East Boston, and some combination of Beacham Street through Everett and Chelsea, the Alford Street bridge across the Mystic River, and other unappealing routes in that area (that are all going to get less appealing once the idiot-impoverishing facility is built in Everett).

People I know who go into East Boston from the north already often go these ways, but for everybody else, this is an enormous pain in the ass of a detour.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on February 19, 2016, 10:49:32 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2016, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 08:31:58 AMIf that list is correct and current, it appears that they're doing away with one-way tolls at the Ted Williams Tunnel but keeping one-way tolls at the Sumner and Tobin Bridge (the latter is already AET).

Bad idea, either tolled crossing should have the same collection mode (either all one-way or all two-way).  Having a mixture would only increase shunpiking.

Personally; AET or no AET, all the harbor crossing tolls should stay one-way.  I would also make the Allston plaza/gantry a one-way collection for eastbound I-90/Pike traffic.


Shunpiking across Boston Harbor?  There's really not much in the way of easy shunpikes into East Boston from the other side of the crossings. You're talking about using the Meridian Street bridge between Chelsea and East Boston, and some combination of Beacham Street through Everett and Chelsea, the Alford Street bridge across the Mystic River, and other unappealing routes in that area (that are all going to get less appealing once the idiot-impoverishing facility is built in Everett).

People I know who go into East Boston from the north already often go these ways, but for everybody else, this is an enormous pain in the ass of a detour.

MA 99? Or is that already listed?
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2016, 11:03:31 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 19, 2016, 10:49:32 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2016, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 08:31:58 AMIf that list is correct and current, it appears that they're doing away with one-way tolls at the Ted Williams Tunnel but keeping one-way tolls at the Sumner and Tobin Bridge (the latter is already AET).

Bad idea, either tolled crossing should have the same collection mode (either all one-way or all two-way).  Having a mixture would only increase shunpiking.

Personally; AET or no AET, all the harbor crossing tolls should stay one-way.  I would also make the Allston plaza/gantry a one-way collection for eastbound I-90/Pike traffic.


Shunpiking across Boston Harbor?  There's really not much in the way of easy shunpikes into East Boston from the other side of the crossings. You're talking about using the Meridian Street bridge between Chelsea and East Boston, and some combination of Beacham Street through Everett and Chelsea, the Alford Street bridge across the Mystic River, and other unappealing routes in that area (that are all going to get less appealing once the idiot-impoverishing facility is built in Everett).

People I know who go into East Boston from the north already often go these ways, but for everybody else, this is an enormous pain in the ass of a detour.

MA 99? Or is that already listed?

Route 99 crosses the Alford Street Bridge.  It's a doable route to skip the Tobin, but you can add ten minutes onto your trip to save $1.25 (valuing your time, once again, at minimum wage).  The most direct route that way to Chelsea is on Beacham Street, a winding, narrow street lined with petroleum and generating facilities, the produce terminal, and King Arthur's Lounge.  It is a suspension-wrecker that handles heavy truck traffic and I suspect it gets left that way to prevent more shunpiking. 

It is a long, lousy route to avoid a toll.  Using it to avoid traffic is a little more plausible.

One can also stay on 99 to 16 East, then cut down through Chelsea, but you have to have one hell of a miserly chip on your shoulder to go that far for a buck.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on February 19, 2016, 11:41:59 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2016, 11:03:31 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 19, 2016, 10:49:32 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2016, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 08:31:58 AMIf that list is correct and current, it appears that they're doing away with one-way tolls at the Ted Williams Tunnel but keeping one-way tolls at the Sumner and Tobin Bridge (the latter is already AET).

Bad idea, either tolled crossing should have the same collection mode (either all one-way or all two-way).  Having a mixture would only increase shunpiking.

Personally; AET or no AET, all the harbor crossing tolls should stay one-way.  I would also make the Allston plaza/gantry a one-way collection for eastbound I-90/Pike traffic.


Shunpiking across Boston Harbor?  There's really not much in the way of easy shunpikes into East Boston from the other side of the crossings. You're talking about using the Meridian Street bridge between Chelsea and East Boston, and some combination of Beacham Street through Everett and Chelsea, the Alford Street bridge across the Mystic River, and other unappealing routes in that area (that are all going to get less appealing once the idiot-impoverishing facility is built in Everett).

People I know who go into East Boston from the north already often go these ways, but for everybody else, this is an enormous pain in the ass of a detour.

MA 99? Or is that already listed?

Route 99 crosses the Alford Street Bridge.  It's a doable route to skip the Tobin, but you can add ten minutes onto your trip to save $1.25 (valuing your time, once again, at minimum wage).  The most direct route that way to Chelsea is on Beacham Street, a winding, narrow street lined with petroleum and generating facilities, the produce terminal, and King Arthur's Lounge.  It is a suspension-wrecker that handles heavy truck traffic and I suspect it gets left that way to prevent more shunpiking. 

It is a long, lousy route to avoid a toll.  Using it to avoid traffic is a little more plausible.

I thought King Arthur's Lounge closed. Either way, I've been through there once and once is enough to know how much of a mess it is.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on February 19, 2016, 11:51:44 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on February 18, 2016, 11:52:09 PMWhen the Route 114 exits were changed to A-B from E-W (with A and B in the wrong order, incidentally),
I believe that such may have been intentional in a premature anticipation of the exit numbers changing; especially in terms of the direction order. 

As most here (including yourself) know, the current interchange numbers along 128 are the only remaining ones in the Bay State in reverse order (increasing southbound rather than northbound).

Indeed what is B-A now will stay B-A when the exit numbers are changed sometime in the next couple years, but I wonder how far they were planning ahead.  Somehow whether it was still DPW or had become MassHighway at that time (I forget exactly), I get the feeling they weren't thinking that far ahead, although I could be wrong.  :D

The biggest lettering change that needs to be avoided is 95/128 at I-93.  Changing from 37A-B to 55B-C because Washington St. gets 55A is silly.  Fudge Washington St. to 54, then keep the A-B sequence as-is for I-93.  If it was indeed important enough to have the Route 114 A-B exits out of order for nearly 30 years so they wouldn't flip from B-A to A-B when renumbered, then it ought to be important enough to keep the A-B sequence intact at an important, if dysfunctional/underpowered, system interchange. 

As far as AET in former one-way-toll locations, wouldn't AET involve adding gantries where there had been none?  If it cuts down on the infrastructure cost and on the number of transactions to process, leaving what is now one-way as-is wouldn't be a disaster.  If people have gotten used to the one-way tolls where they are and GPS/maps show the tolls in those directions and not the others, then messing with it can add issues.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2016, 12:05:03 PM

Quote from: cl94 on February 19, 2016, 11:41:59 AMI thought King Arthur's Lounge closed. Either way, I've been through there once and once is enough to know how much of a mess it is.

My best advice to anyone is to admit knowing as little as possible about King Arthur's, for all kinds of reasons.

I got into a few fights with the significant other over taking her car down that road.  While the condition of the pavement was the ostensible reason, I know the very sight of that place made her skin crawl.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 12:51:53 PM
Quote from: roadman on February 19, 2016, 09:50:34 AMWhen AET "goes live" in Fall of 2016, two-way tolling will be reinstated for all the harbor crossings, including the Callahan Tunnel and the Tobin Bridge northbound.  As I understand it, the current 'inbound' tolls will be reduced by 50% when that happens.
As it should be. 

Thanks for the info./clarification.  I knew something was off.  The info. Sid received and posted (in reference to the Sumner Tunnel remaining 1-way) was obviously incorrect.  Such was why I brought it up and commented on it.

Quote from: roadman on February 19, 2016, 09:50:34 AMThe reason one way tolls were originally implemented in the 1970s was to reduce congestion caused manual collection at the toll booths.  With AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.
Correct on the reasoning (as a kid, I remember that traffic from the Callahan Tunnel toll booths went as far as the Central Artery off-ramps at times); incorrect on the time of implementation.  One-way tolls were implemented on all tolled harbor crossings in late 1983.  I used to have an old Massport Annual Report from then that covered the one-way toll conversion.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2016, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 08:31:58 AMIf that list is correct and current, it appears that they're doing away with one-way tolls at the Ted Williams Tunnel but keeping one-way tolls at the Sumner and Tobin Bridge (the latter is already AET).

Bad idea, either tolled crossing should have the same collection mode (either all one-way or all two-way).  Having a mixture would only increase shunpiking.
Shunpiking across Boston Harbor?  There's really not much in the way of easy shunpikes into East Boston from the other side of the crossings. You're talking about using the Meridian Street bridge between Chelsea and East Boston, and some combination of Beacham Street through Everett and Chelsea, the Alford Street bridge across the Mystic River, and other unappealing routes in that area (that are all going to get less appealing once the idiot-impoverishing facility is built in Everett).
You might want to reread my earlier post again.  My shunpiking reference was only directed towards Sid's listing (which was proven to be incorrect by Roadman) of having 2-way tolls at the Ted Williams Tunnel but still a 1-way toll at the Sumner.  That scenario (which, again will not be the case) would have someone heading into Downtown Boston via the Ted Williams Tunnel (at half of the present toll) but returning via the Callahan Tunnel or Tobin Bridge (both presently have no outbound toll).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on February 19, 2016, 12:56:45 PM
QuoteCorrect on the reasoning (as a kid, I remember that traffic from the Callahan Tunnel toll booths went as far as the Central Artery off-ramps at times); incorrect on the time of implementation.  One-way tolls were implemented on all tolled harbor crossings in late 1983.  I used to have an old Massport Annual Report from then that covered the one-way toll conversion.

Ah yes - have clarified my original posting.  Thanks.  And I began riding express buses between Lynn and Boston in 1978, so I've experienced the traffic conditions you described firsthand.  On days when the Callahan Tunnel was really backed up, our driver would head into Charlestown and over the Tobin Bridge instead.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 01:06:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on February 19, 2016, 09:50:34 AMWith AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.
True, but I believe that Massachusetts may be the only state that's presently reverting back to a 2-way toll collection at its bridge/tunnel crossings simultaneously (harbor tunnels only) with the its AET conversion.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kkt on February 19, 2016, 01:30:55 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 01:06:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on February 19, 2016, 09:50:34 AMWith AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.
True, but I believe that Massachusetts may be the only state that's presently reverting back to a 2-way toll collection at its bridge/tunnel crossings simultaneously (harbor tunnels only) with the its AET conversion.

Wouldn't one-way tolling also save half the cost of detectors?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 01:51:32 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 19, 2016, 01:30:55 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 01:06:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on February 19, 2016, 09:50:34 AMWith AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.
True, but I believe that Massachusetts may be the only state that's presently reverting back to a 2-way toll collection at its bridge/tunnel crossings simultaneously (harbor tunnels only) with the its AET conversion.

Wouldn't one-way tolling also save half the cost of detectors?
... and erecting new gantries?  Technically, yes.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2016, 02:58:56 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 01:51:32 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 19, 2016, 01:30:55 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 01:06:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on February 19, 2016, 09:50:34 AMWith AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.
True, but I believe that Massachusetts may be the only state that's presently reverting back to a 2-way toll collection at its bridge/tunnel crossings simultaneously (harbor tunnels only) with the its AET conversion.

Wouldn't one-way tolling also save half the cost of detectors?
... and erecting new gantries?  Technically, yes.

Use one long gantry.  Even if it requires a third footing (doubtful), it's cheaper than two gantries.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kkt on February 19, 2016, 03:34:57 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2016, 02:58:56 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 01:51:32 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 19, 2016, 01:30:55 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 01:06:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on February 19, 2016, 09:50:34 AMWith AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.
True, but I believe that Massachusetts may be the only state that's presently reverting back to a 2-way toll collection at its bridge/tunnel crossings simultaneously (harbor tunnels only) with the its AET conversion.

Wouldn't one-way tolling also save half the cost of detectors?
... and erecting new gantries?  Technically, yes.

Use one long gantry.  Even if it requires a third footing (doubtful), it's cheaper than two gantries.

But it's not shorter than one short gantry. :)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 04:22:15 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2016, 02:58:56 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 01:51:32 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 19, 2016, 01:30:55 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 01:06:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on February 19, 2016, 09:50:34 AMWith AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.
True, but I believe that Massachusetts may be the only state that's presently reverting back to a 2-way toll collection at its bridge/tunnel crossings simultaneously (harbor tunnels only) with the its AET conversion.

Wouldn't one-way tolling also save half the cost of detectors?
... and erecting new gantries?  Technically, yes.

Use one long gantry.  Even if it requires a third footing (doubtful), it's cheaper than two gantries.
Can't really do that for the Tobin Bridge; the out/northbound lanes are on the lower level.
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2016, 04:36:54 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 04:22:15 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2016, 02:58:56 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 01:51:32 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 19, 2016, 01:30:55 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 01:06:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on February 19, 2016, 09:50:34 AMWith AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.
True, but I believe that Massachusetts may be the only state that's presently reverting back to a 2-way toll collection at its bridge/tunnel crossings simultaneously (harbor tunnels only) with the its AET conversion.

Wouldn't one-way tolling also save half the cost of detectors?
... and erecting new gantries?  Technically, yes.

Use one long gantry.  Even if it requires a third footing (doubtful), it's cheaper than two gantries.
Can't really do that for the Tobin Bridge; the out/northbound lanes are on the lower level.

Which has an overhead structure already in place, i.e. the inbound lanes. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on February 19, 2016, 05:54:42 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on February 18, 2016, 09:33:10 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 18, 2016, 05:30:02 PM
I-91 has a bunch of ground-mounted stuff north of Holyoke

... and it's all on borrowed time.  Foundations are in for the new signs, as of Christmas 2015.  Haven't been down that way since then so I can't inform on any new signage going up.  Given its winter, I doubt any real progress won't be made until the spring.  Although its entirely possible, given the warm winter we've had thus far, that the contractor may still be active in the field.  Just haven't had a chance to confirm that.

With sign replacement contracts in the works for I-91 and I-90, that will make most of Mass interstates BGSs overhead. 
According to the project listing, the I-91 project is 50% complete. It still lists the completion date as this Spring.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on February 19, 2016, 08:05:06 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2016, 02:58:56 PM

Use one long gantry.  Even if it requires a third footing (doubtful), it's cheaper than two gantries.

Unlike supports for overhead BGS signs, AETS gantries have to be constructed to much closer requirements in regards to minimizing support vibration and movement.  This is because of the close tolerances the detection equipment demands to work properly.  So, for the average multi-lane freeway, a single "complete span" (i.e. across all lanes) gantry could not be constructed without a central upright - which may not be feasible if you have a narrow median.  Even if feasible to install the central support, the design requirements for the structure could easily result in the complete span being more expensive to fabricate and construct than a pair of single span structures.

Further, a single complete span structure reduces the flexibility of placing the AETS equipment over the roadway.  Because of the more precise tolerances required for proper vehicle detection and system operation, one direction of the highway at a given location may be suitable for the AETS equipment, while the other side is not.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2016, 08:10:58 PM
Thank you.  I am happy to be put in my place by so thorough an answer.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on February 19, 2016, 08:16:46 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2016, 04:36:54 PM

Which has an overhead structure already in place, i.e. the inbound lanes. 

The inbound and outbound lanes exiting/entering the CANA (City Square) Tunnel are at slightly different profiles and are separate structures.  Further, the lanes almost immediately transition to separate elevated structures at the tunnel portals.  So modifying or extending the existing "inbound" structure to accommodate the AETS equipment over the "outbound" lanes is not practical.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on February 20, 2016, 10:28:38 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 01:06:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on February 19, 2016, 09:50:34 AMWith AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.
True, but I believe that Massachusetts may be the only state that's presently reverting back to a 2-way toll collection at its bridge/tunnel crossings simultaneously (harbor tunnels only) with the its AET conversion.
Port Authority (NY/NJ) considered it but years ago decided not to. Since they still haven't implemented it, it's always possible, but would require cooperation with the NY Thruway (which is AET so could presumably add the other direction). I don't think they need to worry about the bridges farther upstream, since the eastbound tolls are already so low that one-way vs. two-way shouldn't matter for shunpiking.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 23, 2016, 12:24:19 PM
A couple of the gantries are now up on I-90/Massachusetts Turnpike for the electronic tolling. I saw the first one just west of Exit 12 (MA Route 9) in Framingham and the other one by the state police barracks in Weston near the Natick town line. There might have been a third one further west from there, but I'm not 100% sure.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jpdailey14 on February 23, 2016, 05:51:41 PM
The Lee gantry was up as of this weekend.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on February 23, 2016, 06:32:20 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on February 19, 2016, 05:54:42 PM
According to the project listing, the I-91 project is 50% complete. It still lists the completion date as this Spring.

Wow... find that hard to believe.  But then again, after this extremely warm winter, maybe progress has indeed been made.  As of Christmas, only the foundations were installed.  I'd estimate sometime in April as when I'll find out any further progress.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 23, 2016, 07:44:54 PM

Quote from: jpdailey14 on February 23, 2016, 05:51:41 PM
The Lee gantry was up as of this weekend.

I think I have Lee Gantry's rookie card with the Astros.

Anyone know if the equipment is all expected to be up this year?  I'm potting my ticket captures and am curious how long I have.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on February 23, 2016, 08:46:48 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 23, 2016, 07:44:54 PM

Quote from: jpdailey14 on February 23, 2016, 05:51:41 PM
The Lee gantry was up as of this weekend.

I think I have Lee Gantry's rookie card with the Astros.

Anyone know if the equipment is all expected to be up this year?  I'm potting my ticket captures and am curious how long I have.

LOL. I was through there 2 weeks ago and only the supports were up.

Everything I've seen still says it's going live this year.

Quote from: Alps on February 20, 2016, 10:28:38 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2016, 01:06:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on February 19, 2016, 09:50:34 AMWith AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.
True, but I believe that Massachusetts may be the only state that's presently reverting back to a 2-way toll collection at its bridge/tunnel crossings simultaneously (harbor tunnels only) with the its AET conversion.
Port Authority (NY/NJ) considered it but years ago decided not to. Since they still haven't implemented it, it's always possible, but would require cooperation with the NY Thruway (which is AET so could presumably add the other direction). I don't think they need to worry about the bridges farther upstream, since the eastbound tolls are already so low that one-way vs. two-way shouldn't matter for shunpiking.

Or PANYNJ could just toll WB trucks, similar to what NYSTA does with Spring Valley. Discourage the long-distance truckers from going that way.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on February 24, 2016, 09:35:54 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 23, 2016, 07:44:54 PM

Quote from: jpdailey14 on February 23, 2016, 05:51:41 PM
The Lee gantry was up as of this weekend.

I think I have Lee Gantry's rookie card with the Astros.

Anyone know if the equipment is all expected to be up this year?  I'm potting my ticket captures and am curious how long I have.

The "Go Live" date for AET activation is presently scheduled for October of 2016.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 25, 2016, 10:22:12 AM
Several of those AET gantries are up. There's also one spanning the road immediately west of the westbound Framingham rest stop. This picture is westbound, near the state police barracks in Weston.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fzgr6nzj.jpg&hash=4fce2f2092fccb08328848f44e014da4b21098b1)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on February 25, 2016, 05:50:11 PM
Also, the small green "time to destination" signs are starting to pop up. There's now several on US 3 north of Burlington. They are not activated yet, as they just went up in the past couple of days.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 01, 2016, 12:20:19 PM
I've posted some I-95 Add-A-Lane project photos, along with images of a few of the new electronic toll gantries installed on the Mass Pike, and some I-84 in MA signage photos (along with new signs on I-395 in CT) on this blog post: http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/02/road-trip-to-future.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/02/road-trip-to-future.html)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 01, 2016, 12:26:35 PM
Link to MassDOT press release blaming contractor error for delay in completing the Commonwealth Ave. bridge work over the Mass Pike. The good news, the closed fourth lane in the area will be opened until work starts again in 2017: http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-announces-i-90commonwealth-avenue-bridge-project-schedule-update/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-announces-i-90commonwealth-avenue-bridge-project-schedule-update/)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on March 01, 2016, 02:37:42 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 25, 2016, 10:22:12 AM
Several of those AET gantries are up. There's also one spanning the road immediately west of the westbound Framingham rest stop. This picture is westbound, near the state police barracks in Weston.

Most of those which are up are also powered up and running in "test" mode.  You can see, especially at night, the flash of the cameras taking license plate pictures of those vehicles without E-ZPass tags.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on March 01, 2016, 07:00:01 PM
I noticed this morning that they have restored "HOV 2+" status to the on and off ramps at I-90 on I-93.  All of the "white out" has been removed from all the signs to reveal the original directive.  Also, the 6-10 AM passenger car access on Bypass Road is gone.  They have reinforced that it is only open to commercial traffic and placed white-out over the 6-10 AM allowance.  Does anyone know why they had a change of heart on allowing more access to these roads?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 01, 2016, 11:41:03 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on March 01, 2016, 07:00:01 PM
I noticed this morning that they have restored "HOV 2+" status to the on and off ramps at I-90 on I-93.  All of the "white out" has been removed from all the signs to reveal the original directive.  Also, the 6-10 AM passenger car access on Bypass Road is gone.  They have reinforced that it is only open to commercial traffic and placed white-out over the 6-10 AM allowance.  Does anyone know why they had a change of heart on allowing more access to these roads?
The opening of the HOV lanes to all traffic and allowing use of the Bypass Road for the morning commute was part of a 6-month study which ended a couple weeks ago. There's more in this MassDOT blog entry:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/south-boston-bypass-road-six-month-pilot-program-ends/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/south-boston-bypass-road-six-month-pilot-program-ends/)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 02, 2016, 12:04:05 AM
I have driven that area plenty at rush hour before the latest round of development.  It's pretty bad.  I don't think these couple of minor adjustments are going to make do given the volumes this piece predicts.

The "Piers Transitway" was discussed as allowing for eventual conversion to light rail (though no provision exists in this regard for the airport leg).  What should have been built was an Orange Line heavy rail spur from Back Bay to the airport, but there was too much "that's twenty years from now" going on.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 03, 2016, 07:13:15 PM
Found these a while ago on MA 25 just before Exit 3.  Going back through Street View shows that they've been there since summer, 2011.  Does anyone here know what they are used for?  Contra-flow maybe?

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7597047,-70.5942665,3a,37.5y,233.42h,79.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp1o1CpBV38lZ9aU1fK_buA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7597047,-70.5942665,3a,37.5y,233.42h,79.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp1o1CpBV38lZ9aU1fK_buA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: noelbotevera on March 03, 2016, 07:14:17 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 03, 2016, 07:13:15 PM
Found these a while ago on MA 25 just before Exit 3.  Going back through Street View shows that they've been there since summer, 2011.  Does anyone here know what they are used for?  Contra-flow maybe?

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7597047,-70.5942665,3a,37.5y,233.42h,79.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp1o1CpBV38lZ9aU1fK_buA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7597047,-70.5942665,3a,37.5y,233.42h,79.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp1o1CpBV38lZ9aU1fK_buA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Looks like it. There's warning stripes and some sort of gate that raises up and down.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 03, 2016, 10:29:10 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 03, 2016, 07:14:17 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 03, 2016, 07:13:15 PM
Found these a while ago on MA 25 just before Exit 3.  Going back through Street View shows that they've been there since summer, 2011.  Does anyone here know what they are used for?  Contra-flow maybe?

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7597047,-70.5942665,3a,37.5y,233.42h,79.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp1o1CpBV38lZ9aU1fK_buA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7597047,-70.5942665,3a,37.5y,233.42h,79.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp1o1CpBV38lZ9aU1fK_buA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Looks like it. There's warning stripes and some sort of gate that raises up and down.
Hopefully they'll take down that Formerly Exit 2 sign still up last October by the time the US 6 exit becomes Exit 10 and its Formerly Exit 3.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 04, 2016, 09:35:59 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 03, 2016, 07:14:17 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 03, 2016, 07:13:15 PM
Found these a while ago on MA 25 just before Exit 3.  Going back through Street View shows that they've been there since summer, 2011.  Does anyone here know what they are used for?  Contra-flow maybe?

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7597047,-70.5942665,3a,37.5y,233.42h,79.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp1o1CpBV38lZ9aU1fK_buA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7597047,-70.5942665,3a,37.5y,233.42h,79.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp1o1CpBV38lZ9aU1fK_buA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Looks like it. There's warning stripes and some sort of gate that raises up and down.
This is a steel moveable barrier that's used to block Route 25 eastbound when the Bourne Bridge is closed to Cape bound traffic as part of the established MEMA evacuation plan for Cape Cod.  That's the plan that will be implemented when a major hurricane is forecast to hit the Cape and islands.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on March 05, 2016, 01:31:41 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 23, 2016, 07:44:54 PM

Quote from: jpdailey14 on February 23, 2016, 05:51:41 PM
The Lee gantry was up as of this weekend.

I think I have Lee Gantry's rookie card with the Astros.

Anyone know if the equipment is all expected to be up this year?  I'm potting my ticket captures and am curious how long I have.

As of this weekend, the overhead gantries and equipment seem to be fully in place at the Lee, Westfield, Ludlow, Southboro, Framingham and Weston sites.   

Warren, Charlton, and Hopkinton sites have the support posts installed but no overhead gantry in place yet.

At Blandford, the support posts are in place beside the WB roadway, with nothing yet installed on the EB side.

I didn't go east of I-95 so I'm not sure about the ones on the extension.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 05, 2016, 06:54:08 PM
I was last on the Turnpike February 25th. I didn't see anything different east of the Weston toll plaza.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on March 14, 2016, 06:06:45 PM
I-95 / MA 128 South, between exits 34 and 33B:
____________
|        [2]       |
|   6 MILES     |
|___ MINUTES|
|---------------|
|      (90)       |
|   10 MILES   |
|___ MINUTES|
____________


(The "10" in the bottom half might be some other number.) The blanks were electronic signs that were off.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 14, 2016, 10:07:29 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 14, 2016, 06:06:45 PM
I-95 / MA 128 South, between exits 34 and 33B:
____________
|        [2]       |
|   6 MILES     |
|___ MINUTES|
|---------------|
|      (90)       |
|   10 MILES   |
|___ MINUTES|
____________


(The "10" in the bottom half might be some other number.) The blanks were electronic signs that were off.
Could the number have been 13? The distance from Exit 33 (Mile 52) to Route 2 (Mile 46) is 6 miles while the distance to the Mass Pike (Mile 39) From Exit 33 is 13.

Glad to see the signs are moving south, from other reports they previously have been put up along US 3, where they were in test mode. Will be interesting to see what exits they use going further south. Will a sign after MA 2 have I-90 and I-95, or something closer, such as US 1.

According to the project listing (Project 607422) the contractor is currently working both on Routes 128 and 140 (as of 2/26) and the project is 27% complete.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on March 14, 2016, 10:51:27 PM
The signs on US 3 angle for major destinations.

Heading Northbound:

Just after Exit 26:

I-495
New Hampshire State Line

There is not one after 495 heading Northbound, at least, not that I saw driving up this weekend. It's possible that I may have missed it. Since they may only have data to the NH state line, they may have omitted it.

Southbound:

Right after the NH State line:

I-495
I-95

After Exit 29:

I-95
I-93 via 95 N

After Exit 26

I-93
US 20 in Waltham

I don't remember the exact mileage, but the intervals are generally 6-10 miles inbetween the destinations.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 14, 2016, 11:54:34 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 14, 2016, 10:07:29 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 14, 2016, 06:06:45 PM
I-95 / MA 128 South, between exits 34 and 33B:
____________
|        [2]       |
|   6 MILES     |
|___ MINUTES|
|---------------|
|      (90)       |
|   10 MILES   |
|___ MINUTES|
____________


(The "10" in the bottom half might be some other number.) The blanks were electronic signs that were off.
Could the number have been 13? The distance from Exit 33 (Mile 52) to Route 2 (Mile 46) is 6 miles while the distance to the Mass Pike (Mile 39) From Exit 33 is 13.

Glad to see the signs are moving south, from other reports they previously have been put up along US 3, where they were in test mode. Will be interesting to see what exits they use going further south. Will a sign after MA 2 have I-90 and I-95, or something closer, such as US 1.

According to the project listing (Project 607422) the contractor is currently working both on Routes 128 and 140 (as of 2/26) and the project is 27% complete.
I decided to do some research to see if I could answer my questions above. I found the project bid page from September 2014 that has sketches of all the proposed signs. The answer to the mileage or I-90 is 12, despite the 13 miles between mileposts, the next sign is in Waltham and will read I-90 3 Miles, I-93 via I-90 East 14 miles.

The sketch images are available through links here: https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-14-1030-0H100-0H002-00000000718&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-14-1030-0H100-0H002-00000000718&external=true&parentUrl=bid)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 20, 2016, 09:40:24 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 14, 2016, 11:54:34 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 14, 2016, 10:07:29 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 14, 2016, 06:06:45 PM
I-95 / MA 128 South, between exits 34 and 33B:
____________
|        [2]       |
|   6 MILES     |
|___ MINUTES|
|---------------|
|      (90)       |
|   10 MILES   |
|___ MINUTES|
____________


(The "10" in the bottom half might be some other number.) The blanks were electronic signs that were off.
Could the number have been 13? The distance from Exit 33 (Mile 52) to Route 2 (Mile 46) is 6 miles while the distance to the Mass Pike (Mile 39) From Exit 33 is 13.

Glad to see the signs are moving south, from other reports they previously have been put up along US 3, where they were in test mode. Will be interesting to see what exits they use going further south. Will a sign after MA 2 have I-90 and I-95, or something closer, such as US 1.

According to the project listing (Project 607422) the contractor is currently working both on Routes 128 and 140 (as of 2/26) and the project is 27% complete.
I decided to do some research to see if I could answer my questions above. I found the project bid page from September 2014 that has sketches of all the proposed signs. The answer to the mileage or I-90 is 12, despite the 13 miles between mileposts, the next sign is in Waltham and will read I-90 3 Miles, I-93 via I-90 East 14 miles.

The sketch images are available through links here: https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-14-1030-0H100-0H002-00000000718&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-14-1030-0H100-0H002-00000000718&external=true&parentUrl=bid)
If you would prefer not to go through the contract documents for the sign sketches, I have posted copies of most of them, by route, along with some comments, in Part B of my Misc. Massachusetts Highway Photos site: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 26, 2016, 06:47:30 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 20, 2016, 09:40:24 PM
If you would prefer not to go through the contract documents for the sign sketches, I have posted copies of most of them, by route, along with some comments, in Part B of my Misc. Massachusetts Highway Photos site: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html)
I have posted a couple of photos of the signs recently installed along I-95 south of Boston. This is one of three I saw this afternoon just before the Neponset Street exit on I-95 North:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs32616f.jpg&hash=eac55e94b5aa8fa0ca1aef83db4c908eb7916000)

There were two others, one on I-95 South before the US 1 exit in Dedham, the other further south just after the exit ramp for Coney Street in Walpole, the photo of the first is posted in place of the sketch of the sign in the link above (all the signs were identical to the sketches).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on March 27, 2016, 11:40:49 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 05, 2016, 06:54:08 PMI was last on the Turnpike February 25th. I didn't see anything different east of the Weston toll plaza.

My daily commute takes me along Lincoln Street in Allston/Brighton, which parallels the MassPike just west of the toll barrier.  A portion of the chain-link fence has been temporarily made easily removable to permit work on the tolling point from Lincoln Street.  Work has been going on since December.  The equipment shelter and emergency generator are in place, but the foundations for the gantry haven't been placed yet.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 27, 2016, 10:59:04 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 15, 2016, 11:13:48 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on January 14, 2016, 11:23:12 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 11, 2016, 08:30:44 PM
I took a quick road trip on Sunday along part of the I-95/128 corridor. I checked out some of the new guide or paddle signs installed as part of the renovation of the University Ave/RR Station exit in Westwood. I also checked out progress on the Add-A-Lane project in the Needham area. Clearing the area for bridge work in the MA 9 area has removed the existing overhead BGSs that were replaced by temporary signage.

Will Kendrick St. become the new Exit 19A and Highland Ave. become Exits 19B-C?  Is Kendrick St. only accessible from 95/128 SB?
On the map at the project website the Kendrick St. exit is labeled 19A (though by the time it is completed next fall, the number could be 35A), the Highland Avenue exit is not labeled. Kendrick St. will be accessible from both directions with a C/D ramp built between Kendrick St. and Highland Ave. There will be a new flyover ramp that will take traffic from Kendrick St. to I-95 North. Hard to tell if southbound traffic from Highland Ave. will be able to access I-95 directly or only from the new on-ramp from Kendrick St.

The MassDOT website: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/HighlightedProjects/NeedhamWellesleyI95AddALane.aspx (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/HighlightedProjects/NeedhamWellesleyI95AddALane.aspx)
MassDOT has added a new diagram to their AddALane Project website which goes into greater detail as to the final ramp alignments for the Highland Ave./Kendrick St. and MA 9 interchanges. I've posted a copy on my I-95 Photo Gallery site:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95addalaneneedhamramps.jpg&hash=3d0ab2bde18131c83dd42ceed34d6823e524f952)

Looks like, though their adding an entrance ramp NB, their combining the ramps to Highland Avenue into one meaning there will still be only A and B exits as currently. Traffic to I-95 SB from Highland Ave. will have to cross Kendrick St. first.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on March 27, 2016, 11:02:39 PM
OH MY GOD PARCLO B4
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on March 27, 2016, 11:20:05 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 27, 2016, 11:02:39 PM
OH MY GOD PARCLO B4

A certain user would be very happy to see that. Not naming names...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: noelbotevera on March 27, 2016, 11:23:06 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 27, 2016, 11:02:39 PM
OH MY GOD PARCLO B4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdf5n-zI14

--------------------------------------------------------------
It's really strange that I-95 MA 128 SB does this maneuver while I-95 MA 128 NB goes straight through. Also, if the Highland Avenue traffic wants to enter I-95 SB, won't the Kendrick St. interchange conflict with the movement?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 29, 2016, 11:12:57 PM
Still there in the Chic!
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1581/26032502402_a3ab04089f_c.jpg)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1587/25851579000_df5086c153_c.jpg)

and some recent signage:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1698/25519395654_d7fe1d88bb_c.jpg)

and on I-291
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1544/25519395464_50c3baf54d_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on March 30, 2016, 01:11:39 AM
they have those travel time signs on US 3 South in Tyngsboro also. I don't remember the exact layout but the two things it was measuring distance to was I-495 and I-95. I don't remember seeing any on I-495 between US 3 and I-290 then again it was night time I was heading northbound and i was VERY TIRED trying to drive up to Nashua, and Southbound I was not really looking for them on 495.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on March 30, 2016, 08:40:25 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 26, 2016, 06:47:30 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 20, 2016, 09:40:24 PM
If you would prefer not to go through the contract documents for the sign sketches, I have posted copies of most of them, by route, along with some comments, in Part B of my Misc. Massachusetts Highway Photos site: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html)
I have posted a couple of photos of the signs recently installed along I-95 south of Boston. This is one of three I saw this afternoon just before the Neponset Street exit on I-95 North:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95signs32616f.jpg&hash=eac55e94b5aa8fa0ca1aef83db4c908eb7916000)

There were two others, one on I-95 South before the US 1 exit in Dedham, the other further south just after the exit ramp for Coney Street in Walpole, the photo of the first is posted in place of the sketch of the sign in the link above (all the signs were identical to the sketches).

Son of a bitch. The current travel time PCMS is AFTER the Neponset Street exit, not before. I get on at Neponset Street every day.

I wonder if there is a mobile app that accesses this same data?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on March 30, 2016, 08:44:06 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 27, 2016, 11:23:06 PMIt's really strange that I-95 MA 128 SB does this maneuver while I-95 MA 128 NB goes straight through. Also, if the Highland Avenue traffic wants to enter I-95 SB, won't the Kendrick St. interchange conflict with the movement?
Here's an aerial view (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3067742,-71.2229842,2858m/data=!3m1!1e3) of the area that the not-to-scale graphic's loosely based on.

IMHO, I still believe that converting the Route 9 cloverleaf into a parclo is a mistake given the traffic volumes and the number of traffic lights already on that road.  If MassDOT wanted to experiment with such on this particular project; the Highland Ave. interchange would've been a better candidate for a conversion IMHO.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on April 03, 2016, 10:42:54 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 30, 2016, 08:44:06 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 27, 2016, 11:23:06 PMIt's really strange that I-95 MA 128 SB does this maneuver while I-95 MA 128 NB goes straight through. Also, if the Highland Avenue traffic wants to enter I-95 SB, won't the Kendrick St. interchange conflict with the movement?
Here's an aerial view (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3067742,-71.2229842,2858m/data=!3m1!1e3) of the area that the not-to-scale graphic's loosely based on.

IMHO, I still believe that converting the Route 9 cloverleaf into a parclo is a mistake given the traffic volumes and the number of traffic lights already on that road.  If MassDOT wanted to experiment with such on this particular project; the Highland Ave. interchange would've been a better candidate for a conversion IMHO.
I have posted some new photos taken yesterday (4/2) traveling through the construction zone southbound, available at:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html#addalane (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html#addalane)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on April 05, 2016, 09:04:29 PM
Another forum tipped me off to this page:

http://massdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/PublicGallery/index.html?appid=29085e10d60743cf9a37d62b5fe8b83d

You can view Mass state maps from the 1930s up to 2009.  City inserts, Boston detail (inside 128 and center city), and Mass Pike toll tickets.... it's all there.  There's also a 1970s Texaco tri-state (CT-RI-MA) map and a Mass Pike map in there as well.  Some of those old maps even show exit listings, not just for the Mass Pike, but for 128 as well.  Also one of them shows I-95 exits south of 128 being numbered based on the "#25 is 128" system.  I knew the SE Exp'y, Rt 3 South, Rt 24, Rt 3 North, and 93N all used that system but didn't know 95S did as well.


But wait... there's more:


This link shows current maps:
http://massdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/PublicGallery/index.html?appid=8e959aade58249f3be95a96e48c52ff0

Included in those maps are rest areas, ITS locations, road-by-road milepost location, park & ride, national highway system, and more.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on April 05, 2016, 11:11:14 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 05, 2016, 09:04:29 PM
Another forum tipped me off to this page:

http://massdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/PublicGallery/index.html?appid=29085e10d60743cf9a37d62b5fe8b83d

You can view Mass state maps from the 1930s up to 2009.  City inserts, Boston detail (inside 128 and center city), and Mass Pike toll tickets.... it's all there.  There's also a 1970s Texaco tri-state (CT-RI-MA) map and a Mass Pike map in there as well.  Some of those old maps even show exit listings, not just for the Mass Pike, but for 128 as well.  Also one of them shows I-95 exits south of 128 being numbered based on the "#25 is 128" system.  I knew the SE Exp'y, Rt 3 South, Rt 24, Rt 3 North, and 93N all used that system but didn't know 95S did as well.


But wait... there's more:


This link shows current maps:
http://massdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/PublicGallery/index.html?appid=8e959aade58249f3be95a96e48c52ff0

Included in those maps are rest areas, ITS locations, road-by-road milepost location, park & ride, national highway system, and more.
Good find. Could probably spend a few hours perusing all the items. A quick look at the last map listed, a 1974 Texaco CT/MA/RI has a I-95 shield on the SE Expressway on the Boston Inset as well as along the NE Expressway. The first map I've seen showing that short-term designation. The 1973 official Mass. map had someone has highlighted all the 'I-Routes' in the state which include 128 from Canton to Braintree being labeled I-93. If from 1973, this would be the earliest reference to this designation, however, this could have been done at  later date.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on April 05, 2016, 11:42:17 PM
NICE.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on April 06, 2016, 09:14:35 AM
QuoteThe 1973 official Mass. map had someone has highlighted all the 'I-Routes' in the state which include 128 from Canton to Braintree being labeled I-93. If from 1973, this would be the earliest reference to this designation, however, this could have been done at  later date.

As the I-95 and I-93 reroutings over MA 128 were not approved by FHWA until January of 1975, it's reasonable to presume that the 1973 map was indeed altered at a later date.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on April 06, 2016, 09:21:04 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 05, 2016, 09:04:29 PM
Another forum tipped me off to this page:

http://massdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/PublicGallery/index.html?appid=29085e10d60743cf9a37d62b5fe8b83d

You can view Mass state maps from the 1930s up to 2009.  City inserts, Boston detail (inside 128 and center city), and Mass Pike toll tickets.... it's all there.  There's also a 1970s Texaco tri-state (CT-RI-MA) map and a Mass Pike map in there as well.  Some of those old maps even show exit listings, not just for the Mass Pike, but for 128 as well.  Also one of them shows I-95 exits south of 128 being numbered based on the "#25 is 128" system.  I knew the SE Exp'y, Rt 3 South, Rt 24, Rt 3 North, and 93N all used that system but didn't know 95S did as well.
Great find.  I've already saved that link to my Favorites.

I knew that 128's Exit 9 in Gloucester numbers weren't the original ones; but I wasn't aware that the change was made in 1962... I thought such a change was made circa 1959.  Maybe it took a few years for the map(s) to catch up.

The state's 1961 map inadvertently predicted the future (at from 1974-1989) by showing an I-95 shield on US 1 just north of 128.

Quote from: roadman on April 06, 2016, 09:14:35 AM
QuoteThe 1973 official Mass. map had someone has highlighted all the 'I-Routes' in the state which include 128 from Canton to Braintree being labeled I-93. If from 1973, this would be the earliest reference to this designation, however, this could have been done at  later date.

As the I-95 and I-93 reroutings over MA 128 were not approved by FHWA until January of 1975, it's reasonable to presume that the 1973 map was indeed altered at a later date.
I concur. My grandfather has a copy of the 1973 state roadmap (I regret not telling my father to send it to me when he moved my grandfather out of his apartment during the early 90s) and such contained no such references of I-93 extending south of the Northeast Expressway.  Plus, a 1973 map showed Gov. Frank Sargent's picture; Mike Dukakis was governor when the first maps started showing the new I-95 & 93 routings.

It's worth noting that the 1973 map in that link is marked up with the words Proposed I-System with all the Interstate routes (present and then-future) marked by hand in black ink.  This was clearly somebody's (at MassDPW perhaps?) mark-up.  I love how the Route 128 exit number listings description still describes the then-21 year old Yankee Division Highway as the New Route 128.  It also lists Exit 29 as For Future Use (for I-95) and Exit 63N as Future (for what would have been I-95 North).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 06, 2016, 11:25:14 AM
It's fun looking at the Massachusetts state road maps, watching what would eventually be I-395 coming into existence. The road was only completed to Exit 1 in Webster on the 1971 map. Then it was finished to just north of the Webster/Oxford town line in 1973. I also see when I-190 for the northern stretches of Worcester will still being proposed. I-391 in Chicopee was shown as proposed by 1977. It looks like I-395 was completed to the Massachusetts Turnpike around 1978 or so.

As for the Texaco map from 1974: It had East Hartford to the Massachusetts state line as I-86 AND CT 15. Interesting. It looks like they also had US Route 44 along that stretch to Willington. Is that correct? Also, they had what was the completed portion of I-395 in Webster/Oxford as MA Route 193.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on April 06, 2016, 11:29:43 AM
Pittsfield bypass shows up as proposed in 1969, disappears in 1975. RIP.

Also, the Lowell Connector was marked as 495 Spur all the way to the 1984 map.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on April 06, 2016, 12:25:21 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on April 06, 2016, 11:29:43 AM
Also, the Lowell Connector was marked as 495 Spur all the way to the 1984 map.

Yet, in all that time, there were never any 495 Business Spur shields actually placed on guide signs for the Lowell Connector exits from I-495 or US 3.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on April 06, 2016, 02:13:14 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 06, 2016, 12:25:21 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on April 06, 2016, 11:29:43 AM
Also, the Lowell Connector was marked as 495 Spur all the way to the 1984 map.

Yet, in all that time, there were never any 495 Business Spur shields actually placed on guide signs for the Lowell Connector exits from I-495 or US 3.
That's because apparently it was never designated as a Business Interstate by the state. It was federally assigned, and adopted by mapmakers and trailblazers were all over Lowell (one shield remained until a few years ago), but was never officially on the books in Mass.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on April 06, 2016, 02:39:30 PM
I didn't think it was actually marked like that on maps, which was a surprise to me. One of those "learn something new every day."
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on April 06, 2016, 03:08:47 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 06, 2016, 11:25:14 AM
As for the Texaco map from 1974: It had East Hartford to the Massachusetts state line as I-86 AND CT 15. Interesting. It looks like they also had US Route 44 along that stretch to Willington. Is that correct? Also, they had what was the completed portion of I-395 in Webster/Oxford as MA Route 193.

Yup, that would've been correct.  I-86 and CT 15 were cosigned.  Originally, Mashapaug Road was MA 15.  The exit numbers on the CT portion were an extension of those from CT 15's.  Exit 1 would've been at the Whitestone Bridge in New York City, as those numbers back then were contiguous with the Hutchinson Parkway, Merritt Parkway, up CT 15 to the Mass state line. 

And for some reason, yes, US 44 was cosigned with I-86 and CT 15 up to Willington (today's Exit 69/CT 74).  So it got on I-84 in Hartford, exited in East Hartford at today's Exit 53, and got back on at today's Exit 60.  US 6 got on in Farmington and exited at today's Exit 60.  Today's US 44 through Manchester out to Willington was signed US 44A, until it was rerouted to its present route.  At that time, CT 74 got extended east of I-84/Exit 69. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on April 06, 2016, 05:58:23 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 06, 2016, 02:13:14 PM
That's because apparently it was never designated as a Business Interstate by the state. It was federally assigned, and adopted by mapmakers and trailblazers were all over Lowell (one shield remained until a few years ago), but was never officially on the books in Mass.

I believe you have the actual situation backwards.  Based on extensive research of available MassDPW plans and other internal records, I've determined that it was MassDPW that designated the road as a Business Spur (as evidenced by the fact the trailblazers in Lowell were fabricated by the MassDPW sign shop and presumably installed by District forces), but the designation was never officially sanctioned by AASHO or BPR.

Had AASHO or BPR officially given the Lowell Connector the I-495 Business Spur designation (which seems highly unlikely without the state requesting it first - which there is no evidence of in the records I've reviewed), then why wouldn't I-495 Business Spur shields have been placed on the exit signs on I-495 and US 3 for the Connector?  And if the state did not officially recognize the designation, then why would the state highway department place trailblazer assemblies for it on local streets?

As for the state and gas company maps having the I-495 Spur designation on them, be reminded that companies like Rand McNally and the like get their information about roadway changes to update maps and guides from the individual states, and not from the Federal Government.  Plus, if the state didn't officially recognize the designation, then why would it have been included on highway maps issued by the state?  An error in one year perhaps, but it carried over through multiple years.

As I've indicated in my responses in previous threads about both the Lowell Connector and Business Loop/Spur designations, I have spent considerable time researching this issue.  As such, and with due respect to your views, unless you or somebody else out here can produce physical evidence (by either scanning or linking to specific documents) to support the contention that the I-495 Business Spur designation was officially sanctioned at the Federal level but not actually recognized by Massachusetts, I am sticking to my story.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on April 06, 2016, 06:53:40 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 06, 2016, 05:58:23 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 06, 2016, 02:13:14 PM
That's because apparently it was never designated as a Business Interstate by the state. It was federally assigned, and adopted by mapmakers and trailblazers were all over Lowell (one shield remained until a few years ago), but was never officially on the books in Mass.

I believe you have the actual situation backwards.  Based on extensive research of available MassDPW plans and other internal records, I've determined that it was MassDPW that designated the road as a Business Spur (as evidenced by the fact the trailblazers in Lowell were fabricated by the MassDPW sign shop and presumably installed by District forces), but the designation was never officially sanctioned by AASHO or BPR.

Had AASHO or BPR officially given the Lowell Connector the I-495 Business Spur designation (which seems highly unlikely without the state requesting it first - which there is no evidence of in the records I've reviewed), then why wouldn't I-495 Business Spur shields have been placed on the exit signs on I-495 and US 3 for the Connector?  And if the state did not officially recognize the designation, then why would the state highway department place trailblazer assemblies for it on local streets?

As for the state and gas company maps having the I-495 Spur designation on them, be reminded that companies like Rand McNally and the like get their information about roadway changes to update maps and guides from the individual states, and not from the Federal Government.  Plus, if the state didn't officially recognize the designation, then why would it have been included on highway maps issued by the state?  An error in one year perhaps, but it carried over through multiple years.

As I've indicated in my responses in previous threads about both the Lowell Connector and Business Loop/Spur designations, I have spent considerable time researching this issue.  As such, and with due respect to your views, unless you or somebody else out here can produce physical evidence (by either scanning or linking to specific documents) to support the contention that the I-495 Business Spur designation was officially sanctioned at the Federal level but not actually recognized by Massachusetts, I am sticking to my story.

My research amounts to one email exchange with an official in 2010, which I no longer have so I was just going off of memory, and could easily have gotten them backwards. I'll go with your version for sure, you seem to have the topic blanketed really well.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on April 07, 2016, 12:12:12 AM
There are many business Interstates that have not been approved by AASHTO (FHWA doesn't care about business routes). They are fully signed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on April 07, 2016, 01:48:41 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 07, 2016, 12:12:12 AM
There are many business Interstates that have not been approved by AASHTO (FHWA doesn't care about business routes). They are fully signed.

Point taken.  However, regardless of who sanctioned the route, I still find it curious that MassDPW would place I-495 Business Spur signs on intersecting streets within Lowell, but not on either the Connector mainline or on I-495 or US 3 where they intersect the Connector.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on April 10, 2016, 07:50:11 AM
Progress continues on the Masspike's open road tolling project. The gantry for the Charlton readers was being installed tonight (and I was stuck in traffic as it had closed down two of three lanes). Meanwhile, the gantry in Ludlow was active tonight, presumably doing live testing.

It was interesting observing what I could as I drove past. The entire gantry is one pre-made structure that gets hoisted upon the previously laid supports by a crane. It had all of the equipment already mounted on it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on April 10, 2016, 12:50:11 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 07, 2016, 01:48:41 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 07, 2016, 12:12:12 AM
There are many business Interstates that have not been approved by AASHTO (FHWA doesn't care about business routes). They are fully signed.

Point taken.  However, regardless of who sanctioned the route, I still find it curious that MassDPW would place I-495 Business Spur signs on intersecting streets within Lowell, but not on either the Connector mainline or on I-495 or US 3 where they intersect the Connector.

My theory is that it was to eliminate confusion. There were no other business Interstates in Massachusetts at the time, so drivers may not understand the difference between a green shield and a red and blue one. They may have incorrectly assumed that BS-495 was actually I-495, not understanding the difference.

Now for the trailblazers, it could be argued that since nearly all traffic getting on the connector is bound for the I-495/US-3 interchange, signing BS-495 from the streets would be less confusing because nearly all traffic is trying to reach I-495 anyway.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on April 10, 2016, 02:41:48 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 10, 2016, 12:50:11 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 07, 2016, 01:48:41 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 07, 2016, 12:12:12 AM
There are many business Interstates that have not been approved by AASHTO (FHWA doesn't care about business routes). They are fully signed.

Point taken.  However, regardless of who sanctioned the route, I still find it curious that MassDPW would place I-495 Business Spur signs on intersecting streets within Lowell, but not on either the Connector mainline or on I-495 or US 3 where they intersect the Connector.

My theory is that it was to eliminate confusion. There were no other business Interstates in Massachusetts at the time
Or... ever? For that matter, there are no other business Interstates in New England. (NH had one, CT apparently had two I was never aware of.) The next closest one still extant is Business I-83 in York, PA.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on April 10, 2016, 11:39:56 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 10, 2016, 02:41:48 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 10, 2016, 12:50:11 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 07, 2016, 01:48:41 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 07, 2016, 12:12:12 AM
There are many business Interstates that have not been approved by AASHTO (FHWA doesn't care about business routes). They are fully signed.

Point taken.  However, regardless of who sanctioned the route, I still find it curious that MassDPW would place I-495 Business Spur signs on intersecting streets within Lowell, but not on either the Connector mainline or on I-495 or US 3 where they intersect the Connector.

My theory is that it was to eliminate confusion. There were no other business Interstates in Massachusetts at the time
Or... ever? For that matter, there are no other business Interstates in New England. (NH had one, CT apparently had two I was never aware of.) The next closest one still extant is Business I-83 in York, PA.
Exactly
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on April 11, 2016, 08:44:44 AM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on April 10, 2016, 07:50:11 AM
Progress continues on the Masspike's open road tolling project. The gantry for the Charlton readers was being installed tonight (and I was stuck in traffic as it had closed down two of three lanes). Meanwhile, the gantry in Ludlow was active tonight, presumably doing live testing.

It was interesting observing what I could as I drove past. The entire gantry is one pre-made structure that gets hoisted upon the previously laid supports by a crane. It had all of the equipment already mounted on it.

I heard from someone involved in the work that the overheads were assembled at Westover and then trucked along the Pike for erection at their various locations.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on April 11, 2016, 11:16:09 AM
Quote from: spooky on April 11, 2016, 08:44:44 AM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on April 10, 2016, 07:50:11 AM
Progress continues on the Masspike's open road tolling project. The gantry for the Charlton readers was being installed tonight (and I was stuck in traffic as it had closed down two of three lanes). Meanwhile, the gantry in Ludlow was active tonight, presumably doing live testing.

It was interesting observing what I could as I drove past. The entire gantry is one pre-made structure that gets hoisted upon the previously laid supports by a crane. It had all of the equipment already mounted on it.

I heard from someone involved in the work that the overheads were assembled at Westover and then trucked along the Pike for erection at their various locations.

That's incredible, considering the twisty ramps at exit 5. This gantry has no middle support and it goes across all lanes in one assembly.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on April 12, 2016, 04:02:59 PM
Bids were opened on the I-495 Raynham to Bolton sign replacement project earlier today.  RoadSafe Traffic Systems of Avon, MA is the apparent low responsible bidder.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: yakra on April 13, 2016, 12:24:49 AM
Quote from: roadman on April 12, 2016, 04:02:59 PM
Bids were opened on the I-495 Raynham to Bolton sign replacement project earlier today.  RoadSafe Traffic Systems of Avon, MA is the apparent low responsible bidder.
Sorry if you've already covered this upthread -- is this going to include exit renumbering?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on April 13, 2016, 11:30:17 AM
Quote from: yakra on April 13, 2016, 12:24:49 AM
Quote from: roadman on April 12, 2016, 04:02:59 PM
Bids were opened on the I-495 Raynham to Bolton sign replacement project earlier today.  RoadSafe Traffic Systems of Avon, MA is the apparent low responsible bidder.
Sorry if you've already covered this upthread -- is this going to include exit renumbering?
The project was designed to use milepost-based exit numbers, but that may change.  From the project addenda # 1:

QuoteITEM 828.1 OVERHEAD GUIDE SIGN - SQUARE FOOT
ALUMINUM PANEL (TYPE B)
The work under this item shall conform to the relevant provisions of Section 828 of the Standard
Specifications and the following:
Legend, border, and background of signs shall be High Intensity Prismatic (HIP) retrotreflective
sheeting conforming to ASTM D4956-11a Type VIII or better, except that the banners
indicating TOLL ROAD" , "EXIT ONLY" , etc. shall be fabricated with black opaque legend on
yellow retro-reflective sheeting conforming to ASTM D4956-11a Type VIII or better. .
The project plans and details for these sign panels presume that the existing exit numbers within
the project limits will be converted from the present sequential numbers to a referenced-based
(milepost) numbering system. However, the Contractor is advised that this conversion may now
be deferred until a later date. Accordingly, while the new exit number plates (tabs), gore, and
other signs shall be fabricated of sufficient width to accommodate the future exit numbers, the
Contractor may be directed to provide the current sequential exit numbers on new signs for now.
MassDOT shall inform the Contractor of which numbering scheme to use on new signs prior to
submission of the sign face drawings for review and approval.
(language added in Addenda # 1 - emphasis added)
METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
Item 828.1 will be measured for payment buy the square foot, complete in place,
BASIS OF PAYMENT
Item 828.1 will be paid for at the Contract unit price per square foot, which price shall include
furnishing and installing all materials, labor, equipment tools, appurtenances, and incidentals
necessary to satisfactorily complete the item of work, complete, in place and accepted.

A little birdie (no, not Twitter) told me this language was added as a result of the backlash from the US 6 preliminary design plans.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on April 13, 2016, 01:37:35 PM
Well that's terrible news. If these signs are fabricated with the sequential numbers and this is just going out for bid now, there may not actually be mileage based numbers in Mass until 2017 or 2018 (other than the Mass Pike, which is definitely getting them later this summer). It was supposed to start right around this month, but I guess they need tons more time to come up with a PR initiative that should have already been done.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on April 13, 2016, 03:29:15 PM
A better, compromise solution would be to save the conversion of the US 6 Mid-Cape Highway interchange numbers for last; after all the other Bay State highway interchange numbers are converted.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on April 13, 2016, 06:16:50 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 13, 2016, 03:29:15 PM
A better, compromise solution would be to save the conversion of the US 6 Mid-Cape Highway interchange numbers for last; after all the other Bay State highway interchange numbers are converted.
Agreed.  The way they're going about this, it looks like I-90 will be the only road with mile-based numbers for a long time.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on April 14, 2016, 12:21:21 AM
There should be a new sign at the state line:

"Welcome to Massachusetts: Into the Future Kicking and Screaming"
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on April 14, 2016, 09:27:35 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on April 14, 2016, 12:21:21 AM
There should be a new sign at the state line:

"Welcome to Massachusetts: Into the Future Kicking and Screaming"

"Welcome To Massachusetts: Don't Even Think About Changing Anything"
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: machias on April 14, 2016, 12:09:23 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 13, 2016, 03:29:15 PM
A better, compromise solution would be to save the conversion of the US 6 Mid-Cape Highway interchange numbers for last; after all the other Bay State highway interchange numbers are converted.

I say cancel all sign replacement projects involving an exit number until those kicking and screaming die off.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2016, 12:11:41 PM
Quote from: spooky on April 14, 2016, 09:27:35 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on April 14, 2016, 12:21:21 AM
There should be a new sign at the state line:

"Welcome to Massachusetts: Into the Future Kicking and Screaming"

"Welcome To Massachusetts: Don't Even Think About Changing Anything"

And then don't offer up an alternative solution or be open to the idea of positive change in general.  That's the New England way.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on April 14, 2016, 12:39:42 PM
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if even on the new MassPike signs, they didn't put overlays with the existing exit numbers up "temporarily" until they decide to make the actual conversion.  Especially if they end up chickening out on doing the rest of the state.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on April 14, 2016, 01:14:19 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2016, 12:11:41 PM
Quote from: spooky on April 14, 2016, 09:27:35 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on April 14, 2016, 12:21:21 AM
There should be a new sign at the state line:

"Welcome to Massachusetts: Into the Future Kicking and Screaming"

"Welcome To Massachusetts: Don't Even Think About Changing Anything"

And then don't offer up an alternative solution or be open to the idea of positive change in general.  That's the New England way.
How many of them whined when the 617 area code was split in two circa 1988 (the 508 code was introduced)?

How many of them whined when both the 508 & 617 regions were split again about 10 years later (781 & 978 coded were introduced)?

How many of them whined when 10-digit dialing was made mandatory when overlay codes (774 in the 508 region being one of them)?

How many of them whined when the original exit numbers along 128 changed (to Exit 9 = MA 127A) in the early 60s?

How many of them whined when the exit numbers along I-93 (north of Boston), I-95 (RI to Canton), MA 3 (Braintree to Plymouth) and MA 24 ditched their Exit 25 = MA 128 numbers to more MUTCD-compliant ones (though still sequential) during the 1970s?

How many of them whined when the exit numbers along most of 128 (the I-93 & 95 sections) and the rest of I-93 were changed to reflect their respective Interstate route numbers and lengths (I-93 north of Boston and I-95 north of 128) during the late 1980s?

Long story short, this current flap about pending mile-marker based exit number conversion is mostly a bunch of hot air IMHO.

Where MassDOT dropped the ball (sorry Roadman) was not adequately informing & educating the public about the upcoming change earlier.  In retrospect, MassDOT (or its predecessors) should have selected one highway to try such a conversion first and see what happens.  Then the public, would at least see a nearby example of such, and realize that such a change is not the end of the world as we know it (apologies to R.E.M.). 

IMHO and I've stated such before, I-93 should've been converted to mile-marker based exit numbers immediately following the Big Dig construction (mainly the change from the Central Artery to the O'Neill Tunnel).  The reduced number of exit ramps in the tunnel (vs. the old elevated artery) leaves some gaps in the sequential numbering.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2016, 03:04:12 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 14, 2016, 01:14:19 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2016, 12:11:41 PM
Quote from: spooky on April 14, 2016, 09:27:35 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on April 14, 2016, 12:21:21 AM
There should be a new sign at the state line:

"Welcome to Massachusetts: Into the Future Kicking and Screaming"

"Welcome To Massachusetts: Don't Even Think About Changing Anything"

And then don't offer up an alternative solution or be open to the idea of positive change in general.  That's the New England way.
How many of them whined when the 617 area code was split in two circa 1988 (the 508 code was introduced)?

How many of them whined when both the 508 & 617 regions were split again about 10 years later (781 & 978 coded were introduced)?

How many of them whined when 10-digit dialing was made mandatory when overlay codes (774 in the 508 region being one of them)?

How many of them whined when the original exit numbers along 128 changed (to Exit 9 = MA 127A) in the early 60s?

How many of them whined when the exit numbers along I-93 (north of Boston), I-95 (RI to Canton), MA 3 (Braintree to Plymouth) and MA 24 ditched their Exit 25 = MA 128 numbers to more MUTCD-compliant ones (though still sequential) during the 1970s?

How many of them whined when the exit numbers along most of 128 (the I-93 & 95 sections) and the rest of I-93 were changed to reflect their respective Interstate route numbers and lengths (I-93 north of Boston and I-95 north of 128) during the late 1980s?

Long story short, this current flap about pending mile-marker based exit number conversion is mostly a bunch of hot air IMHO.

Where MassDOT dropped the ball (sorry Roadman) was not adequately informing & educating the public about the upcoming change earlier.  In retrospect, MassDOT (or its predecessors) should have selected one highway to try such a conversion first and see what happens.  Then the public, would at least see a nearby example of such, and realize that such a change is not the end of the world as we know it (apologies to R.E.M.). 

IMHO and I've stated such before, I-93 should've been converted to mile-marker based exit numbers immediately following the Big Dig construction (mainly the change from the Central Artery to the O'Neill Tunnel).  The reduced number of exit ramps in the tunnel (vs. the old elevated artery) leaves some gaps in the sequential numbering.
I agree.  Shoulda taken a page out of ConnDOTs book.  I haven't heard a single peep from anybody or from the local news about I-395s conversion.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 14, 2016, 04:12:47 PM
Maybe they would like some cheese with their whine.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on April 14, 2016, 08:14:21 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 14, 2016, 01:14:19 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2016, 12:11:41 PM
Quote from: spooky on April 14, 2016, 09:27:35 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on April 14, 2016, 12:21:21 AM
There should be a new sign at the state line:

"Welcome to Massachusetts: Into the Future Kicking and Screaming"

"Welcome To Massachusetts: Don't Even Think About Changing Anything"

And then don't offer up an alternative solution or be open to the idea of positive change in general.  That's the New England way.
How many of them whined when the 617 area code was split in two circa 1988 (the 508 code was introduced)?

How many of them whined when both the 508 & 617 regions were split again about 10 years later (781 & 978 coded were introduced)?

How many of them whined when 10-digit dialing was made mandatory when overlay codes (774 in the 508 region being one of them)?

How many of them whined when the original exit numbers along 128 changed (to Exit 9 = MA 127A) in the early 60s?

How many of them whined when the exit numbers along I-93 (north of Boston), I-95 (RI to Canton), MA 3 (Braintree to Plymouth) and MA 24 ditched their Exit 25 = MA 128 numbers to more MUTCD-compliant ones (though still sequential) during the 1970s?

How many of them whined when the exit numbers along most of 128 (the I-93 & 95 sections) and the rest of I-93 were changed to reflect their respective Interstate route numbers and lengths (I-93 north of Boston and I-95 north of 128) during the late 1980s?

Long story short, this current flap about pending mile-marker based exit number conversion is mostly a bunch of hot air IMHO.

Where MassDOT dropped the ball (sorry Roadman) was not adequately informing & educating the public about the upcoming change earlier.  In retrospect, MassDOT (or its predecessors) should have selected one highway to try such a conversion first and see what happens.  Then the public, would at least see a nearby example of such, and realize that such a change is not the end of the world as we know it (apologies to R.E.M.). 
Maybe that will end up being the case with the Mass Pike given that the 2 signing contracts have been awarded and they are separate from the blanket conversion contract. Say to the public you're using the Pike as an "experiment" and see what happens. When the world doesn't end proceed with changing all the other exits a year or two later.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on April 15, 2016, 05:44:22 PM
No need for MassDOT to call proceeding with the exit number conversions on I-90/MassPike an "experiment".  Most of the road has infrequent exits spaced a considerable distance apart.  Plus, even though the MassPike is now controlled by MassDOT and maintained by the applicable District each section of the road runs through, there has been no real effort to remove the Massachusetts Turnpike branding.

IMO, these factors - plus the fact the signs are being replaced anyway - should be sufficient to continue with the I-90 conversion, and to explain to the public why the road is being converted.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 15, 2016, 07:21:07 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2016, 03:04:12 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 14, 2016, 01:14:19 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2016, 12:11:41 PM
Quote from: spooky on April 14, 2016, 09:27:35 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on April 14, 2016, 12:21:21 AM
There should be a new sign at the state line:

"Welcome to Massachusetts: Into the Future Kicking and Screaming"

"Welcome To Massachusetts: Don't Even Think About Changing Anything"

And then don't offer up an alternative solution or be open to the idea of positive change in general.  That's the New England way.
How many of them whined when the 617 area code was split in two circa 1988 (the 508 code was introduced)?

How many of them whined when both the 508 & 617 regions were split again about 10 years later (781 & 978 coded were introduced)?

How many of them whined when 10-digit dialing was made mandatory when overlay codes (774 in the 508 region being one of them)?

How many of them whined when the original exit numbers along 128 changed (to Exit 9 = MA 127A) in the early 60s?

How many of them whined when the exit numbers along I-93 (north of Boston), I-95 (RI to Canton), MA 3 (Braintree to Plymouth) and MA 24 ditched their Exit 25 = MA 128 numbers to more MUTCD-compliant ones (though still sequential) during the 1970s?

How many of them whined when the exit numbers along most of 128 (the I-93 & 95 sections) and the rest of I-93 were changed to reflect their respective Interstate route numbers and lengths (I-93 north of Boston and I-95 north of 128) during the late 1980s?

Long story short, this current flap about pending mile-marker based exit number conversion is mostly a bunch of hot air IMHO.

Where MassDOT dropped the ball (sorry Roadman) was not adequately informing & educating the public about the upcoming change earlier.  In retrospect, MassDOT (or its predecessors) should have selected one highway to try such a conversion first and see what happens.  Then the public, would at least see a nearby example of such, and realize that such a change is not the end of the world as we know it (apologies to R.E.M.). 

IMHO and I've stated such before, I-93 should've been converted to mile-marker based exit numbers immediately following the Big Dig construction (mainly the change from the Central Artery to the O'Neill Tunnel).  The reduced number of exit ramps in the tunnel (vs. the old elevated artery) leaves some gaps in the sequential numbering.
I agree.  Shoulda taken a page out of ConnDOTs book.  I haven't heard a single peep from anybody or from the local news about I-395s conversion.

That's because hardly anyone uses I-395, especially north of the CT 2A exit for Mohegan.  When the 2di's are up for conversion in CT, the people of MA will seem to be space age dwellers by comparison.  Lest we forget, CT was the last state in the contiguous US to raise their speed limit to 65 post-national speed limit law.  They were one of the last states to allow Sunday liquor sales.  Wait until the exit numbers in The Land of Steady Habits are changed. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on April 24, 2016, 10:49:00 PM
I have a question about the Rourke Bridge over the Merrimack in Lowell. I drove over it today and noticed it is a "temporary" Bailey bridge. With further research, I discovered that it was installed in 1983. Was there previously a "normal" bridge at this location? Also, will the "temporary structure" ever be replaced?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: deathtopumpkins on April 27, 2016, 10:53:42 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 24, 2016, 10:49:00 PM
I have a question about the Rourke Bridge over the Merrimack in Lowell. I drove over it today and noticed it is a "temporary" Bailey bridge. With further research, I discovered that it was installed in 1983. Was there previously a "normal" bridge at this location? Also, will the "temporary structure" ever be replaced?

Historic Aerials says no, there was not previously a bridge there, at least not according to imagery from 1938 to 1978:
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on April 28, 2016, 11:29:06 AM
Quote from: cl94 on April 24, 2016, 10:49:00 PM
I have a question about the Rourke Bridge over the Merrimack in Lowell. I drove over it today and noticed it is a "temporary" Bailey bridge. With further research, I discovered that it was installed in 1983. Was there previously a "normal" bridge at this location? Also, will the "temporary structure" ever be replaced?

Used to be a ferry to the west, I think. There is an Old Ferry Rd on the north bank that ends at MA 113 just west of the bridge. There have been endless talks of replacing the bridge with a permanent and much better design than what is already there, but they frequently go nowhere.

This Lowell Sun story from 2 years ago does a good job going into the discussion of the potential replacement, http://www.lowellsun.com/news/ci_26678398/lowell-gridlock-and-bear-it-rourke-bridge-work
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on April 28, 2016, 11:31:26 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 28, 2016, 11:29:06 AM
Quote from: cl94 on April 24, 2016, 10:49:00 PM
I have a question about the Rourke Bridge over the Merrimack in Lowell. I drove over it today and noticed it is a "temporary" Bailey bridge. With further research, I discovered that it was installed in 1983. Was there previously a "normal" bridge at this location? Also, will the "temporary structure" ever be replaced?

Used to be a ferry to the west, I think. There is an Old Ferry Rd on the north bank that ends at MA 113 just west of the bridge. There have been endless talks of replacing the bridge with a permanent and much better design than what is already there, but they frequently go nowhere.

This Lowell Sun story from 2 years ago does a good job going into the discussion of the potential replacement, http://www.lowellsun.com/news/ci_26678398/lowell-gridlock-and-bear-it-rourke-bridge-work

Upon looking at historical maps, I think there was nothing at all there. The Old Ferry Rd name may be a coincidence as I can't find anything showing what could've been a ferry at or near that crossing.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on April 28, 2016, 11:49:42 AM
There's an Old Ferry Rd. in Methuen, MA, also off of MA 113. It's nowhere near water. "Old Ferry Rd." must refer to something else.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on April 28, 2016, 01:16:32 PM
It was "Old Ferry Road" even back in 1891: http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~254355~5519320:City-of-Lowell,-Massachusetts-? I'd bet there was a ferry a long time ago.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on April 30, 2016, 10:28:33 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 28, 2016, 11:49:42 AM
There's an Old Ferry Rd. in Methuen, MA, also off of MA 113. It's nowhere near water. "Old Ferry Rd." must refer to something else.

http://docs.unh.edu/MA/lwrc93ne.jpg

It's a little hard to see at the top left of this, but Old Ferry Rd used to go southeast along what's now 113 and right down to the river to an old ferry. The eastern part of that old road, east of 110/113, is called 'Ferry Rd' now. At one time, I believe the entire 2 mile long road was just called Ferry Rd. Also, on the other side of the river in Haverhill, is a Ferry Rd that follows the same line from the Methuen side and across to Ward Hill.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on April 30, 2016, 10:30:34 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 28, 2016, 01:16:32 PM
It was "Old Ferry Road" even back in 1891: http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~254355~5519320:City-of-Lowell,-Massachusetts-? I'd bet there was a ferry a long time ago.

I wonder if it pre-dated the rail line that follows the river, given that would've likely been in the way of the southern approach. Also love the old Lowell maps, before a 2 sq. mile chunk of my town was stolen away by Lowell a few years after this.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on May 03, 2016, 11:13:53 AM
MassDOT announces activation of 'Go Time' Real Time Traffic signs along MA 140 in the Taunton area. Signs on I-95 and I-495 to be activated this summer:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: J Route Z on May 03, 2016, 01:07:49 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 03, 2016, 11:13:53 AM
MassDOT announces activation of 'Go Time' Real Time Traffic signs along MA 140 in the Taunton area. Signs on I-95 and I-495 to be activated this summer:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/)
Wow, this is what NYC highways have leading to bridges and tunnels.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on May 03, 2016, 04:47:05 PM
These MA 140 signs are very good looking (shields well in proportion) and are very useful too. The ones on the interstates and MA 25 are going to be even more useful to many more people. This was one of the better projects MassDOT taken on.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 03, 2016, 04:55:50 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on May 03, 2016, 04:47:05 PM
These MA 140 signs are very good looking (shields well in proportion) and are very useful too. The ones on the interstates and MA 25 are going to be even more useful to many more people. This was one of the better projects MassDOT taken on.

Personally, I prefer full-blown VMSs telling trip times (a la ConnDOT) but this works just as well, I suppose.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on May 03, 2016, 05:02:09 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on May 03, 2016, 04:47:05 PMThis was one of the better projects MassDOT taken on.
IMHO, this should be a standard for all states to follow.  Such would free up VMS' for their originally intended purpose of reporting unusual or extraordinary situations/circumstances.  Drive/travel times are now more of a common entity.

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 03, 2016, 04:55:50 PMPersonally, I prefer full-blown VMSs telling trip times (a la ConnDOT) but this works just as well, I suppose.
PennDOT (& PTC) uses similar; however, some of the black sheeting has faded (along the Schuylkill Expressway portion of I-76 for example) on some of the older VMS' to a point where one can't even read the lighted message during daytime hours.  Given that these VMS' in the Keystone State show travel times for the majority of the time they're on/illuminated; I would prefer the hybrid BGS/VMS that MassDOT is now using for such.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on May 03, 2016, 05:32:14 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 03, 2016, 05:02:09 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on May 03, 2016, 04:47:05 PMThis was one of the better projects MassDOT taken on.
IMHO, this should be a standard for all states to follow.  Such would free up VMS' for their originally intended purpose of reporting unusual or extraordinary situations/circumstances.  Drive/travel times are now more of a common entity.

I agree. Ohio did this in several places and it is quite nice to know of an incident far enough in advance to take an alternate route. Ditto for NYSDOT Region 10.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 03, 2016, 07:05:42 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 03, 2016, 11:13:53 AM
MassDOT announces activation of 'Go Time' Real Time Traffic signs along MA 140 in the Taunton area. Signs on I-95 and I-495 to be activated this summer:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/)

I have seen these now on 95/128 in Waltham, 95 between Canton and Mansfield, 495 around 95 and 24, 140 between Taunton and New Bedford... none of them on yet. 

I like that they use "RI State Line" on some.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on May 04, 2016, 08:51:02 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 03, 2016, 07:05:42 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 03, 2016, 11:13:53 AM
MassDOT announces activation of 'Go Time' Real Time Traffic signs along MA 140 in the Taunton area. Signs on I-95 and I-495 to be activated this summer:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/)

I have seen these now on 95/128 in Waltham, 95 between Canton and Mansfield, 495 around 95 and 24, 140 between Taunton and New Bedford... none of them on yet.
Given that the above-link stating the activation of these signs is dated this May 3 (yesterday), you wouldn't have seen them turned on.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on May 04, 2016, 09:19:16 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 03, 2016, 07:05:42 PM
I like that they use "RI State Line" on some.

I-93 and US 3 north of Boston will use "NH State Line" on some signs, I-90 west of Boston will use "CT State Line VIA 84", and I-84 will use CT State Line."  This is because, at present, adjoining states to Massachusetts don't have a compatible travel time system.  If/when that happens, then you'll see those 'state line' destinations changed to actual cities.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on May 04, 2016, 11:41:19 AM
Quote from: roadman on May 04, 2016, 09:19:16 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 03, 2016, 07:05:42 PM
I like that they use "RI State Line" on some.

I-93 and US 3 north of Boston will use "NH State Line" on some signs, I-90 west of Boston will use "CT State Line VIA 84", and I-84 will use CT State Line."  This is because, at present, adjoining states to Massachusetts don't have a compatible travel time system.  If/when that happens, then you'll see those 'state line' destinations changed to actual cities.

The entire Northeast and Midwest should have compatible travel time systems. Cities and major junctions are spaced closely enough for it to work.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 04, 2016, 12:05:09 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 04, 2016, 08:51:02 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 03, 2016, 07:05:42 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 03, 2016, 11:13:53 AM
MassDOT announces activation of 'Go Time' Real Time Traffic signs along MA 140 in the Taunton area. Signs on I-95 and I-495 to be activated this summer:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/)

I have seen these now on 95/128 in Waltham, 95 between Canton and Mansfield, 495 around 95 and 24, 140 between Taunton and New Bedford... none of them on yet.
Given that the above-link stating the activation of these signs is dated this May 3 (yesterday), you wouldn't have seen them turned on.

Of course.  Just corroborating.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on May 04, 2016, 01:19:26 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 04, 2016, 09:19:16 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 03, 2016, 07:05:42 PM
I like that they use "RI State Line" on some.

I-93 and US 3 north of Boston will use "NH State Line" on some signs, I-90 west of Boston will use "CT State Line VIA 84", and I-84 will use CT State Line."  This is because, at present, adjoining states to Massachusetts don't have a compatible travel time system.  If/when that happens, then you'll see those 'state line' destinations changed to actual cities.

The exception is the last Westbound sign on the Turnpike, which will say "NY Thruway" instead.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on May 04, 2016, 01:38:03 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on May 04, 2016, 01:19:26 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 04, 2016, 09:19:16 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 03, 2016, 07:05:42 PM
I like that they use "RI State Line" on some.

I-93 and US 3 north of Boston will use "NH State Line" on some signs, I-90 west of Boston will use "CT State Line VIA 84", and I-84 will use CT State Line."  This is because, at present, adjoining states to Massachusetts don't have a compatible travel time system.  If/when that happens, then you'll see those 'state line' destinations changed to actual cities.

The exception is the last Westbound sign on the Turnpike, which will say "NY Thruway" instead.

That's because the pull thru signs at the end of the Turnpike state NY Thruway.  It's a logical exception to the "name the next state line" practice on other signs.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on May 04, 2016, 07:55:54 PM
Also, the sign on US 3 N right after exit 26 has mysteriously vanished. It was there the other day, now it's completely gone, including the signposts. The other RTT signs are still up. Where it went, I have no idea.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on May 05, 2016, 10:39:22 AM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on May 04, 2016, 07:55:54 PM
Also, the sign on US 3 N right after exit 26 has mysteriously vanished. It was there the other day, now it's completely gone, including the signposts. The other RTT signs are still up. Where it went, I have no idea.
No, this particular installation was not retracted.  That location was one of a handful of new signs on US 3 that seemed to be mounted on posts that were excessively high in relation to the roadway.  I suspect that's the reason the sign and posts were removed for now.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on May 27, 2016, 08:17:47 AM
I see that in Peabody, MA they have a jersey jughandle just north of I-95 (MA 128) providing the only signal along that stretch of US 1.

I also see that most of US 1 in that area is designed like a jersey freeway with sealed medians, interchanges with major crossroads, and RIRO for driveways and side streets.

Interesting to see that NJ is not the only one to make expressways out of arterials.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on May 28, 2016, 03:54:57 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 27, 2016, 08:17:47 AM
I see that in Peabody, MA they have a jersey jughandle just north of I-95 (MA 128) providing the only signal along that stretch of US 1.

I also see that most of US 1 in that area is designed like a jersey freeway with sealed medians, interchanges with major crossroads, and RIRO for driveways and side streets.

Interesting to see that NJ is not the only one to make expressways out of arterials.

The famous jughandle has been there a long time, and was arguably one of the few traffic lights on an Interstate back before the link between I-95 and 128 in Peabody was completed in 1988...southbound US 1 carried I-95 SB from 95's Exit 46 (which had no number at first, but all traffic defaulted onto US 1) to the 128 exit, but the right lane for the exit had an always-green signal whereas the left and center lanes would see red to let jughandle traffic in.  So I-95 SB did have a traffic light, but the lane I-95 SB traffic would be in never saw a red light.  However, if you were following 95 SB and had not yet moved to the right, it was conceivable that you could hit the red light before getting over to the right, as the right exit lane started not long before the light.

I-95 NB traffic using US 1 to make the connection by the missing link never saw a traffic light; it merged in north of the jughandle.

The stretch of US 1 from Chelsea to Danvers, part freeway, the rest expressway, would be nice to assign exit numbers to--although it seems that it won't happen.  They finally did get BGS installed for all the exits in the 90s (except Walnut Street, for whatever reason); they could top them with exit numbers easily if they don't want to replace the panels.  Why not do it if short freeway sections of other routes like route 57 get exit numbers?  Just something that seems like it would be reasonable.
Maybe when the panels are next replaced, they could add numbers--but I doubt they do.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on May 28, 2016, 05:19:02 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on May 28, 2016, 03:54:57 PM
The stretch of US 1 from Chelsea to Danvers, part freeway, the rest expressway, would be nice to assign exit numbers to--although it seems that it won't happen.  They finally did get BGS installed for all the exits in the 90s (except Walnut Street, for whatever reason); they could top them with exit numbers easily if they don't want to replace the panels.  Why not do it if short freeway sections of other routes like route 57 get exit numbers?  Just something that seems like it would be reasonable.
Maybe when the panels are next replaced, they could add numbers--but I doubt they do.
This subject has been brought up before. The signs along US 1 from Chelsea to Danvers are scheduled to be replaced starting in late 2019. Roadman posted that there are no plans to add exit numbers, either under the milepost exit conversion project or that project (Project 608206).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on May 28, 2016, 08:34:14 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 28, 2016, 05:19:02 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on May 28, 2016, 03:54:57 PM
The stretch of US 1 from Chelsea to Danvers, part freeway, the rest expressway, would be nice to assign exit numbers to--although it seems that it won't happen.  They finally did get BGS installed for all the exits in the 90s (except Walnut Street, for whatever reason); they could top them with exit numbers easily if they don't want to replace the panels.  Why not do it if short freeway sections of other routes like route 57 get exit numbers?  Just something that seems like it would be reasonable.
Maybe when the panels are next replaced, they could add numbers--but I doubt they do.
This subject has been brought up before. The signs along US 1 from Chelsea to Danvers are scheduled to be replaced starting in late 2019. Roadman posted that there are no plans to add exit numbers, either under the milepost exit conversion project or that project (Project 608206).

Yep--that's where I had read such before.  Kinda a bummer to not add exit numbers really, though--there is the freeway portion from the Tobin Bridge to Cutler Circle which really ought to have them, and then northward to Alfalfa Circle might as well get them since there are signed exits and BGSs for the signed exits.  Would just make sense.  I mean, if Ohio can randomly have Exits 81A-B on US 20 which is otherwise undivided and two-lane around the area because it widens to 4-lane divided and has interchanges with route 420 and a local road, US 1 could have exit numbers from Chelsea to Danvers.  It wouldn't look any sillier than this. (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4948982,-83.4715882,3a,66.8y,106.27h,91.31t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOZDuCjw-2cfKdv_ddTqI6Q!2e0)..it would actually be quite in-place.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on May 30, 2016, 08:30:02 AM
I-95/MA 128 between exits 33 and 38 has a lot of traffic going north (actually east) between 4:30 PM and 6:30 PM. I was thinking of fixing this in several ways, but I'm not sure if these are possible or if these would really work.

These are independent ideas; it is not a list of "we need to do all of these". One might be enough.

1. Add a fourth lane past exit 38, as the road narrows from 4 to 3 lanes.
2. Connect Burlington Mall Rd. (32B-33 parallel) to Beacon St. (34-35 parallel) to create a better parallel road.
3. New Boston St. in Woburn has two sections separated by a railroad. Connect them to create another alternate.
4. Increase the speed limit from 55 to 65. As congestion often starts by a single slow driver (I believe it was jeffandnicole who said this, but I'm not sure), increasing the speed limit means the slow drivers (like those following the speed limit in the left lane) won't be as slow.
5. Direct access from Washington St. in Woburn to I-93 south without having to get on MA 128.
6. A way for those coming from I-93 north and exiting at MA 28 to not have to enter the main lanes of MA 128, as the entrance ramp and exit ramp are only 500 feet apart.

(I can't find an easy way to connect exits 35 and 36.)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on May 30, 2016, 10:29:49 PM
the small US 5 Freeway in West Springfield also seems like its not getting exit numbers.

Also I have a few questions regarding the green signs in MA, there appears to be a few variations I've noticed.

1)Theres the center tab signs that are one piece and are fully reflective (that Exit 29 and Exit 30 sign bridge just before the RI border on I-95)
2)There is the left or right aligned tab signs that are button copy, those seemed to only be on I-93 and on the pike
3)There is the left or right aligned tab signs that are fully reflective
4)Theres the full height tab signs (the ones that look like NH standard) which came about in 2010

did the rest of the state ever use the second variant, or was that mostly in the Boston area on I-93?
When did they move from type 1 to type 2 and 3.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on May 30, 2016, 10:37:37 PM
I believe all the original BGSs on I-190 when it opened were type 2.  Those were replaced in the mid-90s, and then again about 2 years ago.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on May 31, 2016, 08:47:03 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on May 30, 2016, 10:29:49 PM1)Theres the center tab signs that are one piece and are fully reflective (that Exit 29 and Exit 30 sign bridge just before the RI border on I-95)
Those are 1977 MassDPW leftovers/survivors.

Quote from: mariethefoxy on May 30, 2016, 10:29:49 PM
2)There is the left or right aligned tab signs that are button copy, those seemed to only be on I-93 and on the pike
All the BGS' with button-copy text (as opposed to the I-shields) along the Southeast Expressway portion of I-93 have since been replaced.  Those dated back to 1984-85 and were installed when the Expressway was completely overhauled.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on May 31, 2016, 11:55:35 AM
I never seen that full button copy type of signs elsewhere in the state (except the mass pike which at the time was a different agency)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on June 04, 2016, 12:12:32 PM
The bid opening on the second phase of the I-93/I-95 Canton interchange project, the building of new ramps on I-95 North at Dedham street, and reconstruction of 5 other bridges has been postponed again, for the fifth time. The new date is now July 26. The latest addendum has revised plans for framing and beam details. The bid page is located at: https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-16-1030-0H100-0H002-00000005592&external=true&parentUrl=bid
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: J Route Z on June 05, 2016, 01:42:18 AM
Why are the speed limits on various MA state very inconsistent and have unnecessary speed limit changes? It'll be 50 mph for 100 yards then up to 55 for 50 yards then back to 50, then down to 40, when there aren't even any houses or buildings within the area.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: machias on June 05, 2016, 09:25:47 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on May 31, 2016, 11:55:35 AM
I never seen that full button copy type of signs elsewhere in the state (except the mass pike which at the time was a different agency)

The signs installed at the I-190/I-290 interchange in Worcester were all button copy when the interchange opened.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on June 05, 2016, 12:20:23 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on June 05, 2016, 01:42:18 AM
Why are the speed limits on various MA state very inconsistent and have unnecessary speed limit changes? It'll be 50 mph for 100 yards then up to 55 for 50 yards then back to 50, then down to 40, when there aren't even any houses or buildings within the area.
They post speed limits for curve warnings. I basically ignore them.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on June 05, 2016, 12:27:02 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on June 05, 2016, 01:42:18 AM
Why are the speed limits on various MA state very inconsistent and have unnecessary speed limit changes? It'll be 50 mph for 100 yards then up to 55 for 50 yards then back to 50, then down to 40, when there aren't even any houses or buildings within the area.

Where are you seeing 55 on a surface road in Massachusetts?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 05, 2016, 01:45:59 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 05, 2016, 12:27:02 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on June 05, 2016, 01:42:18 AM
Why are the speed limits on various MA state very inconsistent and have unnecessary speed limit changes? It'll be 50 mph for 100 yards then up to 55 for 50 yards then back to 50, then down to 40, when there aren't even any houses or buildings within the area.

Where are you seeing 55 on a surface road in Massachusetts?

US 7 from the CT border to Sheffield is 55 MPH
https://goo.gl/maps/cg1bD1iMf422
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on June 05, 2016, 02:56:17 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 05, 2016, 01:45:59 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 05, 2016, 12:27:02 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on June 05, 2016, 01:42:18 AM
Why are the speed limits on various MA state very inconsistent and have unnecessary speed limit changes? It'll be 50 mph for 100 yards then up to 55 for 50 yards then back to 50, then down to 40, when there aren't even any houses or buildings within the area.

Where are you seeing 55 on a surface road in Massachusetts?

US 7 from the CT border to Sheffield is 55 MPH
https://goo.gl/maps/cg1bD1iMf422

There are quite a few in Berskhire County. A decent amount of US 7 between Pittsfield and Williamstown is 55, as is MA 43 in Hancock south/west of the town hall. I remember seeing it in a couple spots on MA 8 when I drove it last week.

Quote from: Alps on June 05, 2016, 12:20:23 PM
They post speed limits for curve warnings. I basically ignore them.

And it annoys the hell out of me. Cross the New York border and the limit jumps up to a constant 55, even if geometry is nearly identical (or worse on the NY side).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on June 05, 2016, 04:38:42 PM
Those curve speed limits have come to define driving in MA for me, to the point where it's tempting to avoid the surface streets in MA.  I've read that they're not posted like that because the state police was mad when a judge told them they couldn't give people tickets for driving faster than an advisory speed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 05, 2016, 04:48:48 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 05, 2016, 12:27:02 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on June 05, 2016, 01:42:18 AM
Why are the speed limits on various MA state very inconsistent and have unnecessary speed limit changes? It'll be 50 mph for 100 yards then up to 55 for 50 yards then back to 50, then down to 40, when there aren't even any houses or buildings within the area.

Where are you seeing 55 on a surface road in Massachusetts?

MA 9, US 6, MA 49 and MA 88 (to name a few) also have 55mph zones for all or part of their surface routes.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on June 05, 2016, 07:36:35 PM
they have something like that on the north end of I-290, its 65 and then suddenly it drops to 45mph before the interchange with I-495, granted the curve is tight but its only an advisory speed of 25 not a speed limit of 25 on that ramp.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on June 07, 2016, 09:30:39 PM
Don't forget the 60MPH section of MA 8 in Sandisfield.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on June 07, 2016, 10:19:37 PM
That section of MA-8 from the CT line to just south of MA-57 is now posted at 55 MPH.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 07, 2016, 10:48:13 PM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on June 05, 2016, 09:25:47 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on May 31, 2016, 11:55:35 AM
I never seen that full button copy type of signs elsewhere in the state (except the mass pike which at the time was a different agency)

The signs installed at the I-190/I-290 interchange in Worcester were all button copy when the interchange opened.

The date on those signs were 1985 and they weren't reflective.
they were replaced within the past 6 months.

(https://c4.staticflickr.com/1/655/22723613875_28431c9996_c.jpg)
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/1/725/22722118322_99f435e97e_c.jpg)

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 07, 2016, 11:27:09 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on June 07, 2016, 09:30:39 PM
Don't forget the 60MPH section of MA 8 in Sandisfield.
I think you mean 55 as Beeper1 said.  The max statutory speed limit for surface highways in MA is 55 (it is in CT too but no surface highway to date has been given one).

Edit: specified sfc highways, not including limited access.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 08, 2016, 12:57:40 AM
I have never seen a (post NMSL) 60 MPH speed limit anywhere north and east of Maryland and West Virginia.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ian on June 08, 2016, 01:54:55 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 08, 2016, 12:57:40 AM
I have never seen a (post NMSL) 60 MPH speed limit anywhere north and east of Maryland and West Virginia.

Maine has a few. The Falmouth Spur (hidden I-495), I-95 through Bangor, and I-395 between I-95 and exit 5 are all posted at 60.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on June 08, 2016, 09:39:17 AM
Quote from: Ian on June 08, 2016, 01:54:55 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 08, 2016, 12:57:40 AM
I have never seen a (post NMSL) 60 MPH speed limit anywhere north and east of Maryland and West Virginia.

Maine has a few. The Falmouth Spur (hidden I-495), I-95 through Bangor, and I-395 between I-95 and exit 5 are all posted at 60.

MA 3 southeast of Weymouth as well is 60 MPH.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: yakra on June 08, 2016, 11:30:30 AM
Quote from: Ian on June 08, 2016, 01:54:55 AM
Maine has a few. The Falmouth Spur (hidden I-495), I-95 through Bangor, and I-395 between I-95 and exit 5 are all posted at 60.
US-1 freeway in Brunswick & West Bath; Scarborough Connector freeway
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on June 08, 2016, 05:44:19 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on June 07, 2016, 10:19:37 PM
That section of MA-8 from the CT line to just south of MA-57 is now posted at 55 MPH.

My mistake, thanks for the correction.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on June 15, 2016, 12:03:25 PM
I have posted a few more photos of the new 'Go Time' travel distance and time signs being put up by MassDOT. This one on US 3 South in Burlington has gotten the most comments since it lacks the 'Via I-95 South/North' texts seen on other signs:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fus3sign616e.JPG&hash=48919c132967f75aba49ad718d671803a7de4a25)

All the new photos are in the I-95 and US 3 sections of Part B at:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html)

Also here's the latest photo of the future on-ramp from Kendrick Street to I-95/128 North in Needham:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95addalane616f.jpg&hash=19877257e52f083b4e32cb8324b84ea4f18384b6)

More new I-95 Add-A-Lane Project photos are at:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane)
(as well as a few misc. ones at the top of the page).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on June 18, 2016, 12:03:20 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 13, 2016, 11:30:17 AM
Quote from: yakra on April 13, 2016, 12:24:49 AM
Quote from: roadman on April 12, 2016, 04:02:59 PM
Bids were opened on the I-495 Raynham to Bolton sign replacement project earlier today.  RoadSafe Traffic Systems of Avon, MA is the apparent low responsible bidder.
Sorry if you've already covered this upthread -- is this going to include exit renumbering?
The project was designed to use milepost-based exit numbers, but that may change.  From the project addenda # 1:

QuoteITEM 828.1 OVERHEAD GUIDE SIGN - SQUARE FOOT
ALUMINUM PANEL (TYPE B)
The work under this item shall conform to the relevant provisions of Section 828 of the Standard
Specifications and the following:
Legend, border, and background of signs shall be High Intensity Prismatic (HIP) retrotreflective
sheeting conforming to ASTM D4956-11a Type VIII or better, except that the banners
indicating TOLL ROAD" , "EXIT ONLY" , etc. shall be fabricated with black opaque legend on
yellow retro-reflective sheeting conforming to ASTM D4956-11a Type VIII or better. .
The project plans and details for these sign panels presume that the existing exit numbers within
the project limits will be converted from the present sequential numbers to a referenced-based
(milepost) numbering system. However, the Contractor is advised that this conversion may now
be deferred until a later date. Accordingly, while the new exit number plates (tabs), gore, and
other signs shall be fabricated of sufficient width to accommodate the future exit numbers, the
Contractor may be directed to provide the current sequential exit numbers on new signs for now.
MassDOT shall inform the Contractor of which numbering scheme to use on new signs prior to
submission of the sign face drawings for review and approval.
(language added in Addenda # 1 - emphasis added)
METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
Item 828.1 will be measured for payment buy the square foot, complete in place,
BASIS OF PAYMENT
Item 828.1 will be paid for at the Contract unit price per square foot, which price shall include
furnishing and installing all materials, labor, equipment tools, appurtenances, and incidentals
necessary to satisfactorily complete the item of work, complete, in place and accepted.

A little birdie (no, not Twitter) told me this language was added as a result of the backlash from the US 6 preliminary design plans.
A follow-up, MassDOT gave the notice to proceed for the I-495 sign replacement contract on Monday (6/13). Guess it may be a few months before it is known what exit numbers will be used for the new signs.

Meanwhile, how close is MassDOT to the decision about I-90?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on June 19, 2016, 12:17:29 AM
speaking of sign replacements, all but one or two signs on MA Route 2 are new from  I-495 to the end of the freeway, including the akward older style ones. I drove it from 495 to Greenfield earlier today.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on June 20, 2016, 08:36:52 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 19, 2016, 12:17:29 AM
speaking of sign replacements, all but one or two signs on MA Route 2 are new from  I-495 to the end of the freeway, including the akward older style ones.
What do you mean by awkward?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on June 20, 2016, 12:19:25 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fma_2%2Fe17.jpg&hash=8ee1fcc0af5215c69482261e647f8da8965e2840)

these ones, with the exit number printed way too low on the sign and it looks like they slapped it on wierdly
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on June 20, 2016, 11:49:53 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 20, 2016, 12:19:25 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fma_2%2Fe17.jpg&hash=8ee1fcc0af5215c69482261e647f8da8965e2840)

these ones, with the exit number printed way too low on the sign and it looks like they slapped it on wierdly
Because they did, because the exit panel was an afterthought.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on June 20, 2016, 11:52:59 PM
Yeah, I noticed MassDOT had a bunch of new stuff up when I was through yesterday. A lot of new-looking assemblies on I-91 SB between the Vermont border and the Mohawk Trail. Button copy I-91 shields do remain.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 24, 2016, 08:59:41 PM
Has work started on the MA-6 bridge by Wellington Station yet over the tracks?  there's some glorious button copy around there.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on June 25, 2016, 01:10:58 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 24, 2016, 08:59:41 PM
Has work started on the MA-6 bridge by Wellington Station yet over the tracks?  there's some glorious button copy around there.
(16)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on June 26, 2016, 10:25:10 PM
Got a chance to drive along the southern stretch of I-495 between Milford and Wareham this weekend. Was able to take photos of some of the new MassDOT 'Go Time' travel time signs, such as this southbound approaching I-95 in Foxboro:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi495signs616f.JPG&hash=a032dbd765f8124488174e9c2ed7f14240b3e886)

Other photos can be found here:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html#i495signs (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html#i495signs)

I also have new photos of some of the signs installed along US 3 and MA 128.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 12, 2016, 11:42:03 AM
MassDOT has released its Draft 2017-2021 State TIP for public comment (available at: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/17/docs/STIP/StipDraft17_21.pdf (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/17/docs/STIP/StipDraft17_21.pdf))

As for new sign replacement projects listed, FY 2020 includes:
MA 146 Uxbridge to Worcester
I-391 between Chicopee and Holyoke (all of it), and
Sections of I-495 and I-195 between Dartmouth and Raynham.
For 2021 the only project listed is replacing the signs on US 3 from Burlington to Tyngsboro.
Previously listed projects for 2017-2019 are still there: MA 24, from Randolph to I-195 (2017), I-95 from Attleboro to Norwood (2018), and Reading to Lynnfield (2019), I-290 Auburn to Worcester (2018), US 1 Chelsea to Danvers (2019), I-495 Haverhill to Merrimac (2019), and, perhaps new, MA 28 Bourne to Falmouth (2019).

There is no mention of the US 6 sign replacement contract or the milepost conversion project, the latter was listed as a statewide project for 2016 in the previous STIP. If this has been postponed, and is not included in the final document, then it appears any changes will now not take place until after 2021.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on July 12, 2016, 10:15:52 PM
If they don't just bite the bullet and do the conversion, it will never happen. Public opinion is not going to change on this issue any time soon, so either they do it and everyone just has to adapt to the changes or they don't do it and anger the feds but keep everyone happy. They can't just play this game of cat and mouse and wait for public opinion to change because they will never have public support on the milepost conversion issue.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on July 13, 2016, 01:00:57 AM
If public opinion will never change then shouldn't they listen to it? Sometimes traffic engineers forget their duty is to the public and that includes listening to public feedback even if it goes against their academic theory. Someone needs to do an intrinsic cost benefit analysis and if resident concerns regarding rural character, nostalgia, business advertising change costs, etc. are more important than some person without GPS wondering how many miles it is to their next exit then maybe they should just bite the bullet and give in to the public demand. To be honest the whole benefit of this exit number change thing is really diminished nowadays which is why the average person out there just doesn't get it. Either you are familiar with the area and you really don't need the exit-mileage information or you don't live around there and you have gps. I would liken it to food and gas service signs which are similarly becoming obsolete.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on July 13, 2016, 03:48:15 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on July 13, 2016, 01:00:57 AM
If public opinion will never change then shouldn't they listen to it? Sometimes traffic engineers forget their duty is to the public and that includes listening to public feedback even if it goes against their academic theory. Someone needs to do an intrinsic cost benefit analysis and if resident concerns regarding rural character, nostalgia, business advertising change costs, etc. are more important than some person without GPS wondering how many miles it is to their next exit then maybe they should just bite the bullet and give in to the public demand. To be honest the whole benefit of this exit number change thing is really diminished nowadays which is why the average person out there just doesn't get it. Either you are familiar with the area and you really don't need the exit-mileage information or you don't live around there and you have gps. I would liken it to food and gas service signs which are similarly becoming obsolete.
Some might say that. I'm just saying MassDOT should make up their minds on it, decide to or decide not to. Personally, I would like it to happen but I wouldn't have a huge problem with them keeping the current numbers. I do hope that they would continue with the plan to add numbers to MA-28 and MA-57, but it seems unlikely unless they decide to go for mileage-based.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 13, 2016, 09:54:43 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on July 13, 2016, 03:48:15 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on July 13, 2016, 01:00:57 AM
If public opinion will never change then shouldn't they listen to it? Sometimes traffic engineers forget their duty is to the public and that includes listening to public feedback even if it goes against their academic theory. Someone needs to do an intrinsic cost benefit analysis and if resident concerns regarding rural character, nostalgia, business advertising change costs, etc. are more important than some person without GPS wondering how many miles it is to their next exit then maybe they should just bite the bullet and give in to the public demand. To be honest the whole benefit of this exit number change thing is really diminished nowadays which is why the average person out there just doesn't get it. Either you are familiar with the area and you really don't need the exit-mileage information or you don't live around there and you have gps. I would liken it to food and gas service signs which are similarly becoming obsolete.
Some might say that. I'm just saying MassDOT should make up their minds on it, decide to or decide not to. Personally, I would like it to happen but I wouldn't have a huge problem with them keeping the current numbers. I do hope that they would continue with the plan to add numbers to MA-28 and MA-57, but it seems unlikely unless they decide to go for mileage-based.
Do people honestly care enough about either of those two highways to want exit numbers?

On 28 most people are going straight through to Falmouth.  On 57 everyone takes "the exit for Six Flags".
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 13, 2016, 10:37:16 AM
Something odd I just noticed, crossing over the Deefield River on I-91 North in Franklin County: on either side of the reconstructed Deerfield River bridge, they installed some 1/10 mile markers. They look just like ones further up the interstate in Vermont. The road is also repaved up to about mile marker 40, a good mile north of the bridge.

EDIT: The mile markers looked like the Vermont version. This is from the I-91 overpass in White River Junction, where US Route 5 passes under. This is a short distance north of the I-89 junction:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCxVKRIP.jpg&hash=54c7840410cbef2f24e1b62da134a62336e6e160)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on July 14, 2016, 01:12:50 PM
The "Vermont version" is actually the standard MUTCD version.  It is my understanding that many jurisdictions are replacing their tenth mile markers with either these or the "enhanced" version with the shield and direction on them.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on July 14, 2016, 05:03:31 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2016, 01:12:50 PM
The "Vermont version" is actually the standard MUTCD version.  It is my understanding that many jurisdictions are replacing their tenth mile markers with either these or the "enhanced" version with the shield and direction on them.

Correct. Ohio and Kentucky have had them in urban areas for a while, except they were blue and almost always in the medians. NYSDOT R5 and R9 have mostly replaced theirs and I'm pretty sure I remember seeing them in R3. R1s still look like the ones in the picture above  (old ones have the tenth in green on white, oldest without decimal points).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on July 14, 2016, 07:36:45 PM
R1 is using the standard MUTCD markers and reserving the "enhanced" ones for full miles on the Northway.  R3, R5, and R9 use the enhanced tenths (R5 switched to them; R3 had a blue version; R9 previously didn't use tenth mile markers).  R8 just changed the color on their markers.  No idea what R4 is doing; many tenth mile markers are missing, but I may have seen a few new ones in their traditional style.  R6 and R7 don't use tenth mile markers and R2, R10, and R11 don't use any mile markers at all.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on July 15, 2016, 09:28:07 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2016, 07:36:45 PM
No idea what R4 is doing

Given a couple of key retirements in Region 4 in the past couple of years, Region 4 has no idea what it's doing! (personal opinion expressed)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on July 18, 2016, 08:54:42 PM
Drove I-495 from the Mass Pike up to I-93 earlier today.  Noticed the construction that was going on last year northbound at MA 2 resulted in creation of a c/d lane.  Construction crews had the left lane blocked in each direction, which caused a minimum backup for me northbound, but a substantial backup southbound.  New signage is in place as well through the interchange.  Didn't get any shots of the signage, though.  It kinda snuck up on me!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on July 18, 2016, 09:05:04 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2016, 07:36:45 PM
R1 is using the standard MUTCD markers and reserving the "enhanced" ones for full miles on the Northway.  R3, R5, and R9 use the enhanced tenths (R5 switched to them; R3 had a blue version; R9 previously didn't use tenth mile markers).  R8 just changed the color on their markers.  No idea what R4 is doing; many tenth mile markers are missing, but I may have seen a few new ones in their traditional style.  R6 and R7 don't use tenth mile markers and R2, R10, and R11 don't use any mile markers at all.

R7 switched to the new style for their markers. R8 just installed tenth mile markers on I-84 to replace the NYSTA ones and they are their standard style. Driving through yesterday, I noticed that they put in RMs and tenth mile markers east of the Taconic.

As far as other states, CT uses the enhanced style for full miles now. Saw a few on CT 8 yesterday after clinching MA 8.

Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2016, 09:28:07 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2016, 07:36:45 PM
No idea what R4 is doing

Given a couple of key retirements in Region 4 in the past couple of years, Region 4 has no idea what it's doing! (personal opinion expressed)

At least they've jumped on the FYA train and are keeping up with the MUTCD. R5 just stopped using four-section bimodal arrows.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on July 19, 2016, 10:27:52 AM
In other news, it's been a while since I headed back to the town where I grew up in Massachusetts.  The "new" overhead signage on I-91 at MA 9 threw me off quite a bit.

Also saw the FYAs at MA 116 / MA 47 in Sunderland and at US 5 / MA 10 / MA 116, where MA 116 heads off to Conway from Deerfield.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on July 19, 2016, 12:55:05 PM
Quote from: cl94 on July 18, 2016, 09:05:04 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2016, 07:36:45 PM
R1 is using the standard MUTCD markers and reserving the "enhanced" ones for full miles on the Northway.  R3, R5, and R9 use the enhanced tenths (R5 switched to them; R3 had a blue version; R9 previously didn't use tenth mile markers).  R8 just changed the color on their markers.  No idea what R4 is doing; many tenth mile markers are missing, but I may have seen a few new ones in their traditional style.  R6 and R7 don't use tenth mile markers and R2, R10, and R11 don't use any mile markers at all.

R7 switched to the new style for their markers. R8 just installed tenth mile markers on I-84 to replace the NYSTA ones and they are their standard style. Driving through yesterday, I noticed that they put in RMs and tenth mile markers east of the Taconic.

As far as other states, CT uses the enhanced style for full miles now. Saw a few on CT 8 yesterday after clinching MA 8.

Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2016, 09:28:07 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2016, 07:36:45 PM
No idea what R4 is doing

Given a couple of key retirements in Region 4 in the past couple of years, Region 4 has no idea what it's doing! (personal opinion expressed)

At least they've jumped on the FYA train and are keeping up with the MUTCD. R5 just stopped using four-section bimodal arrows.
Does R7 now use tenth mile markers?  I only remember them having full mile markers when I was last there, which have been in the "enhanced" style for years now (since I was in high school, actually).  Almost all the regions have at least one enhanced full milemarker somewhere; of the regions that don't, Region 6 is the only one that has milemarkers period.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on July 19, 2016, 01:08:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 19, 2016, 12:55:05 PM
Quote from: cl94 on July 18, 2016, 09:05:04 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2016, 07:36:45 PM
R1 is using the standard MUTCD markers and reserving the "enhanced" ones for full miles on the Northway.  R3, R5, and R9 use the enhanced tenths (R5 switched to them; R3 had a blue version; R9 previously didn't use tenth mile markers).  R8 just changed the color on their markers.  No idea what R4 is doing; many tenth mile markers are missing, but I may have seen a few new ones in their traditional style.  R6 and R7 don't use tenth mile markers and R2, R10, and R11 don't use any mile markers at all.

R7 switched to the new style for their markers. R8 just installed tenth mile markers on I-84 to replace the NYSTA ones and they are their standard style. Driving through yesterday, I noticed that they put in RMs and tenth mile markers east of the Taconic.

As far as other states, CT uses the enhanced style for full miles now. Saw a few on CT 8 yesterday after clinching MA 8.

Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2016, 09:28:07 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2016, 07:36:45 PM
No idea what R4 is doing

Given a couple of key retirements in Region 4 in the past couple of years, Region 4 has no idea what it's doing! (personal opinion expressed)

At least they've jumped on the FYA train and are keeping up with the MUTCD. R5 just stopped using four-section bimodal arrows.
Does R7 now use tenth mile markers?  I only remember them having full mile markers when I was last there, which have been in the "enhanced" style for years now (since I was in high school, actually).  Almost all the regions have at least one enhanced full milemarker somewhere; of the regions that don't, Region 6 is the only one that has milemarkers period.

Not that I know of, but few rural areas do in this country. Only region that does is R5, which has them on I-86. Hell, R1's stop at the Warren-Saratoga line and it's still bedroom community for a few miles.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on July 19, 2016, 02:18:00 PM
not to be that guy but could we leave the NY discussion out of the MA thread? I am getting alerts to updates on this thread only to find that its about NY.

Thanks
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on July 19, 2016, 02:24:53 PM
I have a question: does MassDOT have any standards regarding speed limit changes? I was on Route 8 the other day and there were a couple sections where the limit changed 3-4 times in a mile, with no advanced warning for any of them, even drops of 20+.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 19, 2016, 02:30:15 PM
Quote from: cl94 on July 19, 2016, 02:24:53 PM
I have a question: does MassDOT have any standards regarding speed limit changes? I was on Route 8 the other day and there were a couple sections where the limit changed 3-4 times in a mile, with no advanced warning for any of them, even drops of 20+.

This should answer your questions:  http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/traffic/speedZoning_0512.pdf
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on July 19, 2016, 02:54:10 PM
Quote from: cl94 on July 19, 2016, 01:08:05 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 19, 2016, 12:55:05 PM
Quote from: cl94 on July 18, 2016, 09:05:04 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2016, 07:36:45 PM
R1 is using the standard MUTCD markers and reserving the "enhanced" ones for full miles on the Northway.  R3, R5, and R9 use the enhanced tenths (R5 switched to them; R3 had a blue version; R9 previously didn't use tenth mile markers).  R8 just changed the color on their markers.  No idea what R4 is doing; many tenth mile markers are missing, but I may have seen a few new ones in their traditional style.  R6 and R7 don't use tenth mile markers and R2, R10, and R11 don't use any mile markers at all.

R7 switched to the new style for their markers. R8 just installed tenth mile markers on I-84 to replace the NYSTA ones and they are their standard style. Driving through yesterday, I noticed that they put in RMs and tenth mile markers east of the Taconic.

As far as other states, CT uses the enhanced style for full miles now. Saw a few on CT 8 yesterday after clinching MA 8.

Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2016, 09:28:07 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 14, 2016, 07:36:45 PM
No idea what R4 is doing

Given a couple of key retirements in Region 4 in the past couple of years, Region 4 has no idea what it's doing! (personal opinion expressed)

At least they've jumped on the FYA train and are keeping up with the MUTCD. R5 just stopped using four-section bimodal arrows.
Does R7 now use tenth mile markers?  I only remember them having full mile markers when I was last there, which have been in the "enhanced" style for years now (since I was in high school, actually).  Almost all the regions have at least one enhanced full milemarker somewhere; of the regions that don't, Region 6 is the only one that has milemarkers period.

Not that I know of, but few rural areas do in this country. Only region that does is R5, which has them on I-86. Hell, R1's stop at the Warren-Saratoga line and it's still bedroom community for a few miles.
One last reply (as per mass_citizen): R4 has them in rural areas (as does the Thruway, Taconic (except Columbia County), and I-84; I-81 in R9 now has half mile markers).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on July 19, 2016, 08:53:56 PM
Quote from: cl94 on July 19, 2016, 02:24:53 PM
I have a question: does MassDOT have any standards regarding speed limit changes? I was on Route 8 the other day and there were a couple sections where the limit changed 3-4 times in a mile, with no advanced warning for any of them, even drops of 20+.
Yes. Every time an advisory speed should be posted, expect a speed limit.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on July 19, 2016, 10:48:49 PM
Route 2 has that too on the far end after teh freeway ends
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on July 19, 2016, 10:53:10 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on July 19, 2016, 10:48:49 PM
Route 2 has that too on the far end after teh freeway ends

You referring to the hairpin just east of North Adams?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on July 20, 2016, 12:22:48 AM
nope, it was past Athol but not past 91
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MVHighways on July 20, 2016, 12:47:58 PM
Sorry this totally diverges from the topic at hand, but the I-93 Exit 46 Methuen Rotary reconstruction is moving along quite well. As of yesterday afternoon, some signs were installed and are uncovered, and that combined with paving being worked on, traffic lights being installed, and new signage posts with every day's changes being predictable but unpredictable, leads me to think that at least one ramp will be opening very soon (maybe in the next 7 days) with a good portion done by the end of the summer. A portable VMS that was just brought in saying "New I-93 Onramp - Opening Soon" further enhances this, and the MassDOT site says one of the activities is to open the new NB on-ramp but it looks like the SB on-ramp from 110/113 East is also very close. There was also a sign that is brand new posted on 113 East that I couldn't get a photo of, and various masts are being assembled. Right now it seems to be at a "something new daily" pace that will probably culminate in a massive traffic jam the day a new ramp opens, particularly the new NB on-ramp. I'll divide my video into further pics soon but this is 110 EB as 113 EB merges with it. https://youtu.be/Y1Qos2VsvPA

This morning I think they opened a new ramp (EB to SB), per a tweet from Methuen Police's Scott Lever: https://twitter.com/OffLever/status/755726872374280192/photo/1 Hopefully I can confirm but that pic looks different than the setup from my video last night.

(Wasn't there a thread on this project when construction first began in 2014?)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 20, 2016, 02:32:32 PM
QuoteHopefully I can confirm but that pic looks different than the setup from my video last night
@1:36 - Same signs, different angle in video.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MVHighways on July 20, 2016, 03:39:12 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 20, 2016, 02:32:32 PM
QuoteHopefully I can confirm but that pic looks different than the setup from my video last night
@1:36 - Same signs, different angle in video.
I know those are the same signs, but it appears some traffic cones were put in the middle of the current (now old?) alignment. The right lane was clearly not half blocked off in the video yesterday. I might be headed up that way today and if I do, I'll pull out my camera again. At just prior to 1:36, you can see two lanes are open, but in Officer Lever's photo, that right lane is clearly coned over as a temporary access to what looks like the new EB to SB ramp.

More to come, but they are doing a really good job at keeping traffic normal throughout much of the project.

(UPDATE 5:48 pm: No new ramps open, but a small portion of new pavement did open that makes "new traffic pattern" accurate. Video soon.)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 21, 2016, 12:14:51 AM
Quote from: MVHighways on July 20, 2016, 03:39:12 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 20, 2016, 02:32:32 PM
QuoteHopefully I can confirm but that pic looks different than the setup from my video last night
@1:36 - Same signs, different angle in video.
I know those are the same signs, but it appears some traffic cones were put in the middle of the current (now old?) alignment. The right lane was clearly not half blocked off in the video yesterday. I might be headed up that way today and if I do, I'll pull out my camera again. At just prior to 1:36, you can see two lanes are open, but in Officer Lever's photo, that right lane is clearly coned over as a temporary access to what looks like the new EB to SB ramp.

More to come, but they are doing a really good job at keeping traffic normal throughout much of the project.

(UPDATE 5:48 pm: No new ramps open, but a small portion of new pavement did open that makes "new traffic pattern" accurate. Video soon.)
Based on the video, I see the first I-93 travel time sign southbound has been installed as well.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MVHighways on July 21, 2016, 12:32:40 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 21, 2016, 12:14:51 AM
Quote from: MVHighways on July 20, 2016, 03:39:12 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 20, 2016, 02:32:32 PM
QuoteHopefully I can confirm but that pic looks different than the setup from my video last night
@1:36 - Same signs, different angle in video.
I know those are the same signs, but it appears some traffic cones were put in the middle of the current (now old?) alignment. The right lane was clearly not half blocked off in the video yesterday. I might be headed up that way today and if I do, I'll pull out my camera again. At just prior to 1:36, you can see two lanes are open, but in Officer Lever's photo, that right lane is clearly coned over as a temporary access to what looks like the new EB to SB ramp.

More to come, but they are doing a really good job at keeping traffic normal throughout much of the project.

(UPDATE 5:48 pm: No new ramps open, but a small portion of new pavement did open that makes "new traffic pattern" accurate. Video soon.)
Based on the video, I see the first I-93 travel time sign southbound has been installed as well.
Yes, that is the case. It's been there for a few weeks now.

BREAKING NEWS - PROJECT UPDATE - 6:30 PM: Per MassDOT the new northbound onramp opens July 30. Otherwise, the rotary alignment stays the same for now. VMS's will be put up east and west of the rotary to alert drivers. http://methuenrotary.mhd.state.ma.us/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MVHighways on July 30, 2016, 03:45:10 PM
So, the new 93 NB on-ramp at Exit 46 in Methuen opened this morning. There are numerous VMS's in the area to guide drivers to the new ramp. Temporary signals at the end of the underpasses with new road going under 93 indicate many new sections will likely be opening in the coming months (access to SB from WB and WB from NB while clover ramps are being built?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJZQStKAzA
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on August 04, 2016, 01:46:40 AM
nice mismatch of colors in that video with the black on orange arrows, black on white cardinal directions, and blue interstate shields for those I-93 assemblies.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MVHighways on August 04, 2016, 10:09:07 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on August 04, 2016, 01:46:40 AM
nice mismatch of colors in that video with the black on orange arrows, black on white cardinal directions, and blue interstate shields for those I-93 assemblies.
Yeah, those are temporary. The permanent new entrance to 93NB opens this month - the ramp itself and access from 110/113 WB stays the same but access from 110/113 EB changes. Also, the new SB on-ramp opens this month. MassDOT just posted on the project site that the rotary permanently closes this month and traffic will go straight under I-93.

Should a thread be opened specifically to discuss the Methuen Rotary project?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 04, 2016, 12:07:14 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on August 04, 2016, 01:46:40 AM
nice mismatch of colors in that video with the black on orange arrows, black on white cardinal directions, and blue interstate shields for those I-93 assemblies.
Not to mention the horizontal arrow plate that's tilted upward at 45 degrees.  I know it's all temporary, but geez ...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MVHighways on August 04, 2016, 09:56:54 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 04, 2016, 12:07:14 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on August 04, 2016, 01:46:40 AM
nice mismatch of colors in that video with the black on orange arrows, black on white cardinal directions, and blue interstate shields for those I-93 assemblies.
Not to mention the horizontal arrow plate that's tilted upward at 45 degrees.  I know it's all temporary, but geez ...
I was at the rotary earlier today and that arrow is now straight up and not tilted. Still, my grandmother yesterday got confused attempting to head to the beach. 93NB offramp traffic that wants WB 110/113 has to weave quickly with those on 110/113 EB who are looking to proceed toward the split of those two roads. Nonetheless, there are virtually daily changes there leading up to the opening of the realigned 110/113 and with it the SB off-ramp (potentially the EB to SB on-ramp too as that looks to be nearing completion, but even if that is not the case it is easy to put up jersey barriers to direct drivers to the existing SB onramp. The MassDOT update this morning said, as I noted, the 93SB offramp and the realigned 110/113 opens to traffic this month; MassDOT will probably make a formal announcement soon about what day they open. I hope it's a Saturday or Sunday morning but even so, traffic will be horrible there for a few days as everyone gets adjusted.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 05, 2016, 09:17:05 AM
Quote from: MVHighways on August 04, 2016, 09:56:54 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 04, 2016, 12:07:14 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on August 04, 2016, 01:46:40 AM
nice mismatch of colors in that video with the black on orange arrows, black on white cardinal directions, and blue interstate shields for those I-93 assemblies.
Not to mention the horizontal arrow plate that's tilted upward at 45 degrees.  I know it's all temporary, but geez ...
I was at the rotary earlier today and that arrow is now straight up and not tilted.

My comment was referring to the arrow on the left side route assembly just before the entrance ramp to I-93 north.  If that arrow has been "fixed" so that it's now straight up, that's going to confuse a lot of people.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MVHighways on August 05, 2016, 03:27:23 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 05, 2016, 09:17:05 AM
Quote from: MVHighways on August 04, 2016, 09:56:54 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 04, 2016, 12:07:14 PM
Quote from: mass_citizen on August 04, 2016, 01:46:40 AM
nice mismatch of colors in that video with the black on orange arrows, black on white cardinal directions, and blue interstate shields for those I-93 assemblies.
Not to mention the horizontal arrow plate that's tilted upward at 45 degrees.  I know it's all temporary, but geez ...
I was at the rotary earlier today and that arrow is now straight up and not tilted.

My comment was referring to the arrow on the left side route assembly just before the entrance ramp to I-93 north.  If that arrow has been "fixed" so that it's now straight up, that's going to confuse a lot of people.
Not that one. The one before it is what I refer to, which I now realize was never at a 45 degree angle.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Stephane Dumas on August 07, 2016, 09:09:51 PM
Google maps had updated their satellite imagery of Concorde Tpk and Cambridge Tpk (MA-2/MA-2A).
http://gokml.net/maps-azteca.php#ll=42.448277,-71.319684&z=16&t=s
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 08, 2016, 09:36:51 AM
Coming south on I-93 Saturday morning, I noted that the portable VMS just before the exit indicated that the new pattern for Exit 48 46 will be implemented on August 13th.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MVHighways on August 08, 2016, 03:40:10 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 08, 2016, 09:36:51 AM
Coming south on I-93 Saturday morning, I noted that the portable VMS just before the exit indicated that the new pattern for Exit 48 will be implemented on August 13th.
Yes, I just saw on the MassDOT project site that the new SB off ramp opens (at exit 46, not 48) on Saturday but the rotary still exists otherwise, but there is a major pattern change associated with the new ramp on the west side of the rotary. http://methuenrotary.mhd.state.ma.us/updates/traffic.aspx
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 09, 2016, 10:10:44 AM
Quote from: MVHighways on August 08, 2016, 03:40:10 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 08, 2016, 09:36:51 AM
Coming south on I-93 Saturday morning, I noted that the portable VMS just before the exit indicated that the new pattern for Exit 48 will be implemented on August 13th.
Yes, I just saw on the MassDOT project site that the new SB off ramp opens (at exit 46, not 48) on Saturday but the rotary still exists otherwise, but there is a major pattern change associated with the new ramp on the west side of the rotary. http://methuenrotary.mhd.state.ma.us/updates/traffic.aspx
Oopsie - have corrected my post.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 11, 2016, 01:03:43 AM
While on my way to the Lowell Spinners baseball game at LeLecheur Park on August 9, 2016:

One of those new electronic distance signs. It didn't look like it was operating yet. This was on I-495 North.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhqsIQBZ.jpg&hash=97a12c4ba3b4fa01116eacdeea019ec9de4d1040)


We were taking the last Massachusetts exit from US Route 3 in Tyngsborough. The New Hampshire welcome sign is roughly under the "S." for South Nashua, NH.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfWnUY6Y.jpg&hash=121e97cd0f8e95e6d0ba9878ddd2984cb40d747f)


We were turning left on the road which became the Daniel Webster Highway at the NH line. It was only a couple hundred feet away.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvwuxhRc.jpg&hash=1346a8aac78e5cc0ed5488f6758d93ddad98c50c)


The US Route 3 paddle sign next to Jordan's Furniture was actually still in Nashua, NH by a few feet.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDoVK9GG.jpg&hash=1ed5e9597d729bd286a2d954667d321f0e5dc3b8)


There's a lot of these directional signs put up by the city of Lowell, MA. At least they got the route markers correct.  :awesomeface:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FT0B9MCa.jpg&hash=5f0d55a94d06a029fa8a24eb99dca06256faa7c4)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on August 11, 2016, 03:07:08 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 11, 2016, 01:03:43 AMOne of those new electronic distance signs. It didn't look like it was operating yet. This was on I-495 North.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhqsIQBZ.jpg&hash=97a12c4ba3b4fa01116eacdeea019ec9de4d1040)

I have yet to see any of the permanent travel-time signs in operation.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on August 11, 2016, 06:54:32 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 11, 2016, 01:03:43 AM

We were taking the last Massachusetts exit from US Route 3 in Tyngsborough. The New Hampshire welcome sign is roughly under the "S." for South Nashua, NH.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfWnUY6Y.jpg&hash=121e97cd0f8e95e6d0ba9878ddd2984cb40d747f)


Plus theres the fact MA is missing an advanced sign for Spit Brook Road but pretty much every other exit near a state line they are good about signing it on their side.

But omg im in that area a lot since a lot of my freinds live around theyahh
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on August 11, 2016, 11:36:30 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on August 11, 2016, 03:07:08 PM


I have yet to see any of the permanent travel-time signs in operation.

They are active on cape cod
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 17, 2016, 02:38:56 PM
Methuen Rotary update - All traffic to be routed under the new I-93 bridges starting August 20th.

http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/methuen-rotary-update-route-110113-realignment-august-20/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on August 19, 2016, 11:14:42 AM
MassDOT will be opening a set of new ramps along I-95/128 at Kendrick Street in the Add-A-Lane work zone tonight. Traffic northbound will be able to access Kendrick Street directly, there will also be a new on-ramp to I-95/128 South. Details can be found through this link (the Exit number indicated is not quite right, it will be Exit 19A). The remaining parts of the reworked Highland Avenue/Kendrick St. interchange won't open until the end of 2018:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/HighlightedProjects/NeedhamWellesley/advisory_KendrickSt_081916.pdf (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/HighlightedProjects/NeedhamWellesley/advisory_KendrickSt_081916.pdf)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on August 19, 2016, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 19, 2016, 11:14:42 AM
MassDOT will be opening a set of new ramps along I-95/128 at Kendrick Street in the Add-A-Lane work zone tonight. Traffic northbound will be able to access Kendrick Street directly, there will also be a new on-ramp to I-95/128 South. Details can be found through this link (the Exit number indicated is not quite right, it will be Exit 19A). The remaining parts of the reworked Highland Avenue/Kendrick St. interchange won't open until the end of 2018:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/HighlightedProjects/NeedhamWellesley/advisory_KendrickSt_081916.pdf (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/HighlightedProjects/NeedhamWellesley/advisory_KendrickSt_081916.pdf)
Since Exit 19A already exists (Highland Ave. eastbound); numbering Kendrick St. as either Exit 18A or 19 (per the attached pdf) would make more sense.  Granted, such will likely be short-lived due to the upcoming interchange number conversions to mile-marker-based ones.

Kendrick St. would become Exit 34 & the Highland Ave. exits (current Exits 19A-B) would become Exits 35A-B.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on August 26, 2016, 07:30:23 PM
MassDOT is going all out with the FYAs. Every PPLT I know of on a state-maintained road in Berkshire County has been converted to a FYA. Most have a supplemental sign stating "left turn yield on flashing [yellow arrow illustration]" and most have a supplemental FYA signal head that is pole-mounted on the opposite corner of the intersection.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 28, 2016, 07:24:59 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 26, 2016, 07:30:23 PM
MassDOT is going all out with the FYAs. Every PPLT I know of on a state-maintained road in Berkshire County has been converted to a FYA. Most have a supplemental sign stating "left turn yield on flashing [yellow arrow illustration]" and most have a supplemental FYA signal head that is pole-mounted on the opposite corner of the intersection.

I saw FYA, 2 actually and at one, a driver blew right through it.  I bet he thought "oh i have an arrow" I can make it.  There was no supplemental sign with it.  It was somewhere in Auburn.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on August 28, 2016, 09:57:40 PM
probably thought it was going to turn into a red arrow so he was trying to make the arrow. Some jurisdictions make you wait forever for the green arrow to come back on again.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: dcbjms on September 06, 2016, 12:16:47 AM
Speaking of MassDOT and signaling projects - apparently MassDOT needs to update the Seekonk page if there are any additional future projects.  They still list the Baker's Four Corners intersection project, even though it's been done for a while now.  On the other hand, this one is still in progress:
https://hwy.massdot.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=ViewProject&PROJECT_NO=602615
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on September 09, 2016, 07:06:03 PM
Some of the new time-to-travel signs are active. Today the ones on US 3 were working. They may start coming live in your areas soon.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on September 09, 2016, 11:51:06 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on September 09, 2016, 07:06:03 PM
Some of the new time-to-travel signs are active. Today the ones on US 3 were working. They may start coming live in your areas soon.
According to a post on the BostonRoads Facebook group, a MassDOT spokesman indicates that most, if not all, of the signs should be activated by November.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 13, 2016, 01:00:53 PM
The contract has been awarded for Phase 1 (Dedham Street interchange) of the I-95/I-93/University Avenue improvements in Canton.

http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/canton-i-95dedham-street-interchange-construction-moves-forward/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Gnutella on September 13, 2016, 08:21:02 PM
One thing I've noticed in Massachusetts is that I-495 vanishes into thin air at its junction with I-195. Has there ever been any talk of extending a highway segment east to Sagamore Beach, or upgrading U.S. 44 and aligning I-495 on it to Plymouth? Just curious.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on September 13, 2016, 08:34:01 PM
they should extend 495 along the MA 25 freeway, that should fix that wierd 3 way ending they have right now where 25 195 and 495 all end at eachother.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on September 13, 2016, 09:50:14 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on September 13, 2016, 08:34:01 PM
they should extend 495 along the MA 25 freeway, that should fix that wierd 3 way ending they have right now where 25 195 and 495 all end at eachother.

Or even simpler, extend I-195 east over MA 25 to the Bourne Bridge.  That way, you'd only have to change mile markers/exit numbers on the MA 25 portion.  Extending I-495 "southward" would create some 90+ miles of renumbered exits and adjusting mileage.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 14, 2016, 08:26:53 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 13, 2016, 09:50:14 PMOr even simpler, extend I-195 east over MA 25 to the Bourne Bridge.  That way, you'd only have to change mile markers/exit numbers on the MA 25 portion.  Extending I-495 "southward" would create some 90+ 120 miles of renumbered exits and adjusting mileage.
FTFY  :sombrero:

I do agree with your suggestion but would even go further as towards eliminating the MA 25 designation along that highway stretch (with the option to have MA 25 go back to its original corridor (current MA 225)). 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 14, 2016, 09:31:20 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 13, 2016, 09:50:14 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on September 13, 2016, 08:34:01 PM
they should extend 495 along the MA 25 freeway, that should fix that wierd 3 way ending they have right now where 25 195 and 495 all end at eachother.

Or even simpler, extend I-195 east over MA 25 to the Bourne Bridge.  That way, you'd only have to change mile markers/exit numbers on the MA 25 portion.  Extending I-495 "southward" would create some 90+ miles of renumbered exits and adjusting mileage.
Also, extending I-195, which is a spur, over MA 25 wouldn't conflict with Interstate numbering rules, whereas extending I-495 would.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on September 14, 2016, 10:58:59 PM
Let's reconcile the Fictional discussion to something real: Why wasn't MA 25 included in the Interstate highway network? Is it because it was generated later than I-495 and no one wanted to renumber exits? I-195 isn't the through road, so maybe that's why 195 doesn't go that way.


EDIT: The 1986 topo map available in Historic Aerials puts an I-495 shield with MA 25 as it's Under Construction. So maybe it was considered and rejected for the reasons above.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 15, 2016, 09:26:05 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 14, 2016, 10:58:59 PM
Let's reconcile the Fictional discussion to something real: Why wasn't MA 25 included in the Interstate highway network? Is it because it was generated later than I-495 and no one wanted to renumber exits? I-195 isn't the through road, so maybe that's why 195 doesn't go that way.
IIRC, the portion of I-495 between I-95 & MA 24 that opened in the early 80s was originally planned to be a westerly extension of MA 25; which, back then (70s), ran from MA 24 in Bridgewater to US 6/MA 28 (current Exit 2) in Wareham just east of I-195. 

Both the existing stretch between I-195 & MA 24 and the then-unbuilt stretch between MA 24 & I-95 were added to the Interstate system (as I-495) when the originally-planned/proposed stretches of I-95 & 695 in the immediate Greater Boston area were cancelled by the early-to-mid 70s via an Interstate mileage trade. 

Once the stretch between I-95 & MA 24 was completed circa 1982, I-495's interchanges were all renumbered (to the current ones) to reflect that change/extension to I-195 in Wareham (utilizing the existing MA 25 stretch east of MA 24).

As mentioned earlier & prior to 1988(?), MA 25 ended just east of I-195 at US 6/MA 28 (current Exit 2) in Wareham.  Plans for an eastward extension date back to the 1960s (one proposal had an extension running all the way to MA 3 in Plymouth) but was continually delayed due to either NIMBYs or environmental concerns (mainly traversing through lucrative cranberry bogs) until the final extension was approved.

As towards the reason why all of MA 25 wasn't redesignated as an Interstate (be it 195 or 495); such may have been due either the then-unlikelihood of 25 ever being extended eastward (for the above-mentioned reasons) and/or there wasn't enough designated/allotted Interstate mileage available to be added or traded.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on September 16, 2016, 11:27:48 AM
MA 25 is not up to interstate standards in several spots where the state compromised with cranberry growers to push the highway through, mainly relating to shoulder width and salt runoff. An 6 lane interstate through the corridor was pretty much impossible, a 6 lane state route freeway was the only real plausible solution.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 16, 2016, 03:48:56 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on September 16, 2016, 11:27:48 AM
MA 25 is not up to interstate standards in several spots where the state compromised with cranberry growers to push the highway through, mainly relating to shoulder width and salt runoff. An 6 lane interstate through the corridor was pretty much impossible, a 6 lane state route freeway was the only real plausible solution.

It is a "Reduced Salt Area", after all.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on September 16, 2016, 04:54:35 PM
What part of MA-25 isn't up to standards?  It's 6 lanes with full width shoulders, and the on/off-ramps all seem interstate standard with full acceleration/deceleration lanes.

The only part that wouldn't be up to Interstate quality is the Bourne Bridge, which is technically part of MA-28, not 25.  It seems fully interstate-designation ready from 195/495 to exit 3 in Buzzards Bay.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 20, 2016, 04:03:21 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 09, 2016, 11:51:06 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on September 09, 2016, 07:06:03 PM
Some of the new time-to-travel signs are active. Today the ones on US 3 were working. They may start coming live in your areas soon.
According to a post on the BostonRoads Facebook group, a MassDOT spokesman indicates that most, if not all, of the signs should be activated by November.
Most of the travel time signs on Route 24 are about to be activated:

http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-real-time-traffic-displays-in-route-24-corridor/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on September 20, 2016, 04:34:22 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 20, 2016, 04:03:21 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 09, 2016, 11:51:06 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on September 09, 2016, 07:06:03 PM
Some of the new time-to-travel signs are active. Today the ones on US 3 were working. They may start coming live in your areas soon.
According to a post on the BostonRoads Facebook group, a MassDOT spokesman indicates that most, if not all, of the signs should be activated by November.
Most of the travel time signs on Route 24 are about to be activated:

http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-real-time-traffic-displays-in-route-24-corridor/
All the signs are up along MA 3 from Bourne to Braintree, so these should be activated soon. Will be interesting to see if they post the planned signs in the I-95 Add-A-Lane work zone area in Needham, or wait until construction is complete. Planned signs are still needed to be placed along I-93 /SE Expressway at Neponset Circle (NB) and Mass Ave. (SB) before all the I-93 signs can be activated.

For those who may have not seen the placed signs to be activated along MA 24, go to:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html#ma24signs (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html#ma24signs)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: rushfan01760 on September 22, 2016, 09:23:45 AM
Looks like part of I-95 (Rte. 128) in Needham will be closed for a weekend at the beginning of November...

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/09/22/route-128-closure-highland-avenue-bridge-95-shut-down/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 22, 2016, 10:14:25 AM
Quote from: rushfan01760 on September 22, 2016, 09:23:45 AM
Looks like part of I-95 (Rte. 128) in Needham will be closed for a weekend at the beginning of November...
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/09/22/route-128-closure-highland-avenue-bridge-95-shut-down/
Say Sayonara to the old cement-arched overpasses:

Overpass along northbound lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3024223,-71.2244093,3a,75y,327.76h,76.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soP2B3jDSu9pdKyC47dAKzw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Overpass along southbound lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Needham,+MA/@42.3029789,-71.2254131,3a,75y,160.31h,78.29t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-Ludffob785tsEenBKld4g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-Ludffob785tsEenBKld4g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D34.585773%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e3810b9459b807:0x528f114b56e9a1e6!8m2!3d42.2809285!4d-71.2377548)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on September 22, 2016, 10:26:01 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 22, 2016, 10:14:25 AM
Quote from: rushfan01760 on September 22, 2016, 09:23:45 AM
Looks like part of I-95 (Rte. 128) in Needham will be closed for a weekend at the beginning of November...
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/09/22/route-128-closure-highland-avenue-bridge-95-shut-down/
Say Sayonara to the old cement-arched overpasses:

I don't get it. There's nothing named Sayonara in the area.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on September 22, 2016, 10:28:11 AM
Quote from: 1 on September 22, 2016, 10:26:01 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 22, 2016, 10:14:25 AM
Quote from: rushfan01760 on September 22, 2016, 09:23:45 AM
Looks like part of I-95 (Rte. 128) in Needham will be closed for a weekend at the beginning of November...
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/09/22/route-128-closure-highland-avenue-bridge-95-shut-down/
Say Sayonara to the old cement-arched overpasses:

I don't get it. There's nothing named Sayonara in the area.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 22, 2016, 11:03:31 AM
Quote from: rushfan01760 on September 22, 2016, 09:23:45 AM
Looks like part of I-95 (Rte. 128) in Needham will be closed for a weekend at the beginning of November...

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/09/22/route-128-closure-highland-avenue-bridge-95-shut-down/

Route 128 getting priority over the I-95 designation. Boston, never change.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on September 23, 2016, 11:09:53 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 22, 2016, 11:03:31 AM
Quote from: rushfan01760 on September 22, 2016, 09:23:45 AM
Looks like part of I-95 (Rte. 128) in Needham will be closed for a weekend at the beginning of November...

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/09/22/route-128-closure-highland-avenue-bridge-95-shut-down/

Route 128 getting priority over the I-95 designation. Boston, never change.
Some progress though. While both the Globe and TV news stories headlined the closure would be on 'Route 128' they did later often refer to the route as '128/I-95.' Perhaps someday they'll even report it as I-95/128...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 23, 2016, 11:18:05 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 23, 2016, 11:09:53 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 22, 2016, 11:03:31 AM
Quote from: rushfan01760 on September 22, 2016, 09:23:45 AM
Looks like part of I-95 (Rte. 128) in Needham will be closed for a weekend at the beginning of November...

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/09/22/route-128-closure-highland-avenue-bridge-95-shut-down/

Route 128 getting priority over the I-95 designation. Boston, never change.
Some progress though. While both the Globe and TV news stories headlined the closure would be on 'Route 128' they did later often refer to the route as '128/I-95.' Perhaps someday they'll even report it as I-95/128...
The announcer on WBZ radio Thursday morning stated "on Route 128.  Or, if you prefer, 95."
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on October 12, 2016, 05:41:27 PM
MassDOT has activated their 'Go Time' (Real Time Traffic) signs along the MA 3 corridor from Braintree to Bourne. Here's one of the activated signs heading south after the MA 18 exit:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fma3srttweymouth1016.jpg&hash=911755a9371b7bc94803cfb9dbfd5b9ec1caee4e)

Images of other activated signs I took today can be found in the MA 3 and MA 24 sections of my Misc. Mass. Sign Photos page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on October 13, 2016, 11:02:33 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 09, 2016, 11:51:06 PMAccording to a post on the BostonRoads Facebook group, a MassDOT spokesman indicates that most, if not all, of the signs should be activated by November.

I have a feeling the ones on I-93 north of Boston are probably within days of being activated.  They may have already disconnected the sensor feeds to at least some of the trailer signs, as the one near the Park Street exit in Stoneham has been stuck at 7 MILES - 8 MINUTES for the last few days, regardless of traffic volume.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on October 13, 2016, 11:17:14 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on October 13, 2016, 11:02:33 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 09, 2016, 11:51:06 PMAccording to a post on the BostonRoads Facebook group, a MassDOT spokesman indicates that most, if not all, of the signs should be activated by November.

I have a feeling the ones on I-93 north of Boston are probably within days of being activated.  They may have already disconnected the sensor feeds to at least some of the trailer signs, as the one near the Park Street exit in Stoneham has been stuck at 7 MILES - 8 MINUTES for the last few days, regardless of traffic volume.
Meanwhile, the portable VMS sign with traffic times was still on just prior to the activated sign in the photo above.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on October 13, 2016, 11:43:33 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on October 13, 2016, 11:02:33 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 09, 2016, 11:51:06 PMAccording to a post on the BostonRoads Facebook group, a MassDOT spokesman indicates that most, if not all, of the signs should be activated by November.

I have a feeling the ones on I-93 north of Boston are probably within days of being activated.  They may have already disconnected the sensor feeds to at least some of the trailer signs, as the one near the Park Street exit in Stoneham has been stuck at 7 MILES - 8 MINUTES for the last few days, regardless of traffic volume.
Nope, the trailer signs use a different activation system than the new permanent ones will.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on October 13, 2016, 10:21:35 PM
Quote from: roadman on October 13, 2016, 11:43:33 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on October 13, 2016, 11:02:33 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 09, 2016, 11:51:06 PMAccording to a post on the BostonRoads Facebook group, a MassDOT spokesman indicates that most, if not all, of the signs should be activated by November.

I have a feeling the ones on I-93 north of Boston are probably within days of being activated.  They may have already disconnected the sensor feeds to at least some of the trailer signs, as the one near the Park Street exit in Stoneham has been stuck at 7 MILES - 8 MINUTES for the last few days, regardless of traffic volume.
Nope, the trailer signs use a different activation system than the new permanent ones will.

Curious to know roadman, where do the portable signs get their info from?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on October 14, 2016, 09:11:27 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on October 13, 2016, 10:21:35 PM
Quote from: roadman on October 13, 2016, 11:43:33 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on October 13, 2016, 11:02:33 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 09, 2016, 11:51:06 PMAccording to a post on the BostonRoads Facebook group, a MassDOT spokesman indicates that most, if not all, of the signs should be activated by November.

I have a feeling the ones on I-93 north of Boston are probably within days of being activated.  They may have already disconnected the sensor feeds to at least some of the trailer signs, as the one near the Park Street exit in Stoneham has been stuck at 7 MILES - 8 MINUTES for the last few days, regardless of traffic volume.
Nope, the trailer signs use a different activation system than the new permanent ones will.

Curious to know roadman, where do the portable signs get their info from?
The system the portable signs get their information from is similar to the Bluetooth/Bluetoad system being used for the permanent signs.  However, the actual detection equipment for the portable signs is also portable.  For future maintenance and reliability reasons, it would not be practical to re-use the portable detection system with the permanent signs.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on October 15, 2016, 12:56:42 PM
It is unlikely the I-93 signs will be activated in their entirety any time soon since there are two signs along the SE Expressway in Boston yet to be placed. I did spot one sign on I-95 South in Needham that was partially activated last evening, but none of the others south of there were on.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on October 18, 2016, 11:22:43 AM
The MassDOT Project Info page indicates that preliminary approval has been granted for five new sign replacement projects to take place between Winter 2019/20 and Summer 2021. The routes involved are:
MA 28 Bourne to Falmouth (the milepost exit conversion contract assigned exit numbers to these exits, will exits be assigned if sequential numbers are continued to be used elsewhere?)
I-195 and I-495 Dartmouth to Raynham (signs along both of these highways have been replaced in the past few years, are these for signs that were not replaced under the other contracts?)
MA 146 Uxbridge to Worcester
US 3 Burlington to Tyngsboro
I-391 Chicopee to Holyoke

There is also a project to replace signage along MA 1A from Boston to Revere whose 100% design plans were produced in September.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on October 18, 2016, 12:41:27 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on October 18, 2016, 11:22:43 AMThere is also a project to replace signage along MA 1A from Boston to Revere whose 100% design plans were produced in September.
Weren't most of those already replaced as part of the Big Dig project?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on October 21, 2016, 06:10:23 PM
Made my first trip down I-91 today since Labor Day weekend.  Where there were none before, there are now 3 real-time signs along I-91 SB that I observed.  They snuck up on me, so only got pics of 2 of the signs.  They're not active yet:

Southbound, past Exit 26, Deerfield:
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5694/30389910971_7b0bd8fab4_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NiseLg)IMG_2332 (https://flic.kr/p/NiseLg) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr


Southbound, around Northampton:
(no photo this time)


Southbound, I believe past Exit 14, West Springfield:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5722/30476450465_2507c37d3b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Nr6LWv)IMG_2333 (https://flic.kr/p/Nr6LWv) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr


I'll try and get the northbounds on Sunday.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on October 22, 2016, 12:56:32 PM
The lonely erroneous South US 3 reassurance marker on MA 3 after the MA 14 exit in Duxbury has now been joined by another one after the next exit, MA 3A to MA 53:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fus3signerrorduxbury1016.JPG&hash=d10e5eb04f58dc1edfa9a2f90b46c7d7dc37d44b)

At this rate of sign replacement, maybe MA 3 will become US 3 in about 50-100 years...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on October 23, 2016, 08:04:30 PM
Today on I-91 North:

Between CT state line and Exit 2, Longmeadow:
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/6/5752/30437260311_ca892e068d_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NnCV5c)IMG_2560 (https://flic.kr/p/NnCV5c) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr


Northbound, before Exit 16, Holyoke:
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/6/5734/29891498533_81197f37e8_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MxpK7n)IMG_2564 (https://flic.kr/p/MxpK7n) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Northbound, before Exit 24, Whately:
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8647/29893548484_5f401b1ac8_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MxAfum)IMG_2567 (https://flic.kr/p/MxAfum) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on October 31, 2016, 11:17:51 AM
I wonder if the closure of I-95/Route 128 for removal of the Highland Avenue bridge in Needham is still scheduled for this weekend? I am surprised by the lack of advance notice other than news reports in late September. I would have expected there to be VMS messages posted on the highway at least a week in advance.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 31, 2016, 12:48:00 PM
Driving the Pike west from Weston to Sturbridge before dawn on Sunday, the travel time signs were on.  They had not been on Thursday.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on October 31, 2016, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 31, 2016, 12:48:00 PM
Driving the Pike west from Weston to Sturbridge before dawn on Sunday, the travel time signs were on.  They had not been on Thursday.
The signs were activated Friday night in coordination with the start of the AET system. Here's the sign eastbound between Exits 13 and 14:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi90erttframingham1016b.jpg&hash=3c858b8c5f4d369dc4697d6d469c68c07c117e0a)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on October 31, 2016, 05:18:08 PM
The ones west of Sturbridge are all activated as well, all the way to the NY line.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 01, 2016, 06:09:21 AM
Eastbound I saw only one operational travel time sign this morning between Sturbridge and 128.

Are the guide signs on 84 set to be replaced?  They're even less reflective at night than those on the Mass Pike.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on November 01, 2016, 09:12:22 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 01, 2016, 06:09:21 AM
Eastbound I saw only one operational travel time sign this morning between Sturbridge and 128.

Are the guide signs on 84 set to be replaced?  They're even less reflective at night than those on the Mass Pike.
The guide signs on I-84 at the Pike are being replaced under the West Stockbridge to Auburn sign replacement project.   The other guide signs between the CT line and US 20 were replaced in 2003.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 02, 2016, 06:53:57 AM
Quote from: roadman on November 01, 2016, 09:12:22 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 01, 2016, 06:09:21 AM
Eastbound I saw only one operational travel time sign this morning between Sturbridge and 128.

Are the guide signs on 84 set to be replaced?  They're even less reflective at night than those on the Mass Pike.
The guide signs on I-84 at the Pike are being replaced under the West Stockbridge to Auburn sign replacement project.   The other guide signs between the CT line and US 20 were replaced in 2003.

The northbound ones south of the Mass Pike are barely legible when lit by few headlights in good weather.  I hope they get replaced in the next round.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on November 02, 2016, 11:27:40 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 02, 2016, 06:53:57 AM
Quote from: roadman on November 01, 2016, 09:12:22 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 01, 2016, 06:09:21 AM
Eastbound I saw only one operational travel time sign this morning between Sturbridge and 128.

Are the guide signs on 84 set to be replaced?  They're even less reflective at night than those on the Mass Pike.
The guide signs on I-84 at the Pike are being replaced under the West Stockbridge to Auburn sign replacement project.   The other guide signs between the CT line and US 20 were replaced in 2003.

The northbound ones south of the Mass Pike are barely legible when lit by few headlights in good weather.  I hope they get replaced in the next round.
Are you referring to these at the gore (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1274327,-72.0649625,3a,75y,46.37h,71.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgo7DXeATvYPElfAp9hcmIg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) or these just after the now-gone toll booths (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.126572,-72.0658364,3a,75y,38.9h,73.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1st0GEoG30SXfx_zsaCDRs2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?  Note: the GSVs are from 2011 and show the signs in their better days.

IIRC, the BGS at the gore are older; which likely explains the fading & reduced reflectivity.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 02, 2016, 11:42:32 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 02, 2016, 11:27:40 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 02, 2016, 06:53:57 AM
Quote from: roadman on November 01, 2016, 09:12:22 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 01, 2016, 06:09:21 AM
Eastbound I saw only one operational travel time sign this morning between Sturbridge and 128.

Are the guide signs on 84 set to be replaced?  They're even less reflective at night than those on the Mass Pike.
The guide signs on I-84 at the Pike are being replaced under the West Stockbridge to Auburn sign replacement project.   The other guide signs between the CT line and US 20 were replaced in 2003.

The northbound ones south of the Mass Pike are barely legible when lit by few headlights in good weather.  I hope they get replaced in the next round.
Are you referring to these at the gore (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1274327,-72.0649625,3a,75y,46.37h,71.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgo7DXeATvYPElfAp9hcmIg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) or these just after the now-gone toll booths (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.126572,-72.0658364,3a,75y,38.9h,73.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1st0GEoG30SXfx_zsaCDRs2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?  Note: the GSVs are from 2011 and show the signs in their better days.

IIRC, the BGS at the gore are older; which likely explains the fading & reduced reflectivity.

Just north of the Connecticut line, exits 1 & 2.  I rarely think about it after hundreds of times on that road, but I was there the other night in very light traffic and noticed how illegible they were at a distance.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 04, 2016, 07:34:42 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 23, 2016, 11:18:05 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 23, 2016, 11:09:53 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on September 22, 2016, 11:03:31 AM
Quote from: rushfan01760 on September 22, 2016, 09:23:45 AM
Looks like part of I-95 (Rte. 128) in Needham will be closed for a weekend at the beginning of November...

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/09/22/route-128-closure-highland-avenue-bridge-95-shut-down/

Route 128 getting priority over the I-95 designation. Boston, never change.
Some progress though. While both the Globe and TV news stories headlined the closure would be on 'Route 128' they did later often refer to the route as '128/I-95.' Perhaps someday they'll even report it as I-95/128...
The announcer on WBZ radio Thursday morning stated "on Route 128.  Or, if you prefer, 95."

The announcement of the Needham closure this weekend on WBUR included the phrase "Route 128, which some people call I-95."
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on November 04, 2016, 09:29:37 AM
Just to update - the I-95 (or Route 128 for those of you stuck in 1972) full closure in Needham is still scheduled to happen this weekend.

http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/needham-i-95-bypass-detour-this-weekend/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on November 04, 2016, 11:33:05 AM
Quote from: roadman on November 04, 2016, 09:29:37 AM
Just to update - the I-95 (or Route 128 for those of you stuck in 1972) full closure in Needham is still scheduled to happen this weekend.

http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/needham-i-95-bypass-detour-this-weekend/

I-128!

from Fox 25's website:

QuoteBOSTON - From Nov. 4 to Nov. 6, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation will be demolishing the existing Highland Avenue Bridge over Interstate 128.

In order to keep drivers safe from the operation, MassDOT will close a portion of the expressway during the demolition.

"If you have to travel during the peak times on Saturday and Sunday, please allow extra time as we are expecting delays to occur," said Walter Heller with MassDOT.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on November 04, 2016, 12:40:07 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 04, 2016, 09:29:37 AM
Just to update - the I-95 (or Route 128 for those of you stuck in 1972) full closure in Needham is still scheduled to happen this weekend.

http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/needham-i-95-bypass-detour-this-weekend/
Here's a couple photos I took last weekend of what remains of the old Highland Ave. bridge, first northbound:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95addalane1016e.jpg&hash=a17605eed2bc3453a73f6169b8787b19a40318d2)

And southbound:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95addalane1016l.jpg&hash=9cdf22c299a016f279a166bbcdb6537e6b8bbdad)

Other images taken in the Add-A-Lane work zone can be found at:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 04, 2016, 09:00:29 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 04, 2016, 09:29:37 AM
Just to update - the I-95 (or Route 128 for those of you stuck in 1972) full closure in Needham is still scheduled to happen this weekend.

http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/needham-i-95-bypass-detour-this-weekend/

Don't pay attention to that 128 stuff.  As I've learned from interacting with lots of public officials, the public's preference is frequently wrong. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 04, 2016, 09:52:42 PM
NECN (New England Cable News) mentioned this project after noon ET today. Sure enough, the graphic text near the bottom only said "128". I know it's minor, but that really irritates me!  :banghead:
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 04, 2016, 10:09:53 PM
This is very simple and easy to understand, but people devoted to arbitrary numbering conventions don't address the reason 128 holds on.

The public wants a way to specifically identify the big "C" that goes around Boston. Coming up with a new name when 128 is already understood to denote this discreet thing is more eyeroll-worthy than leaving the already well understood 128.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on November 04, 2016, 10:50:30 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 04, 2016, 10:09:53 PM
The public wants a way to specifically identify the big "C" that goes around Boston. Coming up with a new name when 128 is already understood to denote this discreet thing is more eyeroll-worthy than leaving the already well understood 128.

This. If you say "128", everyone knows what you mean. The road never had another widely-used name. It's just easier to keep calling it 128, numbering be damned.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on November 06, 2016, 01:59:32 AM
Its not a case of the public being "wrong" it's more a case of traffic engineers being unhappy they are having trouble imposing their will on the driving public because they think they know what's best for them even when it comes to non-safety related issues...see the sequential numbering issue for a similar example.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on November 06, 2016, 09:04:15 AM
I actually think the sequential numbering issue will go down easily if they ever just pulled the trigger. It's not the first time the state's renumbered things. The route 6 thing on the cape is different. If they took the 128 signs off after it was confirmed that there would never be 95 running through Boston, it would have transitioned easily enough.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on November 06, 2016, 06:05:31 PM
Bold emphasis added below:
Quote from: kefkafloyd on November 06, 2016, 09:04:15 AM
I actually think the sequential numbering issue will go down easily if they ever just pulled the trigger. It's not the first time the state's renumbered things.
True, many tend to overlook this little item.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on November 09, 2016, 12:09:15 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on November 06, 2016, 09:04:15 AM
If they took the 128 signs off after it was confirmed that there would never be 95 running through Boston, it would have transitioned easily enough.
Actually, once AASHO approved the revised I-95 routing along MA 128 between Canton and Peabody, MassDPW began changing 128 markers to 95 shields on BGS signs and route assemblies.  About six months in, due to protests from legislators and local officials, the conversion was stopped.  Where BGSes had been changed to I-95, MassDPW installed supplemental 128 assemblies.  Where BGSes still stated 128, they installed supplemental I-95 assemblies.  The use of I-95 on BGSes and LGSes and supplemental 128 assemblies wasn't standardized through the corridor until the sign replacement projects in the 1990s, when the FHWA regional office issued their directive that 128 would no longer appear on any green guide signs.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on November 14, 2016, 11:00:38 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on October 22, 2016, 12:56:32 PM
The lonely erroneous South US 3 reassurance marker on MA 3 after the MA 14 exit in Duxbury has now been joined by another one after the next exit, MA 3A to MA 53:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fus3signerrorduxbury1016.JPG&hash=d10e5eb04f58dc1edfa9a2f90b46c7d7dc37d44b)

At this rate of sign replacement, maybe MA 3 will become US 3 in about 50-100 years...
Update. I traveled past the location of the second US 3 sign on Sunday northbound. The US 3 shield has been replaced by a MA 3 one. Was not able to tell whether the first one had been switched as well.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on November 14, 2016, 11:06:26 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on October 15, 2016, 12:56:42 PM
It is unlikely the I-93 signs will be activated in their entirety any time soon since there are two signs along the SE Expressway in Boston yet to be placed. I did spot one sign on I-95 South in Needham that was partially activated last evening, but none of the others south of there were on.
From traveling around the Boston area this weekend, it appears most of the travel time signs have been activated, including on I-93. Here's the last I-93 sign southbound in Milton:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi93srttmilton1116.jpg&hash=4a44918629585ac399f9de3e9b75df075c09656c)

I have posted new photos taken of the Real Time Traffic signs along I-195 East and MA 3 on my Misc. Mass. Sign photos page, Section B:
http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on November 14, 2016, 11:55:06 AM
I find the VMS minute numbers very difficult to read on these signs, both during the day and at night.  The LEDs are not bright enough.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2016, 04:03:18 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 14, 2016, 11:55:06 AM
I find the VMS minute numbers very difficult to read on these signs, both during the day and at night.  The LEDs are not bright enough.

Completely agree.  I was surprised again by this the other night.  Needs tweaking.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on November 22, 2016, 11:25:50 PM
I too noticed the white LED's are extremely hard to read. However there are a few slightly older installations on the south shore/cape that have orange LED's and they are clear as can be.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2016, 06:31:36 AM
 Cod Cape sign goof makes the news:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/22/massdot-apologizes-for-cod-cape-sign-dartmouth/bpmdTMDf96Jk7maly3BcxO/story.html
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on November 23, 2016, 03:33:52 PM
How many checks in the process are there from draft to manufacturing?  And are the folks who install the signage illiterate?  Wouldn't they alert someone to the fact that the sign was completely incorrect before erecting it?  Signage mistakes like these boggle me.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on November 23, 2016, 03:54:31 PM
People learn not to question their bosses for fear of being fired. Welcome to modern day employment.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on November 23, 2016, 08:22:21 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 23, 2016, 03:33:52 PM
How many checks in the process are there from draft to manufacturing?  And are the folks who install the signage illiterate?  Wouldn't they alert someone to the fact that the sign was completely incorrect before erecting it?  Signage mistakes like these boggle me.
At MassDOT, there are at least two chances during the design process to catch guide sign legend errors - at the intermediate and final design reviews (guide sign specific projects - which the Faunce Corner Road work was not one of - offer an additional opportunity at the preliminary design stage).  Once the project goes into construction, the final chance to catch a legend error is during review of the fabricator's sign face drawings.  Assuming that both the original design plans and/or the initial or revised fabricator's drawings have correctly spelled and formatted legends, it is the final responsibility of the project resident engineer or their inspector/designee to verify that the legend on a finished sign is correct just before installation.            http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/engineeringDirectives/2008/e-08-002.pdf

I have no knowledge of what internal procedures, if any, that MassDOT's approved sign fabricators may or may not have regarding QA/QC for fabricating sign panels.  However, I would doubt that the laborers who actually install the signs would be tasked with final QA/QC, and should not be expected to perform this task.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on December 02, 2016, 12:51:59 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2016, 04:03:18 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 14, 2016, 11:55:06 AM
I find the VMS minute numbers very difficult to read on these signs, both during the day and at night.  The LEDs are not bright enough.

Completely agree.  I was surprised again by this the other night.  Needs tweaking.
I've been noticing the same thing.  Apparently, the white LED displays (as opposed to the amber displays used on the signs on Cape Cod) are an MUTCD requirement for such "hybrid" signs - the rationale being so they can match the white sign lettering.  In spite of this, personally, I think they should have stuck with amber for the current contract.  Although one hopes MassDOT can make the white displays brighter, I suspect the result will be displays that are much harsher on the eyes at night than amber would have been.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: connroadgeek on December 02, 2016, 06:45:30 PM
Quote from: roadman on December 02, 2016, 12:51:59 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 22, 2016, 04:03:18 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 14, 2016, 11:55:06 AM
I find the VMS minute numbers very difficult to read on these signs, both during the day and at night.  The LEDs are not bright enough.

Completely agree.  I was surprised again by this the other night.  Needs tweaking.
I've been noticing the same thing.  Apparently, the white LED displays (as opposed to the amber displays used on the signs on Cape Cod) are an MUTCD requirement for such "hybrid" signs - the rationale being so they can match the white sign lettering.  In spite of this, personally, I think they should have stuck with amber for the current contract.  Although one hopes MassDOT can make the white displays brighter, I suspect the result will be displays that are much harsher on the eyes at night than amber would have been.
When did that become a requirement because New York uses the amber for such signs. We've got a bunch of those in the NYC area giving the time to a particular bridge or airport via different routes.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 03, 2016, 07:00:51 PM
I'm no expert on LEDs, but I would expect that these are able to be adjusted to a higher intensity without being glaring.  As they are now, it's almost as if nobody looked at them from a few hundred yards away before installing them.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on December 08, 2016, 02:34:03 AM
http://www.universalhub.com/2016/its-long-way-tipperary-and-newport-or (http://www.universalhub.com/2016/its-long-way-tipperary-and-newport-or)

I believe there is also a sign link this on US 6 in Provincetown
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on December 08, 2016, 11:10:53 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on December 08, 2016, 02:34:03 AM
http://www.universalhub.com/2016/its-long-way-tipperary-and-newport-or (http://www.universalhub.com/2016/its-long-way-tipperary-and-newport-or)

I believe there is also a sign link this on US 6 in Provincetown
There's now a Thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19314.0) covering the newly-erected US 20 termini signs.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on December 17, 2016, 01:23:04 PM
MassDOT plans to announce the winning bidder this Tuesday for the project that will provide 'Retroreflective Sign Replacements and Upgrades at Various Locations' in Division 5 (the South Shore and Cape Cod). The contract is part of a new MassDOT system that has had the agency identify each sign and then determine, based on its condition, whether it needs replacing. The contractor then only produces and installs those signs, instead of replacing all of them along given highway or district, hopefully saving time and money. (Roadman, as the project engineer can hopefully provide more details.) The project bid page:
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-17-1030-0H100-0H002-00000009785&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-17-1030-0H100-0H002-00000009785&external=true&parentUrl=bid)

The bid page has a link to the Sign Summary Sheet listing the signs to be replaced. Based on my perusal of the list for my local area, it appears the plan calls for replacing existing  MA 228 signs at the Derby and Whiting street (MA 53) intersection in Hingham. Derby St. has not been the official route of MA 228 since the 1990's and the Mass. Guide (Paddle) signs at the intersections were revised a few years ago to indicate this by removing the 228 shields and replacing them with Derby Street:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fma53228dst1.jpg&hash=d0f2a600c37ccc791694a6fafd60c8ea631db8b9)

The existing signs were not removed, however, and the plan indicates all the 53 and 228 signs will both be replaced (along with the South banner), including this one:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fma53228dw3.jpg&hash=30b3d3bf4b0ef2a5a7d53c3f0e2bf4575e3dfc37)

and the listing also says the existing support post will remain(?).

Meanwhile, there is no apparent plan to replace any of the MA 228 shields along Main Street, many of which date back to the late 1970s. While some are in good condition, there are several that are hard to see at night. Saving money is all and good, but if spent, it is helpful to chose the right things to spend it on. Perhaps the 228 shields meant for Derby Street can be repurposed for use elsewhere?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on December 17, 2016, 05:59:50 PM
The project bob7374 mentioned is the second of an eventual five District-wide projects to be advertised by MassDOT for the replacement of various guide, route, regulatory, and warning signs that, based on both daytime and nighttime evaluations, have poor retoreflectivity.  The District 4 contract is in the process of being awarded, and bids on the District 5 contract are being opened on Tuesday, December 20th.  Design work on the remaining projects, one for Districts 1 and 2, one for District 3, and one for District 6, has recently started.  These remaining projects are scheduled to be advertised in early to mid-summer of 2017.

Note that, for those sections of secondary state highway that fall under local jurisdiction, this project will only replace select guide, route marker, and speed limit signs - subject to local approval.  This is why certain signs that may appear to be in poor condition are not currently included in the D5 contract documents.

Federal HSIP funding is being used for all these contracts.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on December 19, 2016, 05:32:22 PM
I just noticed new BGS overheads for the advance of the new on-ramp to I-295 SB from I-95 SB (Exit 4) at the exit and 1/4 mile mark.  The BGS at the exit is APL per MUTCD and there is also a separate new APL trailblazer for I-95 SB next to it.  An early teaser for the eventual sign-replacement project on that stretch.

Yet, Exits 7A and Exit 1 on I-95 SB still remain without any signage indicating the exit and will likely stay that way until the replacement.  (Exit 7A was an obvious gantry fail.)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on December 19, 2016, 05:58:21 PM
Quote from: roadman on December 17, 2016, 05:59:50 PM
The project bob7374 mentioned is the second of an eventual five District-wide projects to be advertised by MassDOT for the replacement of various guide, route, regulatory, and warning signs that, based on both daytime and nighttime evaluations, have poor retoreflectivity.  The District 4 contract is in the process of being awarded, and bids on the District 5 contract are being opened on Tuesday, December 20th.  Design work on the remaining projects, one for Districts 1 and 2, one for District 3, and one for District 6, has recently started.  These remaining projects are scheduled to be advertised in early to mid-summer of 2017.

Note that, for those sections of secondary state highway that fall under local jurisdiction, this project will only replace select guide, route marker, and speed limit signs - subject to local approval.  This is why certain signs that may appear to be in poor condition are not currently included in the D5 contract documents.

Federal HSIP funding is being used for all these contracts.
Thanks for the response. So have the signs on the proposed list, if they are on state highways under local control, been approved by the town or are they still to be submitted for approval? In other words, who should be contacted to make sure current erroneous signs are taken down but not replaced?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on December 20, 2016, 11:19:00 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on December 19, 2016, 05:32:22 PM
I just noticed new BGS overheads for the advance of the new on-ramp to I-295 SB from I-95 SB (Exit 4) at the exit and 1/4 mile mark.  The BGS at the exit is APL per MUTCD and there is also a separate new APL trailblazer for I-95 SB next to it.  An early teaser for the eventual sign-replacement project on that stretch.

Yet, Exits 7A and Exit 1 on I-95 SB still remain without any signage indicating the exit and will likely stay that way until the replacement.  (Exit 7A was an obvious gantry fail.)
The new overhead BGSes at I-295 are NOT APLs, but standard lane assignment signs.  These signs were installed as part of the I-295 interchange reconstruction, and reflect the new two lane exit ramp, and were put in as a stop-gap measure until the next sign update project - scheduled for 2018-2019.

The gantry and sign at Exit 7A will likely be replaced prior to the next sign update through the Accident Recovery program.  Not sure about Exit 1.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on December 20, 2016, 11:21:59 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on December 19, 2016, 05:58:21 PM
Quote from: roadman on December 17, 2016, 05:59:50 PM
The project bob7374 mentioned is the second of an eventual five District-wide projects to be advertised by MassDOT for the replacement of various guide, route, regulatory, and warning signs that, based on both daytime and nighttime evaluations, have poor retoreflectivity.  The District 4 contract is in the process of being awarded, and bids on the District 5 contract are being opened on Tuesday, December 20th.  Design work on the remaining projects, one for Districts 1 and 2, one for District 3, and one for District 6, has recently started.  These remaining projects are scheduled to be advertised in early to mid-summer of 2017.

Note that, for those sections of secondary state highway that fall under local jurisdiction, this project will only replace select guide, route marker, and speed limit signs - subject to local approval.  This is why certain signs that may appear to be in poor condition are not currently included in the D5 contract documents.

Federal HSIP funding is being used for all these contracts.
Thanks for the response. So have the signs on the proposed list, if they are on state highways under local control, been approved by the town or are they still to be submitted for approval? In other words, who should be contacted to make sure current erroneous signs are taken down but not replaced?
Signs on state highways under local control that are slated for replacement under the contract have already been approved by the local town.  I would contact the local town, as well as cc'ing District 5, regarding any additional guide or route marker signs you believe should be replaced or changed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on December 20, 2016, 02:59:19 PM
Update - Bids on the District 5 secondary state highway sign replacement contract were opened.  RoadSafe Traffic Systems of Avon, MA is the apparent low bidder.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on January 02, 2017, 01:09:24 PM
With the start of the New Year, some questions about Massachusetts roads that I hope will be answered during 2017 (feel free to add your own, or answer them, if already known):
1. Will MassDOT come to a decision regarding installation of milepost based exit numbers, or will they continue to 'study the issue'?
2. Will the I-90 sign replacement projects (whichever numbers are used) be substantially completed?
3. Given the progress in widening I-95/128 south of the new Kendrick Street exit in the Add-A-Lane work zone, will MassDOT open the fourth lane prior to the rest of the project being completed north to MA 9?
4. On a related note, is there any plan to add mileposts to the sections of the Add-A-Lane project zone where work has been completed, or will this wait until the entire project is finished? (IMHO there's no reason mile markers on I-93 between I-95 and MA 24 could not be placed now).
5. What are the major highway projects to be let during the next year?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on January 03, 2017, 05:55:33 PM
I took a New Year's road trip to check out progress on MassDOT's I-95 Add-Lane project in Needham and Wellesley. Northbound traffic is now using part of a new bridge over MA 9 in Wellesley:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95addalane117l.jpg&hash=ac4ddedfd89842ca636ec4ac4471556859a671df)

Other photos can be found in the Add-A-Lane section of my I-95 in Mass. photo page:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 05, 2017, 09:16:52 AM
Funny how I'm more interested with the transmitters in those pictures! I think one of them is the so-called "FM 128" tower in Needham. At least four TV stations are on that including WBZ-TV (CBS) channel 4 of Boston. I'm not on that section of I-95/MA 128 that often, however.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on January 05, 2017, 11:14:39 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 05, 2017, 09:16:52 AM
Funny how I'm more interested with the transmitters in those pictures! I think one of them is the so-called "FM 128" tower in Needham. At least four TV stations are on that including WBZ-TV (CBS) channel 4 of Boston. I'm not on that section of I-95/MA 128 that often, however.

The FM-128 tower in Needham (behind You-Do-It Electronics, on the east side of 128) has three TV stations on it:  WFXZ (24), WMFP (62) and WBPX (68).  WBZ-TV's (4) tower in Wellesley (the only one of those towers west of 128) is shared by WGBH (2), WCVB (5), WBTS (8), WSBK (38), WGBX (44), and WYDN (48).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 06, 2017, 09:44:12 AM
I think you mean WFXT-TV (FOX) channel 25.

WBTS-LD (low-power digital?) channel 8 is the new station for NBC Boston. WMFP-TV of Lawrwence is relaying them on one subchannel while WNEU-TV channel 60 of Merrimack, NH is relaying them on another.

The one tower I'm more familiar with from the road is near I-95 South at Exit 46 (US Route 1 South) in Peabody. Dead ahead you have the tower and transmitter for 93.7 FM (WEEI Sports Radio).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on January 07, 2017, 10:56:29 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 06, 2017, 09:44:12 AM
I think you mean WFXT-TV (FOX) channel 25.

No, I don't.  25 is on the candelabra in Needham, on the south side of Highland Avenue.  24 is on FM-128.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on January 18, 2017, 01:39:39 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 02, 2017, 01:09:24 PM
2. Will the I-90 sign replacement projects (whichever numbers are used) be substantially completed?

afaik the completion date for the Auburn to Boston Project is in 2018, so it would be a "no" on that one.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on January 18, 2017, 11:32:10 AM
MassDOT has announced it has completed the activation of all of its "Go Time" Real Time Traffic signs and more:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/uncategorized/massdot-highlights-new-travel-time-technology-free-mobile-app/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/uncategorized/massdot-highlights-new-travel-time-technology-free-mobile-app/)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 22, 2017, 09:24:13 AM
Status of the bridge project on I-95 over the Merrimack River, between Newburyport and Amesbury: The old I-95 span is gone. It's now being replaced with what will be an identical span to the Whittier Bridge that opened sometime in the past 2 years. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 24, 2017, 12:44:36 PM
UPDATE...three quick pictures while on I-95 South in Amesbury, MA, approaching the Whittier Bridge project. The old span of I-95 South here is gone, clearly being replaced with a new roadway and a matching bridge span.  :clap:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTWhfbFU.jpg&hash=f59bfbb147a26e102f9161f3e05fd78371d3d725)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7YElNIz.jpg&hash=a9142d65683f59188693e8279069da23fcfe1dfc)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4JZGTkH.jpg&hash=a2b7e4e4c85e2d18a042dc1ccda89818e6a1975d)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: J N Winkler on March 20, 2017, 11:31:26 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 02, 2017, 01:09:24 PMWith the start of the New Year, some questions about Massachusetts roads that I hope will be answered during 2017 (feel free to add your own, or answer them, if already known):

My addition:

6.  Will MassDOT join the 35 other state DOTs that provide construction plans on the Web free of charge?  (I know there is no charge for ordering plans on CD from MassDOT, but that means bothering someone at MassDOT to get a project CD in the mail, as opposed to running a script to download plans for every advertised project and then working with them locally.)

I have been working with MassDOT on both BidX and CommBuys over the past couple of weeks, and while there have been some small-signs replacement projects that appear to be proposal-only (e.g. 607495 with 47 signing sheets, 608398 with 18) as well as the 607422 travel time signs and 608024 exit renumbering contracts for which I believe separate threads already exist on this board (281 and 39 signing sheets respectively), nearly all contracts that involve replacement of large guide signs still seem to have an accompanying plans set that has to be ordered on CD.  (Judging from the addendum plan sheets for 606619, there appears to have been a shift from simple summary sheets with undimensioned sign sketches to dimensioned sign drawings, prepared with SignCAD, that are still called summary sheets but are in effect sign panel detail sheets.)

I have also observed that while availability of bidding proposals on CommBuys (which is a BuySpeed platform all but identical to eMaryland Marketplace, which both MdTA and MdSHA use for distribution of proposals and construction plans, and also to Procure.az.gov, which Arizona DOT uses for small signing contracts) is essentially indefinite, they appear to be removed from BidX after about three months.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 20, 2017, 11:41:48 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 20, 2017, 11:31:26 AMJudging from the addendum plan sheets for 606619, there appears to have been a shift from simple summary sheets with undimensioned sign sketches to dimensioned sign drawings, prepared with SignCAD, that are still called summary sheets but are in effect sign panel detail sheets.

"Pattern accurate" guide sign summary sheets, to use the common industry reference, are now MassDOT standard for all projects involving guide signs, even LGS (a.k.a. 'paddle sign') panels.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 17, 2017, 01:20:13 PM
It's probably minor, but I noticed that the signs on the Masaachusetts Turnpike overpasses are getting changed out. there are several new street signs (sign blades) on the overpasses facing westbound traffic, especially in the Millbury/Auburn areas.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on April 17, 2017, 05:40:17 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 17, 2017, 01:20:13 PM
It's probably minor, but I noticed that the signs on the Masaachusetts Turnpike overpasses are getting changed out. there are several new street signs (sign blades) on the overpasses facing westbound traffic, especially in the Millbury/Auburn areas.

Perhaps they're part of the sign replacement contract on the pike.   BTW, any progress on that as far as guide signs go? 

The bridge ID sign blades used to only be on the 'pike and 128.  The ones on the pike were white-on-brown, the ones on 128 I believe were black-on-white.  Now they're everywhere, and are more standard white-on-green, still showing the road name and town.  Those in CT just show the road name and are much smaller - some being moved from the bridge to the ground at the bridge.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on April 19, 2017, 10:05:04 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 17, 2017, 05:40:17 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 17, 2017, 01:20:13 PM
It's probably minor, but I noticed that the signs on the Masaachusetts Turnpike overpasses are getting changed out. there are several new street signs (sign blades) on the overpasses facing westbound traffic, especially in the Millbury/Auburn areas.

Perhaps they're part of the sign replacement contract on the pike.   BTW, any progress on that as far as guide signs go? 
I traveled through the far eastern portion of the sign replacement project zone from Allston-Brighton to I-95/128. The only evidence of future sign replacement were a few orange tags put up by the contractor, Liddell Bros., to mark the location of future sign supports. I have no other information since I have not driven on the Pike west of I-95 since last fall.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on April 20, 2017, 10:58:29 PM
I've posted my most recent photos of the I-95 Add-A-Lane project, including of this Needham house now with a great view of 128 traffic:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95addalane417c.JPG&hash=37fb30c430d639eab264b8e116b5cab209f97320)

in my I-95 in Mass. Photo Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on May 14, 2017, 08:55:47 PM
MassDOT has released two documents asking for public comments. The first is the Capital Investment Plan (CIP) which the agency is holding a series of public meetings beginning this week. The document can be accessed at:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/InformationCenter/CapitalInvestmentPlan.aspx (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/InformationCenter/CapitalInvestmentPlan.aspx)

The second is the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for Federal Fiscal Years 2018-2022. That can be accessed at: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/StatewidePlans/StateTransportationImprovementProgram.aspx (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/StatewidePlans/StateTransportationImprovementProgram.aspx)

The page also has links to STIPs from previous years. The 2018-2011 document, like the previous documents since the 2015-2019 STIP, does not list any project to convert exit numbers to those based on highway mileposts. Though, interestingly, the CIP does list the project as 'ongoing.'
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on June 03, 2017, 11:54:33 AM
Going through the MassDOT website today and found that they finally updated the state map from 2012 to 2016. Perhaps waiting to see whether current or new exit numbers would have to be posted, current it is (they didn't bother even with changing the numbers on I-395 in CT), or maybe the current governor complained enough about why his predecessor was still on the official map.  JPG and PDF versions can be found here: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/TrafficTravelResources/OfficialTransportationMap.aspx (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/TrafficTravelResources/OfficialTransportationMap.aspx)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PaulRAnderson on June 03, 2017, 12:32:55 PM
Here is an article about the current construction on Route 9 in Westboro.  Some additional paving projects for the road are also described.

    http://www.telegram.com/news/20170602/fixing-route-9-nightmare-in-westboro

Paul
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 03, 2017, 01:01:14 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 03, 2017, 11:54:33 AM
Going through the MassDOT website today and found that they finally updated the state map from 2012 to 2016. Perhaps waiting to see whether current or new exit numbers would have to be posted, current it is (they didn't bother even with changing the numbers on I-395 in CT), or maybe the current governor complained enough about why his predecessor was still on the official map.  JPG and PDF versions can be found here: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/TrafficTravelResources/OfficialTransportationMap.aspx (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/TrafficTravelResources/OfficialTransportationMap.aspx)

Couple of other errors they made in CT:  SR 819 extending over CT 179, and CT 4 on CT 361.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 09, 2017, 12:53:42 PM
Paving is partially done on I-84 east in Sturbridge. Pretty much done until mile marker 5/Exit 2. Only the left lane is repaved from there to near the former Turnpike toll plaza. Crews were redoing the center of the road where the toll gantry was.

Also...the new southbound Merrimack River on I-95 in Newburyport/Amesbury is coming along nicely.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fjb9NRgJ.jpg&hash=52a893d303e25bf4bdee65455bbc62f9ed94b3c8)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 12, 2017, 09:40:33 PM
Been off for a bit but just noticed a bunch of snazzy new signs on the Mass Pike in the Worcester area.  Nicely laid out, with much more mixed-case copy than before (such as overpass labels and rest area exit signs).  Nice job, MassDOT.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 13, 2017, 11:05:08 AM
One sign subtlety I noticed is westbound in Auburn, shortly after you've passed by exit 10 (I-290/I-395/MA 12): The distance sign was replaced and now has an I-84 shield, as opposed to "I-84" like the old one.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on June 13, 2017, 11:23:15 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 13, 2017, 11:05:08 AM
One sign subtlety I noticed is westbound in Auburn, shortly after you've passed by exit 10 (I-290/I-395/MA 12): The distance sign was replaced and now has an I-84 shield, as opposed to "I-84" like the old one.
I've posted examples of the distance signs and new auxiliary signs on the I-90 Signing thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16222.150#lastPost (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16222.150#lastPost)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on June 14, 2017, 10:40:52 AM
Wase took me through Quincy's secondary roads this morning.  Along the way, I noticed a new paddle sign at Adams St. and Furnace Brook Pkwy that stated "To 128" in the direction that FBP takes you to I-93.  Why on Earth is this sign here? Why wouldn't the sign say "To I-93/US 1?" 128 *technically* starts in Canton.  I get how some people (namely traffic reporters) still consider Exits 1-6 on I-93 "128," but NEW signage should not be referring to anything east of Canton as 128!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on June 14, 2017, 11:05:40 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on June 14, 2017, 10:40:52 AM
Wase took me through Quincy's secondary roads this morning.  Along the way, I noticed a new paddle sign at Adams St. and Furnace Brook Pkwy that stated "To 128" in the direction that FBP takes you to I-93.  Why on Earth is this sign here? Why wouldn't the sign say "To I-93/US 1?" 128 *technically* starts in Canton.  I get how some people (namely traffic reporters) still consider Exits 1-6 on I-93 "128," but NEW signage should not be referring to anything east of Canton as 128!
Most likely an 'in kind' replacement put up by either the City or a private developer.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on June 14, 2017, 11:40:43 AM
Quote from: roadman on June 14, 2017, 11:05:40 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on June 14, 2017, 10:40:52 AM
Wase took me through Quincy's secondary roads this morning.  Along the way, I noticed a new paddle sign at Adams St. and Furnace Brook Pkwy that stated "To 128" in the direction that FBP takes you to I-93.  Why on Earth is this sign here? Why wouldn't the sign say "To I-93/US 1?" 128 *technically* starts in Canton.  I get how some people (namely traffic reporters) still consider Exits 1-6 on I-93 "128," but NEW signage should not be referring to anything east of Canton as 128!
Most likely an 'in kind' replacement put up by either the City or a private developer.
Here's what the old sign (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Milton,+MA/@42.2536133,-71.0250727,3a,75y,311.15h,69.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dsh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D225.57228%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e37dcc5d01064b:0x6b4bf10013fdfcb5!8m2!3d42.2495321!4d-71.0661653) looked like.

Since the above-GSV from 2014; Southshore720, was its replacement a large D6 paddle, the smaller D8 sign or equivalent?  The older sign looked like a knock-off of a DPW-spec'd sign rather than the genuine article or even an MDC-spec'd sign; the vintage looks like it's from the mid-70s.

In theory, TO 128 is still technically correct; but one has to use I-93 (& IMHO, I-95) in order to get to it.  :)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on June 14, 2017, 11:58:00 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 14, 2017, 11:40:43 AM
Quote from: roadman on June 14, 2017, 11:05:40 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on June 14, 2017, 10:40:52 AM
Wase took me through Quincy's secondary roads this morning.  Along the way, I noticed a new paddle sign at Adams St. and Furnace Brook Pkwy that stated "To 128" in the direction that FBP takes you to I-93.  Why on Earth is this sign here? Why wouldn't the sign say "To I-93/US 1?" 128 *technically* starts in Canton.  I get how some people (namely traffic reporters) still consider Exits 1-6 on I-93 "128," but NEW signage should not be referring to anything east of Canton as 128!
Most likely an 'in kind' replacement put up by either the City or a private developer.
Here's what the old sign (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Milton,+MA/@42.2536133,-71.0250727,3a,75y,311.15h,69.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dsh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D225.57228%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e37dcc5d01064b:0x6b4bf10013fdfcb5!8m2!3d42.2495321!4d-71.0661653) looked like.

Since the above-GSV from 2014; Southshore720, was its replacement a large D6 paddle, the smaller D8 sign or equivalent?  The older sign looked like a knock-off of a DPW-spec'd sign rather than the genuine article or even an MDC-spec'd sign; the vintage looks like it's from the mid-70s.

In theory, TO 128 is still technically correct; but one has to use I-93 (& IMHO, I-95) in order to get to it.  :)
This is the only remaining official Route 128 sign left east of I-95, on the ramp to I-93 from Washington St in Braintree as seen in GSV in July 2015, and still there today (and, I guess, technically still correct too):
https://goo.gl/maps/H6vLy1yaJXA2 (https://goo.gl/maps/H6vLy1yaJXA2)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on June 14, 2017, 01:16:38 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 14, 2017, 11:58:00 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 14, 2017, 11:40:43 AMHere's what the old sign (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Milton,+MA/@42.2536133,-71.0250727,3a,75y,311.15h,69.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dsh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D225.57228%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e37dcc5d01064b:0x6b4bf10013fdfcb5!8m2!3d42.2495321!4d-71.0661653) looked like.

Since the above-GSV from 2014; Southshore720, was its replacement a large D6 paddle, the smaller D8 sign or equivalent?  The older sign looked like a knock-off of a DPW-spec'd sign rather than the genuine article or even an MDC-spec'd sign; the vintage looks like it's from the mid-70s.

In theory, TO 128 is still technically correct; but one has to use I-93 (& IMHO, I-95) in order to get to it.  :)
This is the only remaining official Route 128 sign left east of I-95, on the ramp to I-93 from Washington St in Braintree as seen in GSV in July 2015, and still there today (and, I guess, technically still correct too):
https://goo.gl/maps/H6vLy1yaJXA2 (https://goo.gl/maps/H6vLy1yaJXA2)
Not the same; the difference being that there is no TO banner on that NORTH 128 trailblazer sign.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on June 14, 2017, 04:28:40 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 14, 2017, 11:58:00 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 14, 2017, 11:40:43 AM
Quote from: roadman on June 14, 2017, 11:05:40 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on June 14, 2017, 10:40:52 AM
Wase took me through Quincy's secondary roads this morning.  Along the way, I noticed a new paddle sign at Adams St. and Furnace Brook Pkwy that stated "To 128" in the direction that FBP takes you to I-93.  Why on Earth is this sign here? Why wouldn't the sign say "To I-93/US 1?" 128 *technically* starts in Canton.  I get how some people (namely traffic reporters) still consider Exits 1-6 on I-93 "128," but NEW signage should not be referring to anything east of Canton as 128!
Most likely an 'in kind' replacement put up by either the City or a private developer.
Here's what the old sign (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Milton,+MA/@42.2536133,-71.0250727,3a,75y,311.15h,69.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dsh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D225.57228%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e37dcc5d01064b:0x6b4bf10013fdfcb5!8m2!3d42.2495321!4d-71.0661653) looked like.

Since the above-GSV from 2014; Southshore720, was its replacement a large D6 paddle, the smaller D8 sign or equivalent?  The older sign looked like a knock-off of a DPW-spec'd sign rather than the genuine article or even an MDC-spec'd sign; the vintage looks like it's from the mid-70s.

In theory, TO 128 is still technically correct; but one has to use I-93 (& IMHO, I-95) in order to get to it.  :)
This is the only remaining official Route 128 sign left east of I-95, on the ramp to I-93 from Washington St in Braintree as seen in GSV in July 2015, and still there today (and, I guess, technically still correct too):
https://goo.gl/maps/H6vLy1yaJXA2 (https://goo.gl/maps/H6vLy1yaJXA2)

I was sitting in traffic next to this sign yesterday; up close it is very battle-worn (dents and scars from things thrown at it by plows, I assume.)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on June 14, 2017, 04:57:43 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 14, 2017, 11:40:43 AM
Quote from: roadman on June 14, 2017, 11:05:40 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on June 14, 2017, 10:40:52 AM
Wase took me through Quincy's secondary roads this morning.  Along the way, I noticed a new paddle sign at Adams St. and Furnace Brook Pkwy that stated "To 128" in the direction that FBP takes you to I-93.  Why on Earth is this sign here? Why wouldn't the sign say "To I-93/US 1?" 128 *technically* starts in Canton.  I get how some people (namely traffic reporters) still consider Exits 1-6 on I-93 "128," but NEW signage should not be referring to anything east of Canton as 128!
Most likely an 'in kind' replacement put up by either the City or a private developer.
Here's what the old sign (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Milton,+MA/@42.2536133,-71.0250727,3a,75y,311.15h,69.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dsh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D225.57228%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e37dcc5d01064b:0x6b4bf10013fdfcb5!8m2!3d42.2495321!4d-71.0661653) looked like.

Since the above-GSV from 2014; Southshore720, was its replacement a large D6 paddle, the smaller D8 sign or equivalent?  The older sign looked like a knock-off of a DPW-spec'd sign rather than the genuine article or even an MDC-spec'd sign; the vintage looks like it's from the mid-70s.

In theory, TO 128 is still technically correct; but one has to use I-93 (& IMHO, I-95) in order to get to it.  :)
It's a large D6!  And it looks like a newer D6 because there was a thin black border around the state shield.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: berberry on June 19, 2017, 12:49:08 PM
I'm just back from a vacation here in the US. I met up with an old friend in Cincinnati. We went first to the Frank Lloyd Wright house Fallingwater, then to Pittsburgh and then to Boston. I have a question about my trip to Boston. My GPS routed me down the MassPike, or I-90, into the Boston metro toward my hotel in the Bunker Hill neighborhood. Along the way I saw signs saying that if I don't have a transponder I will be billed for the tolls. We drove all the way in and and out of the city and the state on I-90. The bill has not arrived as of today's mail (this was just last week). Does anyone have an idea what my total bill will be? I don't need a specific number, just a rough idea of what I should expect. Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on June 19, 2017, 01:01:34 PM
Quote from: berberry on June 19, 2017, 12:49:08 PM
I'm just back from a vacation here in the US. I met up with an old friend in Cincinnati. We went first to the Frank Lloyd Wright house Fallingwater, then to Pittsburgh and then to Boston. I have a question about my trip to Boston. My GPS routed me down the MassPike, or I-90, into the Boston metro toward my hotel in the Bunker Hill neighborhood. Along the way I saw signs saying that if I don't have a transponder I will be billed for the tolls. We drove all the way in and and out of the city and the state on I-90. The bill has not arrived as of today's mail (this was just last week). Does anyone have an idea what my total bill will be? I don't need a specific number, just a rough idea of what I should expect. Thanks in advance!

https://www.ezdrivema.com/TollCalculator

$10.50 or $11.50 each way, depending on where you got on and off in the city.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: berberry on June 19, 2017, 02:09:02 PM
Quote from: spooky on June 19, 2017, 01:01:34 PM
https://www.ezdrivema.com/TollCalculator

$10.50 or $11.50 each way, depending on where you got on and off in the city.

Thank you!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on June 19, 2017, 07:37:55 PM
Quote from: spooky on June 19, 2017, 01:01:34 PM
Quote from: berberry on June 19, 2017, 12:49:08 PM
I'm just back from a vacation here in the US. I met up with an old friend in Cincinnati. We went first to the Frank Lloyd Wright house Fallingwater, then to Pittsburgh and then to Boston. I have a question about my trip to Boston. My GPS routed me down the MassPike, or I-90, into the Boston metro toward my hotel in the Bunker Hill neighborhood. Along the way I saw signs saying that if I don't have a transponder I will be billed for the tolls. We drove all the way in and and out of the city and the state on I-90. The bill has not arrived as of today's mail (this was just last week). Does anyone have an idea what my total bill will be? I don't need a specific number, just a rough idea of what I should expect. Thanks in advance!

https://www.ezdrivema.com/TollCalculator

$10.50 or $11.50 each way, depending on where you got on and off in the city.
Now wait a minute. Did he get on from the NY Thruway, or did he take I-84 through CT?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on June 19, 2017, 07:47:33 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 19, 2017, 07:37:55 PM
Quote from: spooky on June 19, 2017, 01:01:34 PM
Quote from: berberry on June 19, 2017, 12:49:08 PM
I'm just back from a vacation here in the US. I met up with an old friend in Cincinnati. We went first to the Frank Lloyd Wright house Fallingwater, then to Pittsburgh and then to Boston. I have a question about my trip to Boston. My GPS routed me down the MassPike, or I-90, into the Boston metro toward my hotel in the Bunker Hill neighborhood. Along the way I saw signs saying that if I don't have a transponder I will be billed for the tolls. We drove all the way in and and out of the city and the state on I-90. The bill has not arrived as of today's mail (this was just last week). Does anyone have an idea what my total bill will be? I don't need a specific number, just a rough idea of what I should expect. Thanks in advance!

https://www.ezdrivema.com/TollCalculator

$10.50 or $11.50 each way, depending on where you got on and off in the city.
Now wait a minute. Did he get on from the NY Thruway, or did he take I-84 through CT?

Thruway, since he entered and left the state on I-90. (Double "and" not intentional.)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on June 19, 2017, 08:32:40 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 19, 2017, 07:47:33 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 19, 2017, 07:37:55 PM
Quote from: spooky on June 19, 2017, 01:01:34 PM
Quote from: berberry on June 19, 2017, 12:49:08 PM
I'm just back from a vacation here in the US. I met up with an old friend in Cincinnati. We went first to the Frank Lloyd Wright house Fallingwater, then to Pittsburgh and then to Boston. I have a question about my trip to Boston. My GPS routed me down the MassPike, or I-90, into the Boston metro toward my hotel in the Bunker Hill neighborhood. Along the way I saw signs saying that if I don't have a transponder I will be billed for the tolls. We drove all the way in and and out of the city and the state on I-90. The bill has not arrived as of today's mail (this was just last week). Does anyone have an idea what my total bill will be? I don't need a specific number, just a rough idea of what I should expect. Thanks in advance!

https://www.ezdrivema.com/TollCalculator

$10.50 or $11.50 each way, depending on where you got on and off in the city.
Now wait a minute. Did he get on from the NY Thruway, or did he take I-84 through CT?

Thruway, since he entered and left the state on I-90. (Double "and" not intentional.)
Why would the GPS go that way? Must have been particularly bad traffic on I-84 (or commute period).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on June 20, 2017, 08:51:39 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 19, 2017, 08:32:40 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 19, 2017, 07:47:33 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 19, 2017, 07:37:55 PM
Quote from: spooky on June 19, 2017, 01:01:34 PM
Quote from: berberry on June 19, 2017, 12:49:08 PM
I'm just back from a vacation here in the US. I met up with an old friend in Cincinnati. We went first to the Frank Lloyd Wright house Fallingwater, then to Pittsburgh and then to Boston. I have a question about my trip to Boston. My GPS routed me down the MassPike, or I-90, into the Boston metro toward my hotel in the Bunker Hill neighborhood. Along the way I saw signs saying that if I don't have a transponder I will be billed for the tolls. We drove all the way in and and out of the city and the state on I-90. The bill has not arrived as of today's mail (this was just last week). Does anyone have an idea what my total bill will be? I don't need a specific number, just a rough idea of what I should expect. Thanks in advance!

https://www.ezdrivema.com/TollCalculator

$10.50 or $11.50 each way, depending on where you got on and off in the city.
Now wait a minute. Did he get on from the NY Thruway, or did he take I-84 through CT?

Thruway, since he entered and left the state on I-90. (Double "and" not intentional.)
Why would the GPS go that way? Must have been particularly bad traffic on I-84 (or commute period).
There's also on ongoing construction project in Waterbury between Exits 23 (CT 69) and 25A (Austin Rd.).  Whenever there's a construction-related lane closure; traffic can back up for miles in both directions.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on June 20, 2017, 05:57:06 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on June 14, 2017, 04:57:43 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 14, 2017, 11:40:43 AM
Quote from: roadman on June 14, 2017, 11:05:40 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on June 14, 2017, 10:40:52 AM
Wase took me through Quincy's secondary roads this morning.  Along the way, I noticed a new paddle sign at Adams St. and Furnace Brook Pkwy that stated "To 128" in the direction that FBP takes you to I-93.  Why on Earth is this sign here? Why wouldn't the sign say "To I-93/US 1?" 128 *technically* starts in Canton.  I get how some people (namely traffic reporters) still consider Exits 1-6 on I-93 "128," but NEW signage should not be referring to anything east of Canton as 128!
Most likely an 'in kind' replacement put up by either the City or a private developer.
Here's what the old sign (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Milton,+MA/@42.2536133,-71.0250727,3a,75y,311.15h,69.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dsh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D225.57228%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e37dcc5d01064b:0x6b4bf10013fdfcb5!8m2!3d42.2495321!4d-71.0661653) looked like.

Since the above-GSV from 2014; Southshore720, was its replacement a large D6 paddle, the smaller D8 sign or equivalent?  The older sign looked like a knock-off of a DPW-spec'd sign rather than the genuine article or even an MDC-spec'd sign; the vintage looks like it's from the mid-70s.

In theory, TO 128 is still technically correct; but one has to use I-93 (& IMHO, I-95) in order to get to it.  :)
It's a large D6!  And it looks like a newer D6 because there was a thin black border around the state shield.
Here's a photo of the sign I took this afternoon. Definitely looks up to MassDOT specs, even if it was put up by the city:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma128signquincy617.JPG&hash=89f55e8e156e89a7131131abd85c6ccb88b95066)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on June 23, 2017, 07:58:01 PM
The new ramp from the MassPike WB to I-95/Route 128 will open tonight.  This ramp is now located west of the Park Road overpass, and will eliminate the really tight weave where the existing ramps merge and split, causing constant backups.   
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on June 23, 2017, 08:39:31 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 20, 2017, 05:57:06 PM
It's a large D6!  And it looks like a newer D6 because there was a thin black border around the state shield.

Here's a photo of the sign I took this afternoon. Definitely looks up to MassDOT specs, even if it was put up by the city:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma128signquincy617.JPG&hash=89f55e8e156e89a7131131abd85c6ccb88b95066)

My understanding is that earlier this morning (Friday 6/23), the DCR's sign contractor went out and changed the 128 shield on this sign to an I-93 one.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on June 23, 2017, 09:14:12 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 23, 2017, 08:39:31 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 20, 2017, 05:57:06 PM
It's a large D6!  And it looks like a newer D6 because there was a thin black border around the state shield.

Here's a photo of the sign I took this afternoon. Definitely looks up to MassDOT specs, even if it was put up by the city:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma128signquincy617.JPG&hash=89f55e8e156e89a7131131abd85c6ccb88b95066)

My understanding is that earlier this morning (Friday 6/23), the DCR's sign contractor went out and changed the 128 shield on this sign to an I-93 one.
That's good news, though maybe not to 128 fans. I have some more bad news, however. The Division 5 Retroreflective Sign Replacement Project has made it to Hingham. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the plans included replacing several MA 228 shields that should have been taken down more than 15 years ago. I tried to contact the project engineer about the issue, but had no success. Today, new 228 shields have appeared at the Whiting Street (MA 53) and Derby Street intersection. These signs include new trailblazers and this reassurance marker:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma53228dw617.jpg&hash=41191ba33b8ebfb00c280fa647e42ce640c95ba4)

The entire set of photos I took today can be found at:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html#southshore (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html#southshore)

Another error I spotted on Thursday was on 3A South at Route 228 were the new planned trailblazer is missing a right arrow, so it appears to be a reassurance marker on the wrong route. Perhaps the error was corrected today.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on June 25, 2017, 09:57:47 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 23, 2017, 09:14:12 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 23, 2017, 08:39:31 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 20, 2017, 05:57:06 PM
It's a large D6!  And it looks like a newer D6 because there was a thin black border around the state shield.

Here's a photo of the sign I took this afternoon. Definitely looks up to MassDOT specs, even if it was put up by the city:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma128signquincy617.JPG&hash=89f55e8e156e89a7131131abd85c6ccb88b95066)

My understanding is that earlier this morning (Friday 6/23), the DCR's sign contractor went out and changed the 128 shield on this sign to an I-93 one.
That's good news, though maybe not to 128 fans. I have some more bad news, however. The Division 5 Retroreflective Sign Replacement Project has made it to Hingham. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the plans included replacing several MA 228 shields that should have been taken down more than 15 years ago. I tried to contact the project engineer about the issue, but had no success. Today, 4 new 228 shields have appeared at the Whiting Street (MA 53) and Derby Street intersection. These signs include new trailblazers and this reassurance marker:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma53228dw617.jpg&hash=41191ba33b8ebfb00c280fa647e42ce640c95ba4)

The entire set of photos I took today can be found at:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html#southshore (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html#southshore)

Another error I spotted on Thursday was on 3A South at Route 228 were the new planned trailblazer is missing a right arrow, so it appears to be a reassurance marker on the wrong route. Perhaps the error was corrected today.
The sign in Quincy has been updated:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2FtoI93signquincy617.JPG&hash=8b65d6b3b2472a82fce7f9be5715ac4b7dcd0256)

As per the 228 signs, as suggested in a previous post, perhaps they could be re-used, either along East Street in Hingham, which has mostly 1980s vintage signs, or in Hull where there are not 228 signs of any kind northbound nor southbound at the beginning of the route at George Washington Blvd.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on June 26, 2017, 04:27:07 PM
That's awesome that they changed the 128 to an I-93 shield at FBP & Adams!  Bob, are they ever going to remove those new erroneous 228 trailblazers, or are we stuck with them for another 15+ years?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kkt on June 26, 2017, 05:32:38 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on June 26, 2017, 04:27:07 PM
Bob, are they ever going to remove those new erroneous 228 trailblazers, or are we stuck with them for another 15+ years?

I dunno, are they ever going to concede that there are good reasons for the whole beltway having the same number?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on June 27, 2017, 11:47:37 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on June 26, 2017, 04:27:07 PM
That's awesome that they changed the 128 to an I-93 shield at FBP & Adams!  Bob, are they ever going to remove those new erroneous 228 trailblazers, or are we stuck with them for another 15+ years?
Hopefully, it won't take that long. I've also posted photos of the signs on some local FB groups and am thinking of forwarding them to the local paper. Perhaps the more noise MassDOT hears about it, the more likely they'll take action.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on June 27, 2017, 11:53:50 AM
MassDOT as of last Saturday (6/24) has advertised for bids on the MA 24 Fall River to Randolph and MA 1A Boston to Revere sign replacement contracts. The winning bid is to be announced on 11/7 for 1A and 11/15 for 24. The project bid pages only have links to Notices to Contractors at this time.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on June 27, 2017, 01:09:20 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 27, 2017, 11:53:50 AMMA 1A Boston to Revere sign replacement contracts.
By Revere, is the northernmost limit at Bell Circle?  Most of the signs along the East Boston Expressway portion as well the East Boston section of MA 1A (McClellan Highway) were added/replaced during the Big Dig.  D6/D8 LGS' at Bell Circle were recently replaced (circa 2016) as well.

One of two newest LGS' to still display the old-school NH-MAINE destination legend. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4095986,-71.0016547,3a,75y,299.07h,89.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSnlFgn2QWScSlVcVAjCyNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Additionally, there's no acknowledgement of the Ted Williams Tunnel either; obviously, these replacement LGS' were match-in-kind to their predecessors.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on June 27, 2017, 06:46:24 PM
was the Route 3/4 interchange in Chelmsford ever a rotary? the way they have it set up now means you get stuck at at least 2 red lights before you can get thru to route 3 north from route 4 north.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on June 27, 2017, 09:14:33 PM
I think it was a standard rotary before US-3 was widened in the 90s.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on June 27, 2017, 09:36:00 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 27, 2017, 01:09:20 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 27, 2017, 11:53:50 AMMA 1A Boston to Revere sign replacement contracts.
By Revere, is the northernmost limit at Bell Circle?  Most of the signs along the East Boston Expressway portion as well the East Boston section of MA 1A (McClellan Highway) were added/replaced during the Big Dig.  D6/D8 LGS' at Bell Circle were recently replaced (circa 2016) as well.

One of two newest LGS' to still display the old-school NH-MAINE destination legend. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4095986,-71.0016547,3a,75y,299.07h,89.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSnlFgn2QWScSlVcVAjCyNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Additionally, there's no acknowledgement of the Ted Williams Tunnel either; obviously, these replacement LGS' were match-in-kind to their predecessors.

Speaking of "NH-Maine", there's this BGS, while others replaced at the same time for the same exit 1 mile to the south say "Portsmouth NH"....

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5402026,-70.9868201,3a,28.3y,31.22h,86.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxEv_D8UZRl_Rg20TcfYACQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DxEv_D8UZRl_Rg20TcfYACQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D164.2801%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656



Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 27, 2017, 06:46:24 PM
was the Route 3/4 interchange in Chelmsford ever a rotary? the way they have it set up now means you get stuck at at least 2 red lights before you can get thru to route 3 north from route 4 north.

Pretty sure it was a standard rotary.  I did quite a bit of survey work for the US 3 reconstruction.  That was a scary road to work on.  We initially did work in the shoulder, with only a cop car for protection.  One day we were working in the median when construction started and saw a bumper fly off a car that got hit and ended up in the median.  They had stop signs on the onramps (which noone stopped at), and I think that's what caused the flying debris.  Needless to say, I got the heck out of dodge.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on June 28, 2017, 08:38:43 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 27, 2017, 09:36:00 PM
Speaking of "NH-Maine", there's this BGS, while others replaced at the same time for the same exit 1 mile to the south say "Portsmouth NH"....
Despite the button-copy I-95 shield; I believe that BGS is older than its companion US 1 BGS.  Note the use of the taller first letter of the NORTH direction cardinal on the US 1 BGS.  That I-95 BGS was likely erected just prior to MassHighway using Portsmouth, NH en lieu of NH-Maine; very early 90s.

Another newer (2000s), but not new NH-MAINE LGS installation. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5283571,-70.9576541,3a,75y,200.68h,91.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7fdN3POLswsxqRyDmBNa2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at Forest St. in Peabody.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on June 28, 2017, 10:42:07 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 27, 2017, 09:36:00 PM
Pretty sure it was a standard rotary.  I did quite a bit of survey work for the US 3 reconstruction.  That was a scary road to work on.  We initially did work in the shoulder, with only a cop car for protection.  One day we were working in the median when construction started and saw a bumper fly off a car that got hit and ended up in the median.  They had stop signs on the onramps (which noone stopped at), and I think that's what caused the flying debris.  Needless to say, I got the heck out of dodge.


Yes, it was a standard Massachusetts highway interchange-type rotary. People still call it the Drum Hill Rotary despite the fact it hasn't been an actual rotary for 10+ years.

The new design has some flaws that aren't helped by its current sorry state of striping (try going from Drum Hill Road to Route 3 south and not have to make a last-minute lane change) but it is a big improvement over the old rotary in terms of safety and throughput, even if you have to wait at some lights.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: yakra on June 28, 2017, 11:31:41 AM
Standard, if a bit oblong, rotary:
https://historicaerials.com/location/42.622370/-71.366061/2001/17
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on June 28, 2017, 07:26:22 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 27, 2017, 09:36:00 PM

Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 27, 2017, 06:46:24 PM
was the Route 3/4 interchange in Chelmsford ever a rotary? the way they have it set up now means you get stuck at at least 2 red lights before you can get thru to route 3 north from route 4 north.

Pretty sure it was a standard rotary.  I did quite a bit of survey work for the US 3 reconstruction.  That was a scary road to work on.  We initially did work in the shoulder, with only a cop car for protection.  One day we were working in the median when construction started and saw a bumper fly off a car that got hit and ended up in the median.  They had stop signs on the onramps (which noone stopped at), and I think that's what caused the flying debris.  Needless to say, I got the heck out of dodge.


Yes, prior to the US 3 widening, Drum Hill Rotary (to use the local name) was a standard uncontrolled Massachusetts rotary.  IIRC, the principal reason it was squared off was to accommodate the installation of traffic signals while minimizing the need for ROW takings.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: CapeCodder on July 01, 2017, 06:03:59 PM
I have a MA state route question.

Does the old alignment of US 44 have a number? I recall seeing it labeled as 44A in a National Geographic mapping program. Has it ever been 44A?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on July 01, 2017, 07:14:00 PM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 01, 2017, 06:03:59 PM
I have a MA state route question.

Does the old alignment of US 44 have a number? I recall seeing it labeled as 44A in a National Geographic mapping program. Has it ever been 44A?
It's never been signed as such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_44#Massachusetts
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on July 01, 2017, 07:15:35 PM
I think there had been some talk about it becoming MA-44A, but that never happened.   It is un-numbered.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on July 01, 2017, 10:15:30 PM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 01, 2017, 06:03:59 PM
I have a MA state route question.

Does the old alignment of US 44 have a number? I recall seeing it labeled as 44A in a National Geographic mapping program. Has it ever been 44A?

Many things erroneously call it 44A, Rand McNally maps did for a bit a decade ago is one example.

Of course, brand new MassDOT signage still calls it 44 (US or MA - take your pick).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: yakra on July 03, 2017, 02:10:52 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 01, 2017, 10:15:30 PM
Of course, brand new MassDOT signage still calls it 44 (US or MA - take your pick).
Ooh, ooh!! Link?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on July 03, 2017, 10:47:52 AM
Quote from: yakra on July 03, 2017, 02:10:52 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 01, 2017, 10:15:30 PM
Of course, brand new MassDOT signage still calls it 44 (US or MA - take your pick).
Ooh, ooh!! Link?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.4178
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on July 03, 2017, 12:30:44 PM
Er...the sign points you straight towards the new freeway. Not right on the old alignment.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on July 03, 2017, 03:05:41 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 03, 2017, 12:30:44 PM
Er...the sign points you straight towards the new freeway. Not right on the old alignment.

Incorrect, it's pointing east on old 44, or straight on what was 58 north/44 west (Now just 58 north). I've seen the signs with my own eyes this past winter.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9192813,-70.8024795,3a,36y,5.58h,91.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2vQEesPUn71178w3k0-hrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Same location with new sign.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 05, 2017, 05:31:57 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on July 01, 2017, 07:15:35 PM
I think there had been some talk about it becoming MA-44A, but that never happened.   It is un-numbered.
in 2005, as work on the upgraded US 44 was nearing completion, MassHighway's original plan was to renumber 'old' US 44 as MA 44A.   However, the Town of Carver objected, so the proposal was dropped on the advice of the District, and the signs were changed to read Samoset Street instead.  IIRC, the 44A re-numbering was noted in the route change information sent to AASHTO for re-routing US 44, which explains why some mapping services picked up on the change and consider it official.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 05, 2017, 11:10:19 PM
The "Routes 2 - 3" button copy signs on Mt. Auburn in Cambridge have been replaced.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on July 06, 2017, 10:31:14 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 03, 2017, 03:05:41 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 03, 2017, 12:30:44 PM
Er...the sign points you straight towards the new freeway. Not right on the old alignment.

Incorrect, it's pointing east on old 44, or straight on what was 58 north/44 west (Now just 58 north). I've seen the signs with my own eyes this past winter.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9192813,-70.8024795,3a,36y,5.58h,91.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2vQEesPUn71178w3k0-hrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Same location with new sign.

What part of '44 east ahead' points to the right along the old road?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: empirestate on July 07, 2017, 12:39:19 AM
What are these? https://goo.gl/maps/u2237x4tN2M2
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on July 07, 2017, 12:45:37 AM
The little white markers with the numbers?  I believe they mark the location of ROW survey markers for the edge of MassDOT property.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: empirestate on July 07, 2017, 12:53:17 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on July 07, 2017, 12:45:37 AM
The little white markers with the numbers?  I believe they mark the location of ROW survey markers for the edge of MassDOT property.

They do seem to be located at varying distances from the roadway, apparently at the edge of the ROW. The numbers increment by 5's; is there any logic behind that?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 07, 2017, 09:13:40 AM
Quote from: empirestate on July 07, 2017, 12:39:19 AM
What are these? https://goo.gl/maps/u2237x4tN2M2

They are called station markers and denote the highway baseline, not the ROW limits.  Highway stationing is used for planning, survey, and maintenance purposes.  Stations are denoted in 100 foot increments, but the markers are normally spaced every 500 feet.  This is why they are in 5s.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: empirestate on July 07, 2017, 09:45:03 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 07, 2017, 09:13:40 AM
Quote from: empirestate on July 07, 2017, 12:39:19 AM
What are these? https://goo.gl/maps/u2237x4tN2M2

They are called station markers and denote the highway baseline, not the ROW limits.  Highway stationing is used for planning, survey, and maintenance purposes.  Stations are denoted in 100 foot increments, but the markers are normally spaced every 500 feet.  This is why they are in 5s.

And they're something being newly installed? I'd never noticed them before (this was on I-91). Or had they already been in use elsewhere?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on July 07, 2017, 10:23:18 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 06, 2017, 10:31:14 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 03, 2017, 03:05:41 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 03, 2017, 12:30:44 PM
Er...the sign points you straight towards the new freeway. Not right on the old alignment.

Incorrect, it's pointing east on old 44, or straight on what was 58 north/44 west (Now just 58 north). I've seen the signs with my own eyes this past winter.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9192813,-70.8024795,3a,36y,5.58h,91.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2vQEesPUn71178w3k0-hrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Same location with new sign.

What part of '44 east ahead' points to the right along the old road?

If I had an older street view to show you, before the sign hadn't been clubbed off like in that one, it showed that 44 east turned ahead.

My God NE2, we live up here, we just know some things without photographic evidence. Don't need to be some skeptic about everything...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on July 07, 2017, 07:15:48 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 07, 2017, 10:23:18 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 06, 2017, 10:31:14 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 03, 2017, 03:05:41 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 03, 2017, 12:30:44 PM
Er...the sign points you straight towards the new freeway. Not right on the old alignment.

Incorrect, it's pointing east on old 44, or straight on what was 58 north/44 west (Now just 58 north). I've seen the signs with my own eyes this past winter.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9192813,-70.8024795,3a,36y,5.58h,91.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2vQEesPUn71178w3k0-hrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Same location with new sign.

What part of '44 east ahead' points to the right along the old road?

If I had an older street view to show you, before the sign hadn't been clubbed off like in that one, it showed that 44 east turned ahead.

My God NE2, we live up here, we just know some things without photographic evidence. Don't need to be some skeptic about everything...
I recall from my own travels in that area that that's an elderly sign message from the multiplex days, so I'll agree with you.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 08, 2017, 01:42:58 AM
It still lives!

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4062/34936483703_cbfd2a35c3.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VedBri)Glass bead reflectors. MA-12 SB. Leominster, MA (https://flic.kr/p/VedBri) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 10, 2017, 07:51:58 PM
Quote from: empirestate on July 07, 2017, 09:45:03 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 07, 2017, 09:13:40 AM
Quote from: empirestate on July 07, 2017, 12:39:19 AM
What are these? https://goo.gl/maps/u2237x4tN2M2



They are called station markers and denote the highway baseline, not the ROW limits.  Highway stationing is used for planning, survey, and maintenance purposes.  Stations are denoted in 100 foot increments, but the markers are normally spaced every 500 feet.  This is why they are in 5s.

And they're something being newly installed? I'd never noticed them before (this was on I-91). Or had they already been in use elsewhere?

Station markers have been in place for decades.  In the past, replacement of the markers has always been done inconsistently - especially since the early 1990s when much maintenance work was privatized under the Weld/Kersasiotes administration.  However, as part of the whole "state off good repair" program, MassDOT has been paying more attention to "minor" issues like these, especially given FHWA's increasing focus on asset management.  And no, it's not because of the markers themselves, but because the markers provide useful reference to other assets.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: J N Winkler on July 11, 2017, 10:09:05 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 10, 2017, 07:51:58 PMThey are called station markers and denote the highway baseline, not the ROW limits.  Highway stationing is used for planning, survey, and maintenance purposes.  Stations are denoted in 100 foot increments, but the markers are normally spaced every 500 feet.  This is why they are in 5s.

And they're something being newly installed? I'd never noticed them before (this was on I-91). Or had they already been in use elsewhere?
[/quote]

Station markers have been in place for decades.  In the past, replacement of the markers has always been done inconsistently - especially since the early 1990s when much maintenance work was privatized under the Weld/Kersasiotes administration.  However, as part of the whole "state off good repair" program, MassDOT has been paying more attention to "minor" issues like these, especially given FHWA's increasing focus on asset management.  And no, it's not because of the markers themselves, but because the markers provide useful reference to other assets.
[/quote]

Did the late-nineties/early-noughties metrication initiative (which has now collapsed) have an effect on maintenance of station markers?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 14, 2017, 10:06:24 PM
I've added photos I took last weekend of construction along the I-95/128 Add-A-Lane Project work zone to my I-95 in MA Photo Gallery: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 16, 2017, 10:17:51 PM
More road sign fun via the contractors working on the Division 5 Retroreflective Sign Update project. A few years ago I posted this photo under the Department of Redundancy Department thread showing a pair of Jct MA 53 signs in Norwell along MA 228 North caused by the old one not being removed when replaced by a larger version of the sign around 2010:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma53dup1.jpg&hash=bd85fe2bad77f462fd77dadaa3be6593a2530ea4)

The Div. 5 sign replacement contractors finally got around to removing the old trailblazer late last month, but, unfortunately, replaced it with a new one, again leaving the relatively new larger version intact:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma5353qac717.jpg&hash=4725349f7fd1afe45680f56cedd3eca19401c2ed)

This leaves the square mile around this sign as not the best place to show off the cost-effectiveness of the MassDOT contract. You have 5 new shields (four 228 and one 53) put up to replace ones that simply should have been taken down. Meanwhile, a few miles north on MA 228 in Hingham you have assemblies like this that should be replaced but are not going to be under the current contract listing:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma228sign617o3.JPG&hash=7a43cd7eddcba6c0958f023f97e40db2f4d75311)
Title: Re: Massachusetts goodbye Rt 128?
Post by: ProfBrad on July 18, 2017, 04:52:48 PM
Today on the WBUR traffic report, a backup on a section of highway in Randolph was referred to as I-93 South. The traffic report on WBZ gave the location of the backup as Rt 128 North. It seems to me that the changeover to retire Rt 128 as a name on that section of roadway is progressing as I am hearing it called I-93 more and more over the past couple of years. I also have noticed most if not all signage referencing Rt 128 where it is co-current with I-95 (apart from the small shields) has come down.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 18, 2017, 05:09:37 PM
Quote from: ProfBrad on July 18, 2017, 04:52:48 PM
Since you're fairly new, based on your total post count; here's some prior threads regarding 128 that might be of interest to you.

Boston Traffic Reporter/Blogger Defends Use of '128' moniker (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7654.0)

MA 128 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19206.msg2189224#msg2189224)

Interstate 95 signing work (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6287.0)

Interstate 93 Signing Work (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6633.0)

I-90 / Mass Pike Signing Work (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16222.0)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: ProfBrad on July 19, 2017, 12:53:35 PM
Thanks for the links, I have not seen all of these.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 25, 2017, 08:34:41 PM
With all the new signing contracts as of late,
I'm surprised the non-reflective button copy signs are still up on MA-33 in Chicopee and US-6/MA-18 in Fair Haven at last check.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 26, 2017, 08:38:04 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 25, 2017, 08:34:41 PM
With all the new signing contracts as of late,
I'm surprised the non-reflective button copy signs are still up on MA-33 in Chicopee and US-6/MA-18 in Fair Haven at last check.
That's likely because those aren't located along major highway stretches.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 26, 2017, 05:30:33 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 26, 2017, 08:38:04 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 25, 2017, 08:34:41 PM
With all the new signing contracts as of late,
I'm surprised the non-reflective button copy signs are still up on MA-33 in Chicopee and US-6/MA-18 in Fair Haven at last check.
That's likely because those aren't located along major highway stretches.

MA 33 is a local retail shopping strip (with cheap gas) that also serves Westover Air Reserve Base.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 26, 2017, 06:10:49 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 26, 2017, 05:30:33 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 26, 2017, 08:38:04 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 25, 2017, 08:34:41 PM
With all the new signing contracts as of late,
I'm surprised the non-reflective button copy signs are still up on MA-33 in Chicopee and US-6/MA-18 in Fair Haven at last check.
That's likely because those aren't located along major highway stretches.

MA 33 is a local retail shopping strip (with cheap gas) that also serves Westover Air Reserve Base.
But it's not a freeway nor turnpike-type road.  For the most part, the various signing contracts have largely been for Interstates and other freeways.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 27, 2017, 10:03:49 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 25, 2017, 08:34:41 PM
With all the new signing contracts as of late,
I'm surprised the non-reflective button copy signs are still up on MA-33 in Chicopee and US-6/MA-18 in Fair Haven at last check.
Route 33 is a unique situation.  Too few signs/structures to justify a separate replacement contract, but too many signs/structures to enable replacement through the traditional District-wide sign maintenance contract.  There is a project (MassDOT Project 607736) currently at the preliminary design stage to do signal and intersection improvements on Route 33 from Fuller Road to Abbey Street - I'll check to see if signing work is included.  The project is presently scheduled to be advertised for bids in August of 2019.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on July 27, 2017, 09:37:25 PM
The button copy signs on Route 33 are so old they still refer to Westover as Westover AFB, when it's been Westover ARB for over twenty five years. Other signs in the area have the new(er) nomenclature.

The last center-tab sign (Basketball hall of fame sign on I-291W to 91 S ramp) in the region is probably kaput with the viaduct reconstruction, as it was attached to the side of the viaduct.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on July 27, 2017, 11:05:29 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on July 27, 2017, 09:37:25 PM
The button copy signs on Route 33 are so old they still refer to Westover as Westover AFB, when it's been Westover ARB for over twenty five years.

Heh.  I got a tour of a C-5A at Westover when I was a kid.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadsguy on August 27, 2017, 08:01:15 AM
RE: The I-95/295 interchange improvements in Attleboro, particularly because I couldn't find much information on Google:

I see they've replaced (or are nearly done replacing; the Google imagery shows it under construction) the SB-SB ramp with a smoother one. Is this new ramp two lanes? Also, are they planning on replacing the NB-NB ramp, perhaps like a flyover or trumpet style ramp following the NB 95-SB 295 loop?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on August 30, 2017, 09:55:45 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 27, 2017, 08:01:15 AM
RE: The I-95/295 interchange improvements in Attleboro, particularly because I couldn't find much information on Google:

I see they've replaced (or are nearly done replacing; the Google imagery shows it under construction) the SB-SB ramp with a smoother one. Is this new ramp two lanes? Also, are they planning on replacing the NB-NB ramp, perhaps like a flyover or trumpet style ramp following the NB 95-SB 295 loop?
The ramp is complete and is 2-lanes. If I recall correctly, a flyover ramp for I-295 North to I-95 North was looked at as part of the project, but ended up being cut due to cost considerations.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DrSmith on August 30, 2017, 08:29:56 PM
Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington.  At least the weave would be gone that way.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on August 30, 2017, 10:50:27 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on August 30, 2017, 08:29:56 PM
Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington.  At least the weave would be gone that way.

This would be very difficult to do without land takings. Look at the area on an aerial view to see just how close Deanville road is for 95N to 295S, let alone 295N to 95N. At that point you would go all the way for a flyover.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on August 30, 2017, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on August 30, 2017, 10:50:27 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on August 30, 2017, 08:29:56 PM
Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington.  At least the weave would be gone that way.

This would be very difficult to do without land takings. Look at the area on an aerial view to see just how close Deanville road is for 95N to 295S, let alone 295N to 95N. At that point you would go all the way for a flyover.
No, you'd go the other way...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on August 31, 2017, 09:18:57 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 30, 2017, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on August 30, 2017, 10:50:27 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on August 30, 2017, 08:29:56 PM
Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington.  At least the weave would be gone that way.

This would be very difficult to do without land takings. Look at the area on an aerial view to see just how close Deanville road is for 95N to 295S, let alone 295N to 95N. At that point you would go all the way for a flyover.
No, you'd go the other way...

What other way?

http://i.imgur.com/vmFMZU9.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/vmFMZU9.jpg)

How are you going to do a 95N to 295S trumpet ramp there with modern geometry without bulldozing some houses at the end of Deanville Road? Or part of an industrial park if you want to go the 290W-495N style? The geometry would be very difficult, to say the least. The former 95N to 295N ramp that would have been there has been encroached by development if you compare modern maps to historical maps.

It would be much tighter geometry than what's on 128N to 95S, or 128N to US 3N, and it probably wouldn't net them any accident reductions for rollovers despite the elimination of the weave. Keep in mind that the entire point of the 95S to 295S project was to eliminate the very kind of twisty ramp that would be required to go from 95N to 295S in a trumpet connection, because that old ramp was a rollover magnet. If you're going to have to spend the money, you aught as well spend it to do it properly (a flyover or a large enough modern ramp) versus something that won't have a gain.

As much as the current weave is annoying, it does slow people down enough that they don't take the current ramp too fast.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadsguy on August 31, 2017, 09:21:03 AM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on August 31, 2017, 09:18:57 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 30, 2017, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on August 30, 2017, 10:50:27 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on August 30, 2017, 08:29:56 PM
Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington.  At least the weave would be gone that way.

This would be very difficult to do without land takings. Look at the area on an aerial view to see just how close Deanville road is for 95N to 295S, let alone 295N to 95N. At that point you would go all the way for a flyover.
No, you'd go the other way...
How are you going to do a 95N to 295S trumpet ramp there with modern geometry without bulldozing some houses at the end of Deanville Road?

You wouldn't... You'd do a 295N to 95N trumpet ramp. Still not perfect modern geometry, but far better than what you'd need to do the way you're thinking. Plus, that's the higher-volume ramp.

You're thinking of this (https://i.imgur.com/UZZjSSp.png) or this (https://i.imgur.com/wB5Knhb.png) when the real solution is this (https://i.imgur.com/L2ljziH.png).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on August 31, 2017, 09:29:20 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 31, 2017, 09:21:03 AMYou'd do a 295N to 95N trumpet ramp. Still not perfect modern geometry, but far better than what you'd need to do the way you're thinking. Plus, that's the higher-volume ramp.
IMHO, that should've been done when it became known that the highway wasn't going to be built east of I-95 (as I-895).

As far as the 95N to 295S cloverleaf ramp is concerned; that could probably remain as is.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on August 31, 2017, 09:40:48 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 31, 2017, 09:21:03 AM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on August 31, 2017, 09:18:57 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 30, 2017, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on August 30, 2017, 10:50:27 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on August 30, 2017, 08:29:56 PM
Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington.  At least the weave would be gone that way.

This would be very difficult to do without land takings. Look at the area on an aerial view to see just how close Deanville road is for 95N to 295S, let alone 295N to 95N. At that point you would go all the way for a flyover.
No, you'd go the other way...
How are you going to do a 95N to 295S trumpet ramp there with modern geometry without bulldozing some houses at the end of Deanville Road?

You wouldn't... You'd do a 295N to 95N trumpet ramp. Still not perfect modern geometry, but far better than what you'd need to do the way you're thinking. Plus, that's the higher-volume ramp.

You're thinking of this (https://i.imgur.com/UZZjSSp.png) or this (https://i.imgur.com/wB5Knhb.png) when the real solution is this (https://i.imgur.com/L2ljziH.png).

I see, we're thinking of two different problems and talking past each other.

I'm not sure if they'd be able to build that quite that way, though, as that would be even tighter than 290W to 495N which is, itself, very prone to rollovers.

There's also the power wires in that same area that may need rerouting, which could complicate such a thing as well.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on August 31, 2017, 11:26:28 AM
I'e posted new photos from driving through the I-95/MA 128 Add-A-Lane work zone this past weekend. Progress can be seen in the use of the new fourth left travel lane northbound, as seen in this photo at Highland Avenue northbound:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95addalane817h.jpg&hash=5110cb21423ba553fb177f7e32ef55f3e52494eb)

and a new traffic configuration at MA 9 and ramp to Highland Avenue southbound. The rest of the photos at the I-95 in MA photo gallery: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadsguy on August 31, 2017, 11:29:38 AM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on August 31, 2017, 09:40:48 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 31, 2017, 09:21:03 AM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on August 31, 2017, 09:18:57 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 30, 2017, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on August 30, 2017, 10:50:27 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on August 30, 2017, 08:29:56 PM
Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington.  At least the weave would be gone that way.

This would be very difficult to do without land takings. Look at the area on an aerial view to see just how close Deanville road is for 95N to 295S, let alone 295N to 95N. At that point you would go all the way for a flyover.
No, you'd go the other way...
How are you going to do a 95N to 295S trumpet ramp there with modern geometry without bulldozing some houses at the end of Deanville Road?

You wouldn't... You'd do a 295N to 95N trumpet ramp. Still not perfect modern geometry, but far better than what you'd need to do the way you're thinking. Plus, that's the higher-volume ramp.

You're thinking of this (https://i.imgur.com/UZZjSSp.png) or this (https://i.imgur.com/wB5Knhb.png) when the real solution is this (https://i.imgur.com/L2ljziH.png).

I see, we're thinking of two different problems and talking past each other.

I'm not sure if they'd be able to build that quite that way, though, as that would be even tighter than 290W to 495N which is, itself, very prone to rollovers.

There's also the power wires in that same area that may need rerouting, which could complicate such a thing as well.

Yeah, it's definitely not a perfect solution. Ideally a flyover like this (https://i.imgur.com/mCA3bzc.png) could be built, but that was cut for cost reasons as stated above. But is the existing loop and weave really less dangerous than the tight, direct ramp?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on August 31, 2017, 12:30:11 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 31, 2017, 11:29:38 AM
Yeah, it's definitely not a perfect solution. Ideally a flyover like this (https://i.imgur.com/mCA3bzc.png) could be built, but that was cut for cost reasons as stated above. But is the existing loop and weave really less dangerous than the tight, direct ramp?

It depends. All things equal eliminating a weave is a good thing in my book. But there might be other factors at play as to why that particular move hasn't been made yet.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 01, 2017, 10:24:40 PM
Has anyone ever considered tunneling I-91 under Mount Thom in East Hampton?  You could shave off a couple miles doing so.  Plus the highway kinda winds around the mountain and traffic sometimes bottlenecks near trucks trying to pull the steep grade northbound.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: J N Winkler on October 01, 2017, 11:10:26 PM
I suspect a tunnel under Mount Tom was rejected out of hand, if it was even considered at all, because it would have to run at the base for any real savings in terms of grades climbed and the ridge looks wide enough to make for a tunnel of about a mile and a half.  (The Eisenhower/Johnson tunnel complex, the longest on the Interstate system, is 1.693 mi long westbound and 1.697 mi long eastbound.)  If truck percentages are high enough that trucks climbing the grades skirting the hill are causing significant delay to other traffic, then climbing lanes are probably justified.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on October 02, 2017, 11:10:12 AM
Totally unnecessary and I doubt it was even considered.  On top of that, Mount Tom is part of the state park system.  Used to have a ski area on it as well, visible from I-91.

The only thing that section needs is a third lane in either direction.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on October 02, 2017, 12:38:40 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 02, 2017, 11:10:12 AM
The only thing that section needs is a third lane in either direction.

I-91 needs another lane in both directions from I-95 to MA 2 regardless. I have been stuck in horrendous traffic on that road more times than I can count.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on October 02, 2017, 04:17:17 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 02, 2017, 12:38:40 PM
I-91 needs another lane in both directions from I-95 to MA 2 regardless. I have been stuck in horrendous traffic on that road more times than I can count.

I'm assuming you mean I-90 since I-95 doesn't touch I-91 in Massachusetts. 

I've traveled I-91 in Massachusetts too many times to count over the years, back and forth between CT and VT, at all hours of the day and night.  I don't think a 3rd lane is needed all the way up to MA 2 in Greenfield just yet.  Only times I've been stuck in traffic on that stretch was when they were replacing the bridges in Greenfield at Exit 26 and had it down to one lane.  Other than the usual Sunday afternoon/evening backup during the winter southbound, it's relatively easy going for most of the way.  What I can see is a third lane being added up to Exit 19/Northampton.  A considerable amount of traffic enters/leaves the interstate at that exit heading towards MA 9, UMass, etc.  The median is really wide and variable through the entire area north of Holyoke so widening would be relatively easy.  They've been working for [what seems like] 10 years on the bridges in Holyoke and Northampton so I've grown quite accustomed to lack of shoulders in that area.  Just keep it that way and start bulldozing the median.  You wouldn't need to touch the interchanges at all... except Exit 19. 

And through the Mt Tom curves, I've never encountered any big issue.  The grades aren't steep at all.  Any delay is mostly right around Exit 16-17 where it drops from 3 to 2 lanes and there are some closely-spaced exits and merges. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on October 02, 2017, 04:25:41 PM
No, I mean down to I-95 in New Haven. Counts certainly warrant it south of Northampton and truck traffic can be high north of there.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on October 02, 2017, 06:36:52 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 02, 2017, 04:25:41 PM
No, I mean down to I-95 in New Haven. Counts certainly warrant it south of Northampton and truck traffic can be high north of there.
In CT it needs another lane north of I-84 through Springfield, and south of CT 2 through CT 9 to the Wilbur Cross. South of there, CT 15 is the bottleneck, not 91.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 03, 2017, 12:18:55 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 02, 2017, 06:36:52 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 02, 2017, 04:25:41 PM
No, I mean down to I-95 in New Haven. Counts certainly warrant it south of Northampton and truck traffic can be high north of there.
In CT it needs another lane north of I-84 through Springfield, and south of CT 2 through CT 9 to the Wilbur Cross. South of there, CT 15 is the bottleneck, not 91.
The CT 15/CT 66/I-691 C/D interchange really just needs a third land thru on I-91.  Well, technically there is a third lane thru but it gets diverted to become Exit 17.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 03, 2017, 01:08:12 AM
The biggest fix had to be adding a lane at the south end of I-91 at the I-95 interchange.  Oh, the horrors of all I-91 traffic having to squeeze into one lane to get on I-95 South.  Had to be the biggest bottleneck known to mankind.  That being said, I-91 in CT and MA should be 10 lanes from I-95 to Exit 10, 8 lanes to Exit 13, 6 lanes from Exit 13-Exit 22 (+1 climbing lane northbound north of Exit 18 and southbound south of Exit 20), 8 lanes from Exit 22-25, 8 lanes from Exit 25 to the Forest Park curve with an HOV lane from Exit 25-40, 10 lanes to I-391, 8 lanes to Exit 17, and 6 lanes (with a climbing lane southbound south of Exit 18) the rest of the way to the VT border.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on October 07, 2017, 09:21:03 PM
The overhead mounted VMSes on US 3 north of Burlington have all disappeared, one by one in the past few weeks. Are we scheduled to be getting new systems?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on October 08, 2017, 01:36:25 AM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on October 07, 2017, 09:21:03 PM
The overhead mounted VMSes on US 3 north of Burlington have all disappeared, one by one in the past few weeks. Are we scheduled to be getting new systems?
Yes.  There is a contract underway to replace several of the older CMS signs in District 4 and District 6, most of which are the flip disc/fiber optic panels  - including a number of early 1990s vintage Silvia signs - in the I-95/I-93 (MA 128 for you stick in the muds) corridor - with new LED panels.  The intent is to retain the existing support structures, which will be accomplished by ditching the walk-in cabinets for slimmer and lighter boards like those recently installed on I-93 and I-95 north of Boston.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on October 08, 2017, 09:35:40 AM
Rad. Thanks for the info, Roadman.
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 11, 2017, 10:48:42 AM
Boston Globe: "Rotaries disappear in favor of roundabouts"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/10/08/rotaries-disappear-favor-roundabouts/g8Znfv4XSyUokBSpEAyKaJ/amp.html

Am I the only one that thinks these are not good examples of roundabouts?  Their primary example here is the mess where 129 meets 128 in Wakefield.  I find that intersection to now be poorly signed, confusing, and poorly functioning because no one can figure out what to do in the time that they have to figure out to do it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on October 11, 2017, 11:23:24 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 11, 2017, 10:48:42 AM
Boston Globe: "Rotaries disappear in favor of roundabouts"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/10/08/rotaries-disappear-favor-roundabouts/g8Znfv4XSyUokBSpEAyKaJ/amp.html

Am I the only one that thinks these are not good examples of roundabouts?  Their primary example here is the mess where 129 meets 128 in Wakefield.  I find that intersection to now be poorly signed, confusing, and poorly functioning because no one can figure out what to do in the time that they have to figure out to do it.
Two other rotaries in the Bay State that I'm aware of were also restriped to a roundabout (based on the article) fashion: Goodwin's Circle (MA 129/Salem St./connector to I-95/MA 128 & US 1) in S. Lynnfield, and MA 1A at the Wonderland Blue Line T station in Revere.

It's interesting that the Globe did not comment at all about the newly-constructed roundabouts at the Brimbal Ave./Sohier Road interchange w/128 (Exit 19) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Beverly,+MA/@42.5745111,-70.8804032,18.25z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e3166bea667b97:0xc7b7a37ab06fa14e!8m2!3d42.5584283!4d-70.880049) in Beverly.  Such are true roundabouts IMHO.

With regards to the Wakefield example; maybe MassDOT should take note of how roundabouts are signed in Ohio (I saw some examples during the recent Columbus Road Meet) and erect more advance (& overhead) diagrammatic signage along 129 prior to one entering the interchange/roundabout.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on November 25, 2017, 12:25:05 PM
MassDOT has posted sign drawings and location plans for the upcoming Division 2 Retroflective Sign Replacement project. The 4 sign drawing files include plans for the new type of paddle/guide signs with mixed case lettering (and they seem to have all the shields on signs related to US 202 correct). The files can be accessed here:
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-18-1030-0H100-0H002-19388&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-18-1030-0H100-0H002-19388&external=true&parentUrl=bid)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on November 26, 2017, 10:23:20 PM
Looking through those bid sheets.    Where is MA-21A?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on November 27, 2017, 10:46:49 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on November 26, 2017, 10:23:20 PM
Looking through those bid sheets.    Where is MA-21A?

That's a hell of a question, because it's either a figment of their imagination or something new. I found what you were talking about in the bid sheets, so the state thinks something exists there.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on November 27, 2017, 10:57:41 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 25, 2017, 12:25:05 PM
MassDOT has posted sign drawings and location plans for the upcoming Division 2 Retroflective Sign Replacement project. The 4 sign drawing files include plans for the new type of paddle/guide signs with mixed case lettering (and they seem to have all the shields on signs related to US 202 correct). The files can be accessed here:
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-18-1030-0H100-0H002-19388&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-18-1030-0H100-0H002-19388&external=true&parentUrl=bid)
Page 3, sheet 14 shows a listing of route shields.  Being a North Shore native (such was MassDPW District 5, not sure what MassDOT district it is now); the listing of the MA 114 shield literally jumped out at me.  Am I missing something?  MA 114 is nowhere near western MA.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on November 27, 2017, 11:32:30 AM
The "Sign Action Plan" shows where the signs will be posted. 21A is on Main Street in Hardwick. In other words, it's a typo for 32A (or 32?). 114 isn't even in the drawings, so it was probably an error by whoever compiled the drawings.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on November 28, 2017, 05:15:30 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 27, 2017, 11:32:30 AM
The "Sign Action Plan" shows where the signs will be posted. 21A is on Main Street in Hardwick. In other words, it's a typo for 32A (or 32?). 114 isn't even in the drawings, so it was probably an error by whoever compiled the drawings.

Good catch.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on November 28, 2017, 11:32:21 PM
Based on my experience with the District 5 project, unless someone makes an effort to let the district engineer know about the errors, they probably will end up being signed, as was the case with the unneeded Route 228 sign replacements in Hingham.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Route99 on December 02, 2017, 04:12:55 AM
The 2 remaining Kendrick Street ramps on I-95 / 128 in Needham opened this evening.  Kendrick St to I-95 N and I-95 S to Kendrick St.

http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/needham-i-95-north-south-new-ramps-opening-friday-december-1/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/needham-i-95-north-south-new-ramps-opening-friday-december-1/)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on December 15, 2017, 09:42:54 AM
I have another question.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googleapis.com%2Fmaps%2Fapi%2Fstaticmap%3Fcenter%3D42.1549%2C-71.9732%26amp%3Bzoom%3D13%26amp%3Bsize%3D500x500&hash=08cb999fdd77017009211542a1fb762245032f30)


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googleapis.com%2Fmaps%2Fapi%2Fstaticmap%3Fcenter%3D42.1549%2C-71.9732%26amp%3Bzoom%3D14%26amp%3Bsize%3D600x600&hash=c2a157b61bbf69f22f57b2d40bca8a374e059f6c)

link to Google Maps here (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.152392,-71.9690065,13.93z)

(Same place, one zoom level apart.)

MA 31 turns here, even though the road continues straight unnumbered and then becomes MA 31 again. Why isn't MA 31 along the straight road (which Google even considers more important than actual MA 31)?

Side note 1: Google Maps API hasn't switched its color scheme yet!
Side note 2: I feel that Stafford St. should be MA 169, but that's a different discussion and belongs in Fictional.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 15, 2017, 10:10:59 AM
It probably bends off the main road so that it can pass through the center of Charlton, rather than staying on the periphery of the central business district (which, btw, seems now to be dominated by Treehouse).  It's kind of like what happens with CT 10 in the map below by bending off path to go to the village of Plantsville, only to return to the same route (occupied by Old Turnpike Rd, about 3 miles later. 


(https://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/staticmap?center=41.5759173,-72.883017&zoom=13&size=500x500)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on December 15, 2017, 02:48:37 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 15, 2017, 09:42:54 AM
I have another question.

(https://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/staticmap?center=42.1549,-71.9732&zoom=13&size=500x500)


(https://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/staticmap?center=42.1549,-71.9732&zoom=14&size=600x600)

link to Google Maps here (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.152392,-71.9690065,13.93z)

(Same place, one zoom level apart.)

MA 31 turns here, even though the road continues straight unnumbered and then becomes MA 31 again. Why isn't MA 31 along the straight road (which Google even considers more important than actual MA 31)?

Side note 1: Google Maps API hasn't switched its color scheme yet!
Side note 2: I feel that Stafford St. should be MA 169, but that's a different discussion and belongs in Fictional.

As JP stated and I agree, probably to serve Charlton Depot, Charlton City, and the town center of Charlton all on one route.

Also side note 2 well taken. Stafford St deserves a number.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on December 15, 2017, 03:41:24 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 27, 2017, 11:32:30 AM
The "Sign Action Plan" shows where the signs will be posted. 21A is on Main Street in Hardwick. In other words, it's a typo for 32A (or 32?). 114 isn't even in the drawings, so it was probably an error by whoever compiled the drawings.

A typo for the infamous MA-141, which was erroneously signed as an Alabama state highway some years back?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on December 23, 2017, 06:23:24 PM
The next MassDOT District up for Retroreflective Sign Replacement is 3, west of Boston to be let Jan. 17. The Sign Action Plan and Sign Drawings and Details are available at the bidding page at: https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-18-1030-0H100-0H002-19846&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-18-1030-0H100-0H002-19846&external=true&parentUrl=bid)

The most interesting find so far in the Action Plan is that they list a County Route 27 marker at MA 27 NB mile marker 62.3 that is due to be replaced (p. 58) with a North directional banner and a MA 27 shield (so those who haven't gotten photos, your time is running out).

Meanwhile the District 6 contract, Boston and surrounding suburbs, letting was postponed 2 weeks until Jan. 24. That page does not have sign related files posted at this time. I'll post any links should they appear.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on December 23, 2017, 09:14:48 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on December 23, 2017, 06:23:24 PM
The next MassDOT District up for Retroreflective Sign Replacement is 3, west of Boston to be let Jan. 17. The Sign Action Plan and Sign Drawings and Details are available at the bidding page at: https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-18-1030-0H100-0H002-19846&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-18-1030-0H100-0H002-19846&external=true&parentUrl=bid)

The most interesting find so far in the Action Plan is that they list a County Route 27 marker at MA 27 NB mile marker 62.3 that is due to be replaced (p. 58) with a North directional banner and a MA 27 shield (so those who haven't gotten photos, your time is running out).

Meanwhile the District 6 contract, Boston and surrounding suburbs, letting was postponed 2 weeks until Jan. 24. That page does not have sign related files posted at this time. I'll post any links should they appear.
Never heard of this
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on December 23, 2017, 11:41:19 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 23, 2017, 09:14:48 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on December 23, 2017, 06:23:24 PM
The next MassDOT District up for Retroreflective Sign Replacement is 3, west of Boston to be let Jan. 17. The Sign Action Plan and Sign Drawings and Details are available at the bidding page at: https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-18-1030-0H100-0H002-19846&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-18-1030-0H100-0H002-19846&external=true&parentUrl=bid)
The most interesting find so far in the Action Plan is that they list a County Route 27 marker at MA 27 NB mile marker 62.3 that is due to be replaced (p. 58) with a North directional banner and a MA 27 shield (so those who haven't gotten photos, your time is running out).

Meanwhile the District 6 contract, Boston and surrounding suburbs, letting was postponed 2 weeks until Jan. 24. That page does not have sign related files posted at this time. I'll post any links should they appear.
Never heard of this
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fma_27%2Fncr.jpg&hash=ec6cdc8a07ceea9ab4668addd81306adbb720ea1)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on December 26, 2017, 12:41:11 PM
MassDOT has a new URL for its Project Information website:
https://www.mass.gov/service-details/massdot-project-info (https://www.mass.gov/service-details/massdot-project-info)

Though the website address is new, the listings are still the same, meaning many have not been updated recently. The I-90 sign replacement contracts, for example, the project information for the work between Exits 1 and 10, has not been revised since the summer, still listing the contract as 36% complete when actually more than 75% of the new signage has been put up. Hopefully, the new address will come with a better effort to keep the information available to the public as up to date as possible.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: J N Winkler on December 26, 2017, 01:15:06 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on December 23, 2017, 06:23:24 PMMeanwhile the District 6 contract, Boston and surrounding suburbs, letting was postponed 2 weeks until Jan. 24. That page does not have sign related files posted at this time. I'll post any links should they appear.

I think you might as well quit watching.  The proposal cover page for the District 6 job (607496) has "PLANS:  YES."  In comparison, the proposal cover page for the District 2 job (608555), which does have sign panel details in the proposal book, has "PLANS:  NO."
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on December 29, 2017, 09:12:33 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 26, 2017, 01:15:06 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on December 23, 2017, 06:23:24 PMMeanwhile the District 6 contract, Boston and surrounding suburbs, letting was postponed 2 weeks until Jan. 24. That page does not have sign related files posted at this time. I'll post any links should they appear.

I think you might as well quit watching.  The proposal cover page for the District 6 job (607496) has "PLANS:  YES."  In comparison, the proposal cover page for the District 2 job (608555), which does have sign panel details in the proposal book, has "PLANS:  NO."
The District 6 retroreflective sign project was done by a different designer than the other projects were.  They chose to provide the information on plan sheets instead of in the proposal book.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on January 03, 2018, 08:47:35 AM
Found this video on Facebook covering the original construction of the Mass Pike (I-90) circa 1957.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on January 03, 2018, 09:09:07 AM
They also did similar films regarding the construction of the Turnpike Extension and the Callahan Tunnel.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jstc15 on January 03, 2018, 04:50:53 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 23, 2017, 11:41:19 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 23, 2017, 09:14:48 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on December 23, 2017, 06:23:24 PM
The next MassDOT District up for Retroreflective Sign Replacement is 3, west of Boston to be let Jan. 17. The Sign Action Plan and Sign Drawings and Details are available at the bidding page at: https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-18-1030-0H100-0H002-19846&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-18-1030-0H100-0H002-19846&external=true&parentUrl=bid)
The most interesting find so far in the Action Plan is that they list a County Route 27 marker at MA 27 NB mile marker 62.3 that is due to be replaced (p. 58) with a North directional banner and a MA 27 shield (so those who haven't gotten photos, your time is running out).

Meanwhile the District 6 contract, Boston and surrounding suburbs, letting was postponed 2 weeks until Jan. 24. That page does not have sign related files posted at this time. I'll post any links should they appear.
Never heard of this
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fma%2Fma_27%2Fncr.jpg&hash=ec6cdc8a07ceea9ab4668addd81306adbb720ea1)

Driven past this sign many, many times and always wondered how/why it was never changed.

https://goo.gl/maps/rZ4hAcFF9iv
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 09, 2018, 06:42:43 PM
Odd question...Was the expressway portion MA Route 57 planned to go further west from where it presently ends in Agawam? It sure looks like it in this Google Street View image:

https://goo.gl/maps/2h2x1ZwTW2t
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 09, 2018, 07:01:01 PM
Check out page 14 of this PDF.  It mentions an extension of the expressway to the Agawam-Southwick town line.  Personally, I'd rather see it extended to MA 10/US 202 in Southwick to align with MA 57 West.  MA 147 could just be extended over the existing Route 57 east of 10/202.

http://www.pvpc.org/sites/default/files/agaw_fh_safety.pdf
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on January 09, 2018, 08:45:29 PM
I believe the plan was for it to narrow down to a super-2 once it was west of the current end of the expressway at MA-187, and then meet up with the existing road at the top of the ridge at the Agawam-Southwick line.  I think it was supposed to just transition directly into the current road into Southwick, with the old routing being either cut-off or being redirected to end at a T intersection with the new alignment.   

Not sure how far into design that section got before the plug was pulled on the extension. I know the state bought some land and did a ton of surveying along the sharp curve where 57 crosses the town line. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 09, 2018, 10:36:52 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 09, 2018, 06:42:43 PM
Odd question...Was the expressway portion MA Route 57 planned to go further west from where it presently ends in Agawam? It sure looks like it in this Google Street View image:

https://goo.gl/maps/2h2x1ZwTW2t

Yes.  The stub is considered "active" should traffic conditions warrant an extension to Southwick.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on January 11, 2018, 09:26:06 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 09, 2018, 06:42:43 PM
Odd question...Was the expressway portion MA Route 57 planned to go further west from where it presently ends in Agawam? It sure looks like it in this Google Street View image:

https://goo.gl/maps/2h2x1ZwTW2t

Yes. In the Southwick Public Library, the records of the plans for phase II of the MA 57 expressway in the mid-90s are there for reading fun. The four lane expressway would have continued past South West Street, and would have transitioned into Feeding Hills Road east of the intersection of Foster Street. None of the routes proposed in the EIS went to actual design AFAIK, they were just route proposals and the potential environmental impacts they would require.

However, at this point if the road was going to be extended today they would have to do a new design and it would probably be up in the air as to what they would do. The last real push for Phase II was in the mid-aughts (around 2005-2006), and my recollection of the news articles was that the Romney admin didn't care and wouldn't help get it going.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 29, 2018, 11:34:26 PM
Is US 6 in Provincetown owned by NPS? They have their signs up all along the northern end of the highway.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: CapeCodder on January 30, 2018, 12:54:49 PM
Is there a reason that's preventing MASSDOT or whoever maintains MA 80 from extending it either to the Commerce Way exit or along the old US 44 alignment? It's a hanging end as of right now. Why is 80 even in existence? I wonder if it was brought about in a similar fashion that MA 36 was: political connections?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on January 30, 2018, 05:57:08 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on January 29, 2018, 11:34:26 PM
Is US 6 in Provincetown owned by NPS? They have their signs up all along the northern end of the highway.

The last 1/2 mile or so of it, from the "Entering the Province Lands" sign to the end at the intersection near Herring Cove Beach, are owned by the NPS.   They also own the stretch of 6A from just north of where it turns off the end of Bradford Street to Herring Cove. 

The rest of the US-6 highway within the Provincetown town limits was transferred from state to town ownership about 5 years ago at the request of the town.  Not sure what their reasoning is. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on January 30, 2018, 09:21:36 PM
Quote from: CapeCodder on January 30, 2018, 12:54:49 PM
Is there a reason that's preventing MASSDOT or whoever maintains MA 80 from extending it either to the Commerce Way exit or along the old US 44 alignment? It's a hanging end as of right now. Why is 80 even in existence? I wonder if it was brought about in a similar fashion that MA 36 was: political connections?
Extending along old 44 would make some sense, but MA 80 is not about being a through route. I heard once that it was created to serve the light industrial development in that area. It also ends up being a backdoor to Kingston, which makes more sense in a pre-3 freeway era.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on January 31, 2018, 12:11:45 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 30, 2018, 09:21:36 PM
Quote from: CapeCodder on January 30, 2018, 12:54:49 PM
Is there a reason that's preventing MASSDOT or whoever maintains MA 80 from extending it either to the Commerce Way exit or along the old US 44 alignment? It's a hanging end as of right now. Why is 80 even in existence? I wonder if it was brought about in a similar fashion that MA 36 was: political connections?
Extending along old 44 would make some sense, but MA 80 is not about being a through route. I heard once that it was created to serve the light industrial development in that area. It also ends up being a backdoor to Kingston, which makes more sense in a pre-3 freeway era.
I would do 2 things, first extend it along old US 44 to MA 3. Second, re-banner it as a north-south highway. In its current east-west configuration, you start off heading west in Plymouth, then north then finally east to its end in at MA 3A in Kingston. Even with this extension it would only be about 8 miles long, and IMO could be a candidate for decommissioning.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on January 31, 2018, 02:56:27 PM
QuoteI would do 2 things, first extend it along old US 44 to MA 3.

Good luck getting the Town of Carver to accept that.  That's the reason that 'old' US 44 wasn't resigned as MA 44A.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on January 31, 2018, 03:20:09 PM
Quote from: roadman on January 31, 2018, 02:56:27 PM
QuoteI would do 2 things, first extend it along old US 44 to MA 3.

Good luck getting the Town of Carver to accept that.  That's the reason that 'old' US 44 wasn't resigned as MA 44A.

Wouldn't the only new miles be in Plymouth?

Also, let's play a game of "find the error" in the Wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_80
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on February 01, 2018, 08:54:02 AM
One WBZ report covering what went down in terms of locals (aka NIMBYs) succeeded in killing off the I-695 Inner Belt back in the late 60s/early 70s.

It Happens Here: Cambridgeport & The Off Ramp To Nowhere (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/01/30/cambridgeport-93-offramp-it-happens-here/)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on February 19, 2018, 06:14:39 PM
I've placed new photos taken along a trip through the I-95/128 Add-A-Lane Project work zone on my I-95 in Mass. Photo Gallery, including:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95addalane218l.jpg&hash=4dc977ae1f3810afa43744605bfdcf3c052c1610)

The rest at: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on March 12, 2018, 12:22:34 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 01, 2018, 08:54:02 AM
One WBZ report covering what went down in terms of locals (aka NIMBYs) succeeded in killing off the I-695 Inner Belt back in the late 60s/early 70s.

It Happens Here: Cambridgeport & The Off Ramp To Nowhere (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/01/30/cambridgeport-93-offramp-it-happens-here/)

and as a result cambridge city streets (in addition to I-93, mass pike, storrow and memorial drives, etc.) are absolute gridlock for most of the daylight hours and tons upon tons of carbon pollution is emitted into the air. Despite Cambridge's noble efforts with bikes, the car traffic is ever increasing (mainly due to the ever increasing population)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 12, 2018, 09:48:57 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 12, 2018, 12:22:34 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 01, 2018, 08:54:02 AM
One WBZ report covering what went down in terms of locals (aka NIMBYs) succeeded in killing off the I-695 Inner Belt back in the late 60s/early 70s.

It Happens Here: Cambridgeport & The Off Ramp To Nowhere (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/01/30/cambridgeport-93-offramp-it-happens-here/)

and as a result cambridge city streets (in addition to I-93, mass pike, storrow and memorial drives, etc.) are absolute gridlock for most of the daylight hours and tons upon tons of carbon pollution is emitted into the air. Despite Cambridge's noble efforts with bikes, the car traffic is ever increasing (mainly due to the ever increasing population)
The increasing car traffic has just as much to do with the increasing unreliability of the Boston area's mass transportation system - especially the subway lines - as it is due to the increasing population.  As nice as increasing bicycle accommodations are, bike transportation is still a relatively ineffective way to move large groups of people.  Sadly, however, it's seen as more of a political win for local leaders than putting the necessary resources into maintaining and improving the core transit system is.  And the system of restricting how Federal transit funding can be used (i.e. NO operations or maintenance expenditures can be paid for with Federal funds) is only exacerbating the matter.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 13, 2018, 09:26:46 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 12, 2018, 09:48:57 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on March 12, 2018, 12:22:34 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 01, 2018, 08:54:02 AM
One WBZ report covering what went down in terms of locals (aka NIMBYs) succeeded in killing off the I-695 Inner Belt back in the late 60s/early 70s.

It Happens Here: Cambridgeport & The Off Ramp To Nowhere (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/01/30/cambridgeport-93-offramp-it-happens-here/)

and as a result cambridge city streets (in addition to I-93, mass pike, storrow and memorial drives, etc.) are absolute gridlock for most of the daylight hours and tons upon tons of carbon pollution is emitted into the air. Despite Cambridge's noble efforts with bikes, the car traffic is ever increasing (mainly due to the ever increasing population)
The increasing car traffic has just as much to do with the increasing unreliability of the Boston area's mass transportation system - especially the subway lines - as it is due to the increasing population.  As nice as increasing bicycle accommodations are, bike transportation is still a relatively ineffective way to move large groups of people.  Sadly, however, it's seen as more of a political win for local leaders than putting the necessary resources into maintaining and improving the core transit system is.  And the system of restricting how Federal transit funding can be used (i.e. NO operations or maintenance expenditures can be paid for with Federal funds) is only exacerbating the matter.
My concern is from the preservationist perspective.  Boston is no doubt one of the most, if not THE most historically significant city in the US.  When you start going around digging freeways you have to be careful.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on March 21, 2018, 02:51:11 PM
So the district 4 retroreflective sign upgrade project has been progressing along part of my usual route to work (MA 133 from Boxford to Rowley) with new reassurance and JCT shields. I noticed one peculiarity between the posted plans regarding this paddle guide sign in Boxford...

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7120537,-71.0542001,3a,45y,52.99h,92.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssgjXkSNWAhV7d5GB3xXtKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

According to the Sign Action Plan (page 83) the sign panel was supposed to be replaced with a newer mixed case style sign since the route number was completely missing, (page 24 of the Project Sign Summary and Details file), however it seems they fixed the sign by replacing the missing route number only and leaving the existing panel. Is that something the contractors are allowed to do? Perhaps a compromise/cost saving measure? Just curious since I was expecting to see a nice new mixed case sign (which I am personally a fan of the new style signs)

Heres a link to the CommBuys page with the project files
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-17-1030-0H100-0H002-00000009788&external=true&parentUrl=bid

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on March 21, 2018, 05:58:15 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on March 21, 2018, 02:51:11 PM
So the district 4 retroreflective sign upgrade project has been progressing along part of my usual route to work (MA 133 from Boxford to Rowley) with new reassurance and JCT shields. I noticed one peculiarity between the posted plans regarding this paddle guide sign in Boxford...

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7120537,-71.0542001,3a,45y,52.99h,92.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssgjXkSNWAhV7d5GB3xXtKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

According to the Sign Action Plan (page 83) the sign panel was supposed to be replaced with a newer mixed case style sign since the route number was completely missing, (page 24 of the Project Sign Summary and Details file), however it seems they fixed the sign by replacing the missing route number only and leaving the existing panel. Is that something the contractors are allowed to do? Perhaps a compromise/cost saving measure? Just curious since I was expecting to see a nice new mixed case sign (which I am personally a fan of the new style signs)

Heres a link to the CommBuys page with the project files
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-17-1030-0H100-0H002-00000009788&external=true&parentUrl=bid


As long as the existing sign is within its service life (adequate reflectivity) you can patch it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 21, 2018, 06:44:33 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 21, 2018, 05:58:15 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on March 21, 2018, 02:51:11 PM
So the district 4 retroreflective sign upgrade project has been progressing along part of my usual route to work (MA 133 from Boxford to Rowley) with new reassurance and JCT shields. I noticed one peculiarity between the posted plans regarding this paddle guide sign in Boxford...

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7120537,-71.0542001,3a,45y,52.99h,92.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssgjXkSNWAhV7d5GB3xXtKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

According to the Sign Action Plan (page 83) the sign panel was supposed to be replaced with a newer mixed case style sign since the route number was completely missing, (page 24 of the Project Sign Summary and Details file), however it seems they fixed the sign by replacing the missing route number only and leaving the existing panel. Is that something the contractors are allowed to do? Perhaps a compromise/cost saving measure? Just curious since I was expecting to see a nice new mixed case sign (which I am personally a fan of the new style signs)

Heres a link to the CommBuys page with the project files
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-17-1030-0H100-0H002-00000009788&external=true&parentUrl=bid


As long as the existing sign is within its service life (adequate reflectivity) you can patch it.
One other possibility is that the sign was replaced by the District through Accident Recovery after the contract plans were finalized - MassDOT Accident Recovery rules require that, whenever possible, the damaged/destroyed sign (or any highway fixture) be replaced EXACTLY in kind.  Typically, use of mixed-case legend (8"/6" for "paddle" signs) as opposed to all upper-case legend (6"), requires a larger sign panel.  This would violate the rules, especially if the larger sign panel also requires a new support post (steel-beam post instead of tubular post).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on March 22, 2018, 10:40:46 AM
Quote from: 5foot14 on March 21, 2018, 02:51:11 PMHeres a link to the CommBuys page with the project files
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-17-1030-0H100-0H002-00000009788&external=true&parentUrl=bid
The MA 145 D6 sign detail on page 28 of the PDF (sheet 10 of 18 on the detail sheet) lists the legend as:

145 NORTH
Everett
Boston


Shouldn't the first "line" of that panel that read 145 SOUTH ?

Page 34 of the pdf (sheet 16 of 18 on the detail sheet) lists a MA 113 D6 panel legend as:

WEST  TO
113   128


Just where does 113 interchange with 128?  Was this panel intended to be for & read 133?  Such would make more sense.

Page 36 of the pdf (sheet 18 of 18 on the detail sheet) regarding the Revere Beach Point of Pines exit ramp BGS (for MA 1A just south of the General Edwards Bridge).  IMHO, the Revere Beach text should be center-justified with respect to the lower Point Of Pines text.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on March 22, 2018, 11:32:10 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 22, 2018, 10:40:46 AM
WEST  TO
113   128


Just where does 113 interchange with 128?  Was this panel intended to be for & read 133?  Such would make more sense.

NH 128, maybe?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on March 22, 2018, 12:08:21 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 22, 2018, 11:32:10 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 22, 2018, 10:40:46 AM
WEST  TO
113   128


Just where does 113 interchange with 128?  Was this panel intended to be for & read 133?  Such would make more sense.

NH 128, maybe?
MA 113 doesn't cross the state line and Mammoth Rd. continues northward in MA for several miles before it becomes NH 128 at the border.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on April 04, 2018, 10:42:07 AM
How old is this "stop line" sign? (North Andover, MA)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/879/40336069625_b659718328_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24smUdi)IMG_0340 (https://flic.kr/p/24smUdi) by <name removed> (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hotdogpi/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on April 04, 2018, 10:47:12 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 04, 2018, 10:42:07 AM
How old is this "stop line" sign? (North Andover, MA)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/879/40336069625_b659718328_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24smUdi)IMG_0340 (https://flic.kr/p/24smUdi) by <name removed> (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hotdogpi/), on Flickr
My guess would be 80s-vintage or late 70s at the earliest.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on April 19, 2018, 12:49:48 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on March 21, 2018, 02:51:11 PM
So the district 4 retroreflective sign upgrade project has been progressing along part of my usual route to work (MA 133 from Boxford to Rowley) with new reassurance and JCT shields. I noticed one peculiarity between the posted plans regarding this paddle guide sign in Boxford...

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7120537,-71.0542001,3a,45y,52.99h,92.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssgjXkSNWAhV7d5GB3xXtKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

According to the Sign Action Plan (page 83) the sign panel was supposed to be replaced with a newer mixed case style sign since the route number was completely missing, (page 24 of the Project Sign Summary and Details file), however it seems they fixed the sign by replacing the missing route number only and leaving the existing panel. Is that something the contractors are allowed to do? Perhaps a compromise/cost saving measure? Just curious since I was expecting to see a nice new mixed case sign (which I am personally a fan of the new style signs)

Heres a link to the CommBuys page with the project files
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-17-1030-0H100-0H002-00000009788&external=true&parentUrl=bid
I have an update, they replaced this sign last week with a mixed case sign. Seems pointless that they patched it only a month or 2 before replacing it.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180419/8f1ffc079036eb249f367a40676ca151.jpg)

SM-G900P

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on April 19, 2018, 02:04:53 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on April 19, 2018, 12:49:48 PMI have an update, they replaced this sign last week with a mixed case sign. Seems pointless that they patched it only a month or 2 before replacing it.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180419/8f1ffc079036eb249f367a40676ca151.jpg)
Is it me or should the mix-cased letters have a tad more spacing between them?  The lettering looks a bit crowded.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on April 19, 2018, 02:07:55 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 19, 2018, 02:04:53 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on April 19, 2018, 12:49:48 PMI have an update, they replaced this sign last week with a mixed case sign. Seems pointless that they patched it only a month or 2 before replacing it.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180419/8f1ffc079036eb249f367a40676ca151.jpg)
Is it me or should the mix-cased letters have a tad more spacing between them?  The lettering looks a bit crowded.
I noted that as well.  Looks like about 65% to 70% inter-letter spacing to me.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on April 19, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 19, 2018, 02:07:55 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 19, 2018, 02:04:53 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on April 19, 2018, 12:49:48 PMI have an update, they replaced this sign last week with a mixed case sign. Seems pointless that they patched it only a month or 2 before replacing it.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180419/8f1ffc079036eb249f367a40676ca151.jpg)
Is it me or should the mix-cased letters have a tad more spacing between them?  The lettering looks a bit crowded.
I noted that as well.  Looks like about 65% to 70% inter-letter spacing to me.

The appears harder to read than the sign it replaced, which wasn't very legible in the first place. This sign is exhibit A of why they should get rid of these signs and do what NH does, as in the sign is sized based on the length of the location name rather than one size fits all.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on April 19, 2018, 02:19:26 PM
The letters definitely are crowded and it is a bit difficult to read at speed... Seems unnecessary though, there seems to be plenty of space on the panel. Also, are the capital letters supposed to be larger than the lower case letters? Seems the G and R are a bit oversized.

SM-G900P

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on April 19, 2018, 02:27:01 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 19, 2018, 02:16:23 PMThe appears harder to read than the sign it replaced, which wasn't very legible in the first place.
Unless I'm missing something, you have to be joking about the previous sign not being legible.  Per the earlier-posted July 2012 GSV; the old sign was perfectly legible.

Quote from: 5foot14 on April 19, 2018, 02:19:26 PM
The letters definitely are crowded and it is a bit difficult to read at speed... Seems unnecessary though, there seems to be plenty of space on the panel. Also, are the capital letters supposed to be larger than the lower case letters? Seems the G and R are a bit oversized.
I was thinking the same thing.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on April 19, 2018, 02:46:39 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 19, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
The appears harder to read than the sign it replaced, which wasn't very legible in the first place. This sign is exhibit A of why they should get rid of these signs and do what NH does, as in the sign is sized based on the length of the location name rather than one size fits all.

For secondary road LGS signs, MassDOT is doing just that - transitioning away from the "one size fits all" approach for D6 and D8 "paddle" sign panels.  Eventually, most new LGS signs will be based on the typical MA-D1-7 layouts shown in the 2017 MassDOT Sign Book.  These signs will be fabricated from extruded aluminum and mounted on single steel beam posts.  Of course, there will still be instances (think local streetscape and/or historic district areas) where the traditional "paddle" signs will continue to be used in lieu of the updated standard, but eventually "paddle signs will be the exception instead of the rule for LGS signs in Massachusetts.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: odditude on April 19, 2018, 03:33:37 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 19, 2018, 02:27:01 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on April 19, 2018, 02:19:26 PM
The letters definitely are crowded and it is a bit difficult to read at speed... Seems unnecessary though, there seems to be plenty of space on the panel. Also, are the capital letters supposed to be larger than the lower case letters? Seems the G and R are a bit oversized.
I was thinking the same thing.
once again, this is someone misinterpreting "lowercase letters are supposed to have an x-height equal to 75% of uppercase letters" as "the font size for lowercase letters should be 75% of the font size for uppercase letters".
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on April 19, 2018, 03:51:18 PM
Quote from: odditude on April 19, 2018, 03:33:37 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 19, 2018, 02:27:01 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on April 19, 2018, 02:19:26 PM
The letters definitely are crowded and it is a bit difficult to read at speed... Seems unnecessary though, there seems to be plenty of space on the panel. Also, are the capital letters supposed to be larger than the lower case letters? Seems the G and R are a bit oversized.
I was thinking the same thing.
once again, this is someone misinterpreting "lowercase letters are supposed to have an x-height equal to 75% of uppercase letters" as "the font size for lowercase letters should be 75% of the font size for uppercase letters".
The lower-case text looks to be about half the height of the upper-case letters in the above-example.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: odditude on April 19, 2018, 07:39:31 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 19, 2018, 03:51:18 PM
Quote from: odditude on April 19, 2018, 03:33:37 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 19, 2018, 02:27:01 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on April 19, 2018, 02:19:26 PM
The letters definitely are crowded and it is a bit difficult to read at speed... Seems unnecessary though, there seems to be plenty of space on the panel. Also, are the capital letters supposed to be larger than the lower case letters? Seems the G and R are a bit oversized.
I was thinking the same thing.
once again, this is someone misinterpreting "lowercase letters are supposed to have an x-height equal to 75% of uppercase letters" as "the font size for lowercase letters should be 75% of the font size for uppercase letters".
The lower-case text looks to be about half the height of the upper-case letters in the above-example.
my point exactly - 56.25% is 75% of 75%.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on April 26, 2018, 10:08:05 PM
I have posted the latest I-95/128 Add-A-Lane Project photos on my I-95 in MA Photo Gallery, most of the temporary shoulder and median barriers have been removed, replaced by orange barrels, such as here approaching MA 9 NB:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95addalane418l.jpg&hash=b990345a8f0c2c8d1000614eb9f7720b7481a58d)

Rest of the photos: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 27, 2018, 10:51:37 AM
Quote from: odditude on April 19, 2018, 07:39:31 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 19, 2018, 03:51:18 PM
Quote from: odditude on April 19, 2018, 03:33:37 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 19, 2018, 02:27:01 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on April 19, 2018, 02:19:26 PM
The letters definitely are crowded and it is a bit difficult to read at speed... Seems unnecessary though, there seems to be plenty of space on the panel. Also, are the capital letters supposed to be larger than the lower case letters? Seems the G and R are a bit oversized.
I was thinking the same thing.
once again, this is someone misinterpreting "lowercase letters are supposed to have an x-height equal to 75% of uppercase letters" as "the font size for lowercase letters should be 75% of the font size for uppercase letters".
The lower-case text looks to be about half the height of the upper-case letters in the above-example.
my point exactly - 56.25% is 75% of 75%.

These similar font signs have been appearing on I-84 in my area of CT:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/910/26870453477_8c3905f877_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on May 08, 2018, 12:47:46 PM
Does anyone know what information is encoded on the bottom of pretty much all BGS? The first 2 parts are panel dimensions and I assume either fabrication or installation date. Just curious what the rest (F14 F2 M3 M3 A A) of it means. This particular sign is on the Ward Hill Connector WB (towards I-495) approaching the Shelley Rd/Ward Hill Business Park intersection in Haverhill.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180508/d32fe58323d7b2c8f540c5f46165b58f.jpg)

SM-G900P

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on May 08, 2018, 02:11:14 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on May 08, 2018, 12:47:46 PM
Does anyone know what information is encoded on the bottom of pretty much all BGS? The first 2 parts are panel dimensions and I assume either fabrication or installation date. Just curious what the rest (F14 F2 M3 M3 A A) of it means. This particular sign is on the Ward Hill Connector WB (towards I-495) approaching the Shelley Rd/Ward Hill Business Park intersection in Haverhill.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180508/d32fe58323d7b2c8f540c5f46165b58f.jpg)

SM-G900P


Inventory code, which MassDOT has been putting on all their BGS and LGS panels since the early 1990s.  For the example in your photo - 13 feet wide by 5.5 feet high  Sign Fabricated August 1995  Fabricated by Lyle Signs (F14)  Installed by Visi-Flash (Boston area sign company) (F2)  Fabricated from 3M Sheeting (M3), Type III High Intensity (A).  As there is only one sign (i.e., no exit tab) and no banner, not sure why the M3 and the A are repeated on this specific panel.

Given the recent improvements in MassDOT's asset management system, it is likely that the placement of this code on signs will become unnecessary and will eventually be phased out.

BTW, this sign is to be replaced within this year - it's included in the Methuen to Amesbury I-495 sign project presently under construction
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on May 15, 2018, 11:31:00 AM
MassDOT will announce today (5/15) the winning bidder for Project 607917 that will replace signage on a portion of I-290 north of the Mass Pike and at the northern end of I-395 and southern part of I-190. An addendum recently placed on the bid site had new sign plans for the Mass Pike exit. Here's the plan heading north at the end of I-395 and the beginning of I-290, notice the wide exit tab for a future 2-digit mileage based number:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi395ati90signplan518a.jpg&hash=04cdfe25e667adc5b971211069b89f5407408bea)

Also a 'To' has been added before the I-90 and Mass Pike logo shields. This makes sense since you have to travel on MA 12 South to get to the I-90 ramp. However, here's the plan for the sign at the ramp heading south:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi395ati90signplan518c.jpg&hash=a331244d5faa8ead864ed9ef9bfbcc37f9c849e0)

Notice a 'To' has also been added here. In this case, though the ramp to MA 12 comes first, you don't have to get off to access the Pike, as this Google Maps Street View image indicates:
https://goo.gl/maps/V25vHLSMKcr (https://goo.gl/maps/V25vHLSMKcr)

Is this another case, as seen with the new signage for Exit 9 on the Pike, that the same text is to be used for signs in both directions even though the public would be better served with different signing each way?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on May 15, 2018, 06:04:14 PM
Are they not indicating MA-12 north on the Exit 7 signage WB?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on May 15, 2018, 10:01:23 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on May 15, 2018, 06:04:14 PM
Are they not indicating MA-12 north on the Exit 7 signage WB?

The bid sheet shows both exits of 20 as "west" for the A and B exits, so who knows how accurate they've got it.  Exit 8 still shows as "12 south", so was hoping it was just 12 since you can easily and legally go north from there as well.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on May 16, 2018, 09:47:14 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 15, 2018, 10:01:23 PMExit 8 still shows as "12 south", so was hoping it was just 12 since you can easily and legally go north from there as well.
While technically true & correct; the likely reason why Exit 8 was signed for 12 South (even though one can use such for 12 North) and Exit 7 was signed for 12 North (along with I-90, there's a ramp for 12 North prior to where the toll booths once stood) was to avoid dumping excess traffic onto southbound Oxford St.

Granted, when the toll booths existed, many who were familiar with area were already using Exit 8 for 12 northbound as a means of avoiding the toll booth-related backups that existed then.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on May 16, 2018, 01:15:14 PM
MassDOT has released a draft of its 2019-2023 State TIP for public comment, the blog entry with link to the draft:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/draft-2019-2023-state-transportation-improvement-program/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/draft-2019-2023-state-transportation-improvement-program/)

Limiting my discussion to sign replacement contracts, here's a list of the projects covered by the Draft STIP:
2019-I-95/128 from Reading to Lynnfield (last replaced in 2002); US 1 from Chelsea to Danvers; MA 28 from Bourne to Falmouth (2001).
2020-I-391 Chicopee to Holyoke (2002); Sections of I-195 and I-495 from Dartmouth to Raynham; MA 146 Uxbridge to Worcester (2007).
2021-Part of US 3 from Burlington to Tyngsborough (2002).
2022-Remaining US 3 Burlington to Tyngsborough (2002); I-295 from Attleborough to N. Attleborough (2008); MA 25 from Wareham to Bourne (2008).
2023-I-84 from Holland to Sturbridge (2005); I-190 from Worcester to Leominster; I-95/128 for the US 1 Lynnfield interchange; MA 128 from Peabody to Gloucester (2007).

There were no listings (not a surprise) for any contract to renumber exits to mileage based numbers.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on May 16, 2018, 02:02:19 PM
US 3 Burlington to Tyngsborough is proposed to be let in 2021 as a single contract.  As the project is expected to take at least two years to complete, it's shown as two separate contracts in the STIP for Federal funding purposes (the practice is known as AC or Advanced Construction).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on May 16, 2018, 07:27:12 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 16, 2018, 09:47:14 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 15, 2018, 10:01:23 PMExit 8 still shows as "12 south", so was hoping it was just 12 since you can easily and legally go north from there as well.
While technically true & correct; the likely reason why Exit 8 was signed for 12 South (even though one can use such for 12 North) and Exit 7 was signed for 12 North (along with I-90, there's a ramp for 12 North prior to where the toll booths once stood) was to avoid dumping excess traffic onto southbound Oxford St.

Granted, when the toll booths existed, many who were familiar with area were already using Exit 8 for 12 northbound as a means of avoiding the toll booth-related backups that existed then.

Or on the flip side, get off at exit 8 and briefly go onto 12 south and take the I-90/Pike entrance from there to avoid exit 7 traffic. A few redundancies built into that area for sure.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 16, 2018, 09:34:57 PM
What I find interesting is that MassDOT is inconsistent in choosing its westbound control cities.  In the signage from I-290/I-395, it's Springfield.  One exit west at I-84, it's Albany, despite Springfield being in between Sturbridge and Albany.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on May 22, 2018, 09:45:57 AM
Bids on I-290 Auburn to Shrewsbury were opened last Tuesday (5/22).  Liddell Brothers is the apparent low bidder.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on June 03, 2018, 06:16:14 PM
Appears the final touches are being made on I-95/MA 128 in the Add-A-Lane Project work zone south of Highland Avenue. Looks like the final pavement layer is being put down, and new reference (aka mile) markers are being put up:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95addalane618m.jpg&hash=3b150e1a6d8fab53a5710caa3c781e958efc468c)

Are mile markers going to be put up along the already completed sections of the Add-A-Lane project between Randolph and Dedham soon?

Workers were reconstructing the MA 9 West off-ramp southbound this weekend. The temporary lane split at the exit is being removed:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95addalane618h.jpg&hash=45c1b97bb480c622b3fc6ae5a72c877339db9b71)

More photos from this weekend's trip on the I-95 in Mass. Photo Gallery: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 22, 2018, 08:17:07 AM
What's the best way to get in touch with someone at MassDOT these days? 

My luck with contact forms to state agencies isn't great, and the district offices don't post emails.  Is calling the district office the way to go? 

I mostly keep my mouth shut but there's a pavement issue here going unaddressed for a pretty long time.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on June 22, 2018, 10:34:54 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 22, 2018, 08:17:07 AM
What’s the best way to get in touch with someone at MassDOT these days? 

My luck with contact forms to state agencies isn’t great, and the district offices don’t post emails.  Is calling the district office the way to go? 

I mostly keep my mouth shut but there’s a pavement issue here going unaddressed for a pretty long time.

MassDOT has a general public e-mail system called Feedback, which can be accessed at:

https://www.mass.gov/forms/contact-massdot

When you send a query in, it is forwarded to the applicable District office, or Boston HQ if it is a more "global" issue.  The site also has links to HQ and District phone numbers.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on June 24, 2018, 11:21:12 PM
Got more photos of I-95/MA 128 Add-A-Lane Project last Thursday. Biggest news is traffic has been shifted onto the new lane northbound prior to Kendrick Street:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95addalane618q2.jpg&hash=0bb259a4384ad2af94416d77603d8c42f170be13)

Still 3 lanes of traffic though since they've closed the left lane for competing shoulder and median barrier work.
More photos on my I-95 in Mass. Photo Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane)
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 26, 2018, 04:40:58 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 22, 2018, 10:34:54 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 22, 2018, 08:17:07 AM
What’s the best way to get in touch with someone at MassDOT these days? 

My luck with contact forms to state agencies isn’t great, and the district offices don’t post emails.  Is calling the district office the way to go? 

I mostly keep my mouth shut but there’s a pavement issue here going unaddressed for a pretty long time.

MassDOT has a general public e-mail system called Feedback, which can be accessed at:

https://www.mass.gov/forms/contact-massdot

When you send a query in, it is forwarded to the applicable District office, or Boston HQ if it is a more "global" issue.  The site also has links to HQ and District phone numbers.

Well, incredibly, after more than a year of no response from anybody on the issue, they were out there repairing it Monday morning before I even got a chance to call.  I guess I'm just a misunderstanding the response timeline.

Now if it were only possible to get the DCR to respond like that.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on July 01, 2018, 08:58:28 PM
On a trip to/from Marblehead, I saw SIX flashing green lights. Four were on MA 114, at least two of which were definitely in Salem. The other two were also definitely in Salem, and they were on Boston St., including a very old signal on the intersection of Boston St. and Rawlins St. (Unfortunately, I couldn't get a photo in time.)

Why are there so many flashing greens in this area, and nowhere else that I know of in Massachusetts?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 02, 2018, 09:34:46 AM
Quote from: 1 on July 01, 2018, 08:58:28 PM
On a trip to/from Marblehead, I saw SIX flashing green lights. Four were on MA 114, at least two of which were definitely in Salem. The other two were also definitely in Salem, and they were on Boston St., including a very old signal on the intersection of Boston St. and Rawlins St. (Unfortunately, I couldn't get a photo in time.)

Why are there so many flashing greens in this area, and nowhere else that I know of in Massachusetts?
Those are basically pedestrian crossing signals that only change when the button is pushed.  Some of them, even though the signalheads are newer (1980s and later) still use the old-school (at least for eastern MA) steady red-yellow for pedestrian crossing en lieu of a WALK signal.

Here's the GSV for the signal at Boston & Rawlins Sts. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5218121,-70.9151195,3a,75y,262.61h,85.95t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svNrSZ_AKHs0W8NwIh4slqg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DvNrSZ_AKHs0W8NwIh4slqg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D108.12325%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)  It's indeed the fore-mentioned steady red-yellow for pedestrian crossing.  Note: those signalheads aren't original.  The original ones were 8" heads painted in all-yellow... a once long-time standard for Salem.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on July 02, 2018, 02:07:37 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 02, 2018, 09:34:46 AM
Quote from: 1 on July 01, 2018, 08:58:28 PM
On a trip to/from Marblehead, I saw SIX flashing green lights. Four were on MA 114, at least two of which were definitely in Salem. The other two were also definitely in Salem, and they were on Boston St., including a very old signal on the intersection of Boston St. and Rawlins St. (Unfortunately, I couldn't get a photo in time.)

Why are there so many flashing greens in this area, and nowhere else that I know of in Massachusetts?
Those are basically pedestrian crossing signals that only change when the button is pushed.  Some of them, even though the signalheads are newer (1980s and later) still use the old-school (at least for eastern MA) steady red-yellow for pedestrian crossing en lieu of a WALK signal.

Here's the GSV for the signal at Boston & Rawlins Sts. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5218121,-70.9151195,3a,75y,262.61h,85.95t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svNrSZ_AKHs0W8NwIh4slqg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DvNrSZ_AKHs0W8NwIh4slqg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D108.12325%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)  It's indeed the fore-mentioned steady red-yellow for pedestrian crossing.  Note: those signalheads aren't original.  The original ones were 8" heads painted in all-yellow... a once long-time standard for Salem.

Having grown up in Peabody I know just what your talking about. The 2 in Peabody you saw are on Margin st at Roycroft Rd and Driscoll St. Theres another one in Peabody on Lynn St at St Anne's St. There used to be more of them in Salem but they are slowly being phased out. There were 2 on Bridge Street/1A and 3 more on North St/114. Most of those were replaced as part of the Bridge Street Bypass project. There's also one in Beverly on Cabot St/MA22 at May St/Bartlett St. It even has some original 8" GE signals still standing (the only GEs left in the area I know of since the ones in Salem were removed). Though with all the downtown renewal projects they've been doing in Beverly, I fear these ones may be on the chopping block in the near future.

GE Signals in Beverly
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.544567,-70.8810194,3a,44.4y,335.08h,89.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8a2j6WiPC3ErjnDk1QV7eQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.544567,-70.8810194,3a,44.4y,335.08h,89.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8a2j6WiPC3ErjnDk1QV7eQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Peabody never really used a lot of the flashing green pedestrian signals, they mostly used flashing yellow with walk signals. The only glaring issue I have with either style is that for a few seconds upon activation, there is a conflicting all yellow phase. At one of these intersections, Peabody swapped out the middle yellow lenses on the side street for red ones. All other ones I know of still have a middle yellow light on the side streets.

Triple red light, Central st at Warren st, Peabody
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5299507,-70.9272463,3a,37.5y,153.19h,91.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX9LGuuuwWgTMidx-UggSDQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5299507,-70.9272463,3a,37.5y,153.19h,91.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX9LGuuuwWgTMidx-UggSDQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 02, 2018, 02:20:11 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on July 02, 2018, 02:07:37 PMPeabody never really used a lot of the flashing green pedestrian signals, they mostly used flashing yellow with walk signals. The only glaring issue I have with either style is that for a few seconds upon activation, there is a conflicting all yellow phase. At one of these intersections, Peabody swapped out the middle yellow lenses on the side street for red ones. All other ones I know of still have a middle yellow light on the side streets.

Triple red light, Central st at Warren st, Peabody
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5299507,-70.9272463,3a,37.5y,153.19h,91.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX9LGuuuwWgTMidx-UggSDQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5299507,-70.9272463,3a,37.5y,153.19h,91.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX9LGuuuwWgTMidx-UggSDQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
I wonder when those middle lenses were changed.  That intersection & signals are just a block away from Tremont St.; a street that is commonly used as an unofficial MA 114 detour/bypass.  I still remember the two original 12-12-8 signalhead assemblies along the west side of Central St.

Peabody isn't the only place where the all yellow phase for pedestrian signals is done.  Salem has a bunch and even Marblehead still has one or two still around.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on July 02, 2018, 02:42:22 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 02, 2018, 02:20:11 PM
I wonder when those middle lenses were changed.  That intersection & signals are just a block away from Tremont St.; a street that is commonly used as an unofficial MA 114 detour/bypass.  I still remember the two original 12-12-8 signalhead assemblies along the west side of Central St.

Peabody isn't the only place where the all yellow phase for pedestrian signals is done.  Salem has a bunch and even Marblehead still has one or two still around.

Its been several years, maybe 5-6 years ago I think. Curious they haven't done it elsewhere, such as the Tremont St/Northend St intersection (which is right near my parents house). That still has yellow on the side street.

Also, I wonder how many people, when coming down Central Street, miss the left to continue on 114 East. Signage for the turn is poor, only one advance sign assembly mounted to a telephone pole, and one paddle sign on the far left corner at the intersection. I've seen lots of people make last minute lane changes there.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 02, 2018, 03:05:51 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on July 02, 2018, 02:42:22 PMAlso, I wonder how many people, when coming down Central Street, miss the left to continue on 114 East. Signage for the turn is poor, only one advance sign assembly mounted to a telephone pole, and one paddle sign on the far left corner at the intersection. I've seen lots of people make last minute lane changes there.
Central St. begins at that intersection; the stretch that's 114 is actually Andover St.

As far as the signage is concerned, such has been like that for decades, although previous generations of that paddle (D6) sign used to include SALEM & MARBLEHEAD on the panel and the prior generation traffic signals (that dated back to 1973) used to have the left-arrow (114 East) phase after the straight/right-turn only phase (which created backups along Andover St. through the wazoo).  The current signal set-up (erected some 15(?) years ago) does the left-arrow phase first along with the straight/right-turn phase for a short period.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on July 02, 2018, 03:36:08 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 02, 2018, 03:05:51 PM
Central St. begins at that intersection; the stretch that's 114 is actually Andover St.
Ahh yeah, thats right... forgot about that

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 02, 2018, 03:05:51 PM
As far as the signage is concerned, such has been like that for decades, although previous generations of that paddle (D6) sign used to include SALEM & MARBLEHEAD on the panel and the prior generation traffic signals (that dated back to 1973) used to have the left-arrow (114 East) phase after the straight/right-turn only phase (which created backups along Andover St. through the wazoo).  The current signal set-up (erected some 15(?) years ago) does the left-arrow phase first along with the straight/right-turn phase for a short period.

The bridge over the old train tracks is dated 1997 so I think it was around that time (all part of the same project if I recall). I vaguely remember the previous traffic lights that were there and the horrendous traffic. Was Andover St always 4 lanes approaching that intersection? I can't remember and for some reason I feel like the bridge was widened to 4 lanes during that project.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 02, 2018, 04:47:49 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on July 02, 2018, 03:36:08 PMThe bridge over the old train tracks is dated 1997 so I think it was around that time (all part of the same project if I recall). I vaguely remember the previous traffic lights that were there and the horrendous traffic. Was Andover St always 4 lanes approaching that intersection? I can't remember and for some reason I feel like the bridge was widened to 4 lanes during that project.
Prior to 1997, that bridge was only three lanes and had a 1968 casting date. 

Prior to '68, it may have only been two lanes (guess on my part). 

Prior to 1973, the traffic lights there I believe were one flashing lights that were pedestrian crossing signals (steady red-yellow for pedestrian crossing-mode).  Back then, the now-grey building to the left of the D6 sign used to be painted red & a restaurant (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.534703,-70.928842,3a,75y,94.93h,84.47t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssPIOFZvdM2ZVAnCKPiDnLw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DsPIOFZvdM2ZVAnCKPiDnLw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D117.45078%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 02, 2018, 10:36:18 PM
So on the Cape i notice the new BGSs (look great) but MASSDOT left in the old 80's-era US 6 shields.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 02, 2018, 11:02:56 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 02, 2018, 10:36:18 PM
So on the Cape i notice the new BGSs (look great) but MASSDOT left in the old 80's-era US 6 shields.
They've installed a few new ones towards the eastern end of the project:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fus6signs518z.JPG&hash=12de9c5f023bc2ed489610543855c281da9c32c7)

The rest will have to wait until the project resumes after Labor Day.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on July 03, 2018, 11:05:46 AM
I don't get why MassDOT, which has been doing the oversized reassurance shields for years now, hasn't come up with a matching set of oversized banners. The banners on the side like that look like crap
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 03, 2018, 12:04:51 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on July 03, 2018, 11:05:46 AM
I don't get why MassDOT, which has been doing the oversized reassurance shields for years now, hasn't come up with a matching set of oversized banners. The banners on the side like that look like crap
MassDOT isn't the only agency that's placed banners to the side (rather than centered).
Here's an example along NJ 24 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7858311,-74.4199202,3a,75y,130.72h,82.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQvxrTdXajbtBA9RvUAM8Wg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  Even more odd is that the route shield isn't oversized with respect to the direction cardinal banner.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 03, 2018, 04:08:25 PM
I selfishly want them to keep the old shields. I find them nostalgia. Wish they could've kept the old BGSs too. I have a thing for rustic signage.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 03, 2018, 04:42:25 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 03, 2018, 04:08:25 PMWish they could've kept the old BGSs too. I have a thing for rustic signage.
:confused:  If you're referring to the ones along US 6/Mid-Cape Highway, those were from the 1990s.  Hardly considered rustic IMHO.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MNHighwayMan on July 03, 2018, 08:48:16 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 03, 2018, 12:04:51 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on July 03, 2018, 11:05:46 AM
I don't get why MassDOT, which has been doing the oversized reassurance shields for years now, hasn't come up with a matching set of oversized banners. The banners on the side like that look like crap
MassDOT isn't the only agency that's placed banners to the side (rather than centered).
Here's an example along NJ 24 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7858311,-74.4199202,3a,75y,130.72h,82.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQvxrTdXajbtBA9RvUAM8Wg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  Even more odd is that the route shield isn't oversized with respect to the direction cardinal banner.

It's just laziness. They probably have a pile of 12"x24" banners laying around ready to use, and because that size won't reach both posts, they just mount it to one. They probably don't want to have to fabricate any 18"x36" banners, or perhaps even larger depending on what size that shield is. (Looks 36" but it might be a custom, non-standard size yet larger, I can't tell from the picture.)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 04, 2018, 02:46:46 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 03, 2018, 04:42:25 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 03, 2018, 04:08:25 PMWish they could've kept the old BGSs too. I have a thing for rustic signage.
:confused:  If you're referring to the ones along US 6/Mid-Cape Highway, those were from the 1990s.  Hardly considered rustic IMHO.
Honestly it was just a guess.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on July 06, 2018, 09:35:56 AM
I drove down I-190 on my way to Foxwoods last weekend and I noticed there are a few sections that are rather oversized, having massive inside and outside paved medians. Looks as though it could accommodate 3-4 lanes, except at the bridges where it narrows down. What's the purpose of this?

The northern stretch, in the vicinity of route 62...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Worcester,+MA/@42.4352554,-71.7758179,235m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e406585a2a8b0d:0x9e137dd87fca4d6d!8m2!3d42.2625932!4d-71.8022934 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Worcester,+MA/@42.4352554,-71.7758179,235m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e406585a2a8b0d:0x9e137dd87fca4d6d!8m2!3d42.2625932!4d-71.8022934)

The southern stretch, just north of exit 4...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Worcester,+MA/@42.3510972,-71.8089188,617m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e406585a2a8b0d:0x9e137dd87fca4d6d!8m2!3d42.2625932!4d-71.8022934 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Worcester,+MA/@42.3510972,-71.8089188,617m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e406585a2a8b0d:0x9e137dd87fca4d6d!8m2!3d42.2625932!4d-71.8022934)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 06, 2018, 09:43:53 AM
Quote from: 5foot14 on July 06, 2018, 09:35:56 AMI drove down I-190 on my way to Foxwoods last weekend and I noticed there are a few sections that are rather oversized, having massive inside and outside paved medians. Looks as though it could accommodate 3-4 lanes, except at the bridges where it narrows down.
During that highway's earlier years, those large paved medians were originally painted green.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on July 06, 2018, 10:38:18 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 06, 2018, 09:43:53 AM
Quote from: 5foot14 on July 06, 2018, 09:35:56 AMI drove down I-190 on my way to Foxwoods last weekend and I noticed there are a few sections that are rather oversized, having massive inside and outside paved medians. Looks as though it could accommodate 3-4 lanes, except at the bridges where it narrows down.
During that highway's earlier years, those large paved medians were originally painted green.

Did the area ever serve any functional purpose though, or was it just for aesthetics? Seems odd they would pave almost twice the area they needed to just to paint it green.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadsguy on July 06, 2018, 11:27:46 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 06, 2018, 09:43:53 AM
Quote from: 5foot14 on July 06, 2018, 09:35:56 AMI drove down I-190 on my way to Foxwoods last weekend and I noticed there are a few sections that are rather oversized, having massive inside and outside paved medians. Looks as though it could accommodate 3-4 lanes, except at the bridges where it narrows down.
During that highway's earlier years, those large paved medians were originally painted green.

In the street view linked there, the inner shoulder is still visibly green. I don't know when the last time was they repainted it, though.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on July 06, 2018, 11:40:42 AM
Those large paved shoulders are for controlling stormwater runoff.  That section of highway passes near the Wachusett Reservoir, which is a major part of the water supply for the Boston area.  When the highway was being built in the late 70s, there was concern about salt and oil runoff from the highway causing issues with water quality in the reservoir, so those stretches had large paved shoulders to funnel all the stormwater into the proper drains to keep it off the surrounding watershed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: empirestate on July 06, 2018, 03:15:03 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on July 06, 2018, 11:40:42 AM
Those large paved shoulders are for controlling stormwater runoff.  That section of highway passes near the Wachusett Reservoir, which is a major part of the water supply for the Boston area.  When the highway was being built in the late 70s, there was concern about salt and oil runoff from the highway causing issues with water quality in the reservoir, so those stretches had large paved shoulders to funnel all the stormwater into the proper drains to keep it off the surrounding watershed.

But was the greenness part of its functionality? I have a vague recollection that it was, somehow.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJStephens on July 08, 2018, 12:25:16 PM
Might have been an attempt to keep pull off traffic from parking on it (and potentially leaking oil).  The green appearance would subtly signal to a motorist that it is not a parking pulloff..   The Boston area is well gifted with an excellent source of clean water - from both the Quabbin and Wachusett reservoirs.   An example of excellent advance thinking in that regard.   
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: empirestate on July 10, 2018, 10:59:22 PM
In other news, I saw today that the well-known highest elevation signage on the Turnpike has been replaced, with new verbiage. Instead of the confusing "next highest elevation" wording, it now says something like "You are at 1724 feet above sea level, the highest elevation on I-90 east of South Dakota."
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on July 11, 2018, 12:44:27 AM
Quote from: empirestate on July 10, 2018, 10:59:22 PM
In other news, I saw today that the well-known highest elevation signage on the Turnpike has been replaced, with new verbiage. Instead of the confusing "next highest elevation" wording, it now says something like "You are at 1724 feet above sea level, the highest elevation on I-90 east of South Dakota."
Crap.  I didn't notice the sign change last week.  I will be back through there on Thursday and will check it out.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 11, 2018, 09:15:05 AM
Quote from: empirestate on July 10, 2018, 10:59:22 PM
In other news, I saw today that the well-known highest elevation signage on the Turnpike has been replaced, with new verbiage. Instead of the confusing "next highest elevation" wording, it now says something like "You are at 1724 feet above sea level, the highest elevation on I-90 east of South Dakota."

The new sign legend reads:

You Are At 1724 Feet
Highest Elevation on I-90
East of South Dakota

The previous sign legend read:

Highest Turnpike
Elevation 1724 Feet
____________________

Last Highest Elevation
On I-90
Oacoma, South Dakota
1729 Feet

Oddly enough, both the eastbound and westbound signs read "Last", where one would think the westbound sign should have read "Next".  And while the sign legends were changed principally for brevity and simplicity, there had also been some debate about the accuracy of the "last" location and elevation that was displayed on the previous signs.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Jim on July 11, 2018, 09:33:19 AM
For those who haven't seen it and are interested, here's one view of the old EB sign:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20070830%2Fmasspikehighest.jpg&hash=0394b6a55de6c3fa959083a44104a40bbdea917f)

Taken August 30, 2007.

I have three EB pictures, but it looks like I never took a WB picture.

I always wondered about that South Dakota elevation number.  I have driven I-90 in South Dakota a few times and never noticed that 5'+ cliff that prevents any part of I-90 there from having elevations between 1724 and 1729.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 11, 2018, 11:41:48 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 11, 2018, 09:15:05 AM
Quote from: empirestate on July 10, 2018, 10:59:22 PM
In other news, I saw today that the well-known highest elevation signage on the Turnpike has been replaced, with new verbiage. Instead of the confusing "next highest elevation" wording, it now says something like "You are at 1724 feet above sea level, the highest elevation on I-90 east of South Dakota."
The new sign legend reads:

You Are At 1724 Feet
Highest Elevation on I-90
East of South Dakota

The previous sign legend read:

Highest Turnpike
Elevation 1724 Feet
____________________

Last Highest Elevation
On I-90
Oacoma, South Dakota
1729 Feet

Oddly enough, both the eastbound and westbound signs read "Last", where one would think the westbound sign should have read "Next".  And while the sign legends were changed principally for brevity and simplicity, there had also been some debate about the accuracy of the "last" location and elevation that was displayed on the previous signs.
Here's the MassDOT sign plan with the text indicated by Roadman:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi90elevsign.jpg&hash=61664c91ae74e6b4b9ba86ea3df65810b6102d5b)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Jim on July 11, 2018, 11:50:32 AM
To me, it's just a little sad that Mass Pike travelers will no longer become familiar with Oacoma.  Maybe it's just me and a handful of other people who frequent this forum, but there was something exciting about seeing the actual Oacoma for the first time after knowing about it from the Mass Pike signage.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 13, 2018, 11:22:55 PM
MassDOT has announced both spans of the Whittier Bridge over the Merrimack River are open as of tonight and four lanes are open now in both directions north and south of the bridge on I-95:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/whittier-bridgei-95-improvement-project-opening-to-four-lanes-in-each-direction-today/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/whittier-bridgei-95-improvement-project-opening-to-four-lanes-in-each-direction-today/)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: WR of USA on July 14, 2018, 08:34:02 AM
Glad the bridge has finally been widened to four lanes. Now NH needs to make their Hampton AET four lanes wide to serve the heavy tourist traffic bound for the Maine coast.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJStephens on July 14, 2018, 02:49:05 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 13, 2018, 11:22:55 PM
MassDOT has announced both spans of the Whittier Bridge over the Merrimack River are open as of tonight and four lanes are open now in both directions north and south of the bridge on I-95:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/whittier-bridgei-95-improvement-project-opening-to-four-lanes-in-each-direction-today/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/whittier-bridgei-95-improvement-project-opening-to-four-lanes-in-each-direction-today/)

Years if not decades overdue, it is good to see that slight capacity improvements are being made to the Boston metro area's highway network.  Others being the US 3 reconstruction, the Route 128 add a lane (forty to forty five years in the making) and this Merrimack River crossing.  A Route 128 / I-93 fully directional stack sure would be nice to see, but that might be too much to hope for.   
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 16, 2018, 08:18:57 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on July 14, 2018, 02:49:05 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 13, 2018, 11:22:55 PM
MassDOT has announced both spans of the Whittier Bridge over the Merrimack River are open as of tonight and four lanes are open now in both directions north and south of the bridge on I-95:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/whittier-bridgei-95-improvement-project-opening-to-four-lanes-in-each-direction-today/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/whittier-bridgei-95-improvement-project-opening-to-four-lanes-in-each-direction-today/)

Years if not decades overdue, it is good to see that slight capacity improvements are being made to the Boston metro area's highway network.  Others being the US 3 reconstruction, the Route 128 add a lane (forty to forty five years in the making) and this Merrimack River crossing.  A Route 128 / I-93 fully directional stack sure would be nice to see, but that might be too much to hope for.   
A northern Add-A-Lane along I-95/MA 128 would be nice as well.  Heck, from the MA 28 to the Walnut St. interchanges, most if not all of the overpasses/underpasses were originally constructed to accommodate a future 7th & 8th lane. 

Why such wasn't done when that stretch was overhauled in 1982 (128 had already received the I-95 designation at the time) boggles the mind.  Yes, the northern I-95/MA 128 interchange was still year away at the time but that widening would move the Woburn/Reading bottleneck away from MA 28 & I-93 and would have been able to handle the additional traffic spurned by development that has taken place along the corridor since then.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on July 16, 2018, 02:39:13 PM
Speaking of the I-93/I-95 interchange in Woburn, has that project been canned for the time being? It used to have its own project website, but the domain has since expired and the website is no longer available. It also was removed from the MassDOT highlighted projects page, though the project info page is still up.

SM-G900P

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on July 16, 2018, 02:58:47 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on July 16, 2018, 02:39:13 PM
Speaking of the I-93/I-95 interchange in Woburn, has that project been canned for the time being? It used to have its own project website, but the domain has since expired and the website is no longer available. It also was removed from the MassDOT highlighted projects page, though the project info page is still up.

I believe the cost and the NIMBYism put that project on infinite hold. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 17, 2018, 11:01:50 PM
Seriously, can't we ever just tell the NIMBYs to go f*** themselves?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on July 18, 2018, 07:51:14 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 17, 2018, 11:01:50 PM
Seriously, can't we ever just tell the NIMBYs to go f*** themselves?

I don't see why we would have to listen to NIMBYs. The DOT is not part of the state legislature, so there's no risk of being voted out of office.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 18, 2018, 08:57:03 AM
Quote from: 1 on July 18, 2018, 07:51:14 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 17, 2018, 11:01:50 PM
Seriously, can't we ever just tell the NIMBYs to go f*** themselves?

I don't see why we would have to listen to NIMBYs. The DOT is not part of the state legislature, so there's no risk of being voted out of office.
While the DOT (State entity) in and of itself is not an elected body; the State's Secretary of Transportation, I believe, is the State's DOT's boss and is determined by whoever gets elected governor.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: empirestate on July 18, 2018, 09:10:20 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 18, 2018, 08:57:03 AM
Quote from: 1 on July 18, 2018, 07:51:14 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 17, 2018, 11:01:50 PM
Seriously, can't we ever just tell the NIMBYs to go f*** themselves?

I don't see why we would have to listen to NIMBYs. The DOT is not part of the state legislature, so there's no risk of being voted out of office.
While the DOT (State entity) in and of itself is not an elected body; the State's Secretary of Transportation, I believe, is the State's DOT's boss and is determined by whoever gets elected governor.

There's also the whole idea of behaving like a civilized person and not, as a rule, telling people we disagree with to go f*** themselves...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 18, 2018, 02:30:54 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 17, 2018, 11:01:50 PM
Seriously, can't we ever just tell the NIMBYs to go f*** themselves?
There's actually a legitimate way to do that without p***ing people off.  Require the people raising their claims against the project to prove those claims.  If it takes reports, studies, etc. to do that, then those people should be responsible for preparing them - and footing the bill.  This would also serve as a very effective filter against the majority of the "we don't want it" objections NIMBYs tend to raise.  It's also consistent with one of the basic premises of the American justice system - that the burden of proof lies with the accuser - which is currently NOT the case when it comes to transportation and other projects.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 18, 2018, 03:30:19 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 18, 2018, 02:30:54 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 17, 2018, 11:01:50 PM
Seriously, can't we ever just tell the NIMBYs to go f*** themselves?
There's actually a legitimate way to do that without p***ing people off.  Require the people raising their claims against the project to prove those claims.  If it takes reports, studies, etc. to do that, then those people should be responsible for preparing them - and footing the bill.  This would also serve as a very effective filter against the majority of the "we don't want it" objections NIMBYs tend to raise.  It's also consistent with one of the basic premises of the American justice system - that the burden of proof lies with the accuser - which is currently NOT the case when it comes to transportation and other projects.

There is a difference between "persons accused of a crime are innocent until proven otherwise"  and "employees of the transportation department are right until proven wrong"  and I would assume we're all above arguing otherwise.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 18, 2018, 04:30:47 PM
I've got the perfect NIMBY retort: "We don't have to prove anything! Our word is proof enough!"
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: odditude on July 18, 2018, 04:37:42 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 18, 2018, 02:30:54 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 17, 2018, 11:01:50 PM
Seriously, can't we ever just tell the NIMBYs to go f*** themselves?
There's actually a legitimate way to do that without p***ing people off.  Require the people raising their claims against the project to prove those claims.  If it takes reports, studies, etc. to do that, then those people should be responsible for preparing them - and footing the bill.  This would also serve as a very effective filter against the majority of the "we don't want it" objections NIMBYs tend to raise.  It's also consistent with one of the basic premises of the American justice system - that the burden of proof lies with the accuser - which is currently NOT the case when it comes to transportation and other projects.
that runs the risk of running roughshod over areas that legitimately can't afford to provide such data. while depressed areas usually aren't the source of NIMBYism, they can't be discounted.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 18, 2018, 07:28:58 PM
The same NIMBYs that complain about freeways also complain about gridlock. You can't have it both ways. If you have no evidence to sand behind then go crawl back into you single-issue voter hole.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on July 18, 2018, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 18, 2018, 07:28:58 PM
The same NIMBYs that complain about freeways also complain about gridlock.
Bullshit.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on July 18, 2018, 09:26:06 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 17, 2018, 11:01:50 PM
Seriously, can't we ever just tell the NIMBYs to go f*** themselves?

The 93/95 issue isn't just NIMBYism; they would have to take numerous homes and possibly some businesses to build it out. There is a difference between a highway coming closer to your property and needing to move somewhere else while the gov't forces you to accept what would likely be below market value for your home (and many homes around there are near $750K in value - because eastern Massachusetts). Telling someone who might have their home taken from them because a state didn't have the foresight to build something properly in the first place and then telling them to fuck themselves while doing it? That's classy...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 18, 2018, 10:17:14 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 18, 2018, 09:26:06 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 17, 2018, 11:01:50 PM
Seriously, can't we ever just tell the NIMBYs to go f*** themselves?

The 93/95 issue isn't just NIMBYism; they would have to take numerous homes and possibly some businesses to build it out. There is a difference between a highway coming closer to your property and needing to move somewhere else while the gov't forces you to accept what would likely be below market value for your home (and many homes around there are near $750K in value - because eastern Massachusetts). Telling someone who might have their home taken from them because a state didn't have the foresight to build something properly in the first place and then telling them to fuck themselves while doing it? That's classy...
You can be for or against a freeway idea. Shooting down ALL of them because you don't like it is foolish.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on July 18, 2018, 10:42:44 PM
By law, Massachusetts has to pay fair market value for property taken by eminent domain.

The give-them-a-dollar for a house days from the Pike Extension are long gone.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 19, 2018, 08:59:34 AM
Looking through the Historic Aerials for that interchange area; the major surrounding change appears to be that the businesses adjacent to the cloverleaf (southern end) came along later on.  The residential homes located north of the interchange (especially towards the northwest) were there prior to I-93 & the interchange being built (early 60s(?)). 

The earliest available Historic Aerials that shows I-93 & interchange is circa 1963.  Its 1955 counterpart only shows only a narrower (4-lane) version of the then-just-128.

One has to wonder when I-93 & that interchange was planned (circa the 1950s); were other more higher-capacity interchange design configurations even considered?  The current cloverleaf design was obviously chosen as the least costly (the only overpasses built were the I-93 mainlines) & least disruptive (at the time) with respect to the northern residences.

Nonetheless, the existing design is clearly obsolete for the current traffic volumes (over 200,000 vehicles per day) and has been for years if not decades.  Something's eventually going to have to be done.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 19, 2018, 09:22:57 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 18, 2018, 09:26:06 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 17, 2018, 11:01:50 PM
Seriously, can't we ever just tell the NIMBYs to go f*** themselves?

The 93/95 issue isn't just NIMBYism; they would have to take numerous homes and possibly some businesses to build it out. There is a difference between a highway coming closer to your property and needing to move somewhere else while the gov't forces you to accept what would likely be below market value for your home (and many homes around there are near $750K in value - because eastern Massachusetts). Telling someone who might have their home taken from them because a state didn't have the foresight to build something properly in the first place and then telling them to fuck themselves while doing it? That's classy...

Apart from the fact that the number of takings has been grossly overstated by the opponents to this project, minimal takings will be required only if they build the full option - which includes C/D roads on I-95 from south of Washington Street to north of Route 28.  It is both feasible and practical to construct a full set of flyover ramps that meet current design standards within the current footprint of the cloverleaf.

As for businesses, word on the street is that they are looking to relocate anyway and are willing to be taken, and that it's actually Woburn that's raising the objections.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 19, 2018, 09:28:54 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 19, 2018, 09:22:57 AMAs for businesses, word on the street is that they are looking to relocate anyway and are willing to be taken, and that it's actually Woburn that's raising the objections.
The residential homes along Richard Circle at the northwest quadrant of the cloverleaf (such were there prior to the interchange being built) are indeed in Woburn.  Neighboring Border Road's in Reading.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 19, 2018, 11:00:39 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 18, 2018, 03:30:19 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 18, 2018, 02:30:54 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 17, 2018, 11:01:50 PM
Seriously, can't we ever just tell the NIMBYs to go f*** themselves?
There's actually a legitimate way to do that without p***ing people off.  Require the people raising their claims against the project to prove those claims.  If it takes reports, studies, etc. to do that, then those people should be responsible for preparing them - and footing the bill.  This would also serve as a very effective filter against the majority of the "we don't want it" objections NIMBYs tend to raise.  It's also consistent with one of the basic premises of the American justice system - that the burden of proof lies with the accuser - which is currently NOT the case when it comes to transportation and other projects.

There is a difference between “persons accused of a crime are innocent until proven otherwise” and “employees of the transportation department are right until proven wrong” and I would assume we’re all above arguing otherwise.

Obviously, the DOT has to - and should - provide justification to the public - especially those potentially impacted by a project - for their proposals.  However, if and when there are objections once that has been done, the burden of proof should lie with the people making those objections.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on July 19, 2018, 11:57:26 AM
That doesn't seem realistic to me.  A neighborhood that may be razed for a project doesn't have the resources or knowledge to even find a firm to argue their position. 

I don't think having the DOT conduct its own study to resolve objections is a perfect solution, either, but putting a loose group of individuals on equal footing against well-resourced government agencies that have a history of making mistakes when it comes to the public interest doesn't seem right to me.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on July 19, 2018, 09:10:45 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 19, 2018, 09:22:57 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 18, 2018, 09:26:06 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 17, 2018, 11:01:50 PM
Seriously, can't we ever just tell the NIMBYs to go f*** themselves?

The 93/95 issue isn't just NIMBYism; they would have to take numerous homes and possibly some businesses to build it out. There is a difference between a highway coming closer to your property and needing to move somewhere else while the gov't forces you to accept what would likely be below market value for your home (and many homes around there are near $750K in value - because eastern Massachusetts). Telling someone who might have their home taken from them because a state didn't have the foresight to build something properly in the first place and then telling them to fuck themselves while doing it? That's classy...

Apart from the fact that the number of takings has been grossly overstated by the opponents to this project, minimal takings will be required only if they build the full option - which includes C/D roads on I-95 from south of Washington Street to north of Route 28.  It is both feasible and practical to construct a full set of flyover ramps that meet current design standards within the current footprint of the cloverleaf.

As for businesses, word on the street is that they are looking to relocate anyway and are willing to be taken, and that it's actually Woburn that's raising the objections.

Woburn Toyota just got done building a huge new building inside the ramp circle for the Washington Street exit on 128 northbound. I grimaced watching it go up over the past few months, because it's yet another case of encroachment that is a bad idea for everyone but that business. I doubt they would have done it if there would have been any kind of movement for the C&D option in this project in the next decade.

Aside from the cloverleaf another large part of the problem is three exits very close to each other (Washington Street, 93, 28/Main Street). There's just a lot of traffic. The flyover would eliminate a lot of the conflicts, but the volume is just high.

On another topic, the restriping made to the US 3 / Middlesex turnpike C&D entrance on 128 southbound has IMO been a net negative. It changed what was just a long queue to a long queue with a series of annoyances. It hasn't done much to address the mainline queuing that happens at that exit.

1. The addition of the striped "exit only" lane for Middlesex turnpike may help get some cars out of the queue, but it has invited people to make mistakes and act aggressively. Since the new signage that went up a few years ago doesn't indicate the new exit only lane, people who aren't commuters don't know that you still have to stay in the rightmost mainline lane to get on to US 3 north. What happens is:

1. People who don't know that the dashed lane is for Middlesex turnpike only but want to get to US 3 get to the end of the lane, realize they made a mistake, and then try to merge back into the queue. This holds up legitimate middlesex turnpike traffic and US 3 traffic.

2. On top of the mistaken drivers, you get aggressive drivers that fly down the lane intending to bypass queued cars, forcing more merges that makes everybody late.

3. The C&D lane for US 3 is helped by having the dual-lane stripe so that even if you're in the left lane you can still exit, and the merge is on the ramp which is great and moves some movements forward. Alas, any gains from this are wiped by the on-ramp from Middlesex Turnpike, which is still a big conflict that causes the source of the queueing that backs up on to the 128 mainline.

None of this stops people blowing past the queue in the second rightmost lane and trying to merge in to the exit queue, but that was happening anyway.

I can't think of a real good way of fixing it that won't cost a ton of money, take a bunch of property, or eliminate the Middlesex Turnpike exit (which would be really bad for locals). The situation here is even more bleak than Woburn because even with Washington street the C&D option eliminated a lot of the choke points. I was hoping the state would have bought the land of the former Dodge dealer there, but alas, new buildings went up a couple of years ago.

On the plus side, the changes made to the 128 Northbound side (exit only lane, two full lanes exiting to US 3 north, a longer merge area for the end of the C&D on to 128) have made an appreciable difference. If only the merge from Middlesex Turnpike on to the C&D could be longer for safety, but overall it's been a very positive update on the northbound side.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on July 19, 2018, 11:24:10 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on July 19, 2018, 09:10:45 PM
Woburn Toyota just got done building a huge new building inside the ramp circle for the Washington Street exit on 128 northbound. I grimaced watching it go up over the past few months, because it's yet another case of encroachment that is a bad idea for everyone but that business. I doubt they would have done it if there would have been any kind of movement for the C&D option in this project in the next decade.
Dude, you don't know businesses. If they smell that they're about to get taken, they will improve everything they can to claim maximum damages. I'm sure they did the math.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on July 20, 2018, 06:46:34 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 19, 2018, 11:24:10 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on July 19, 2018, 09:10:45 PM
Woburn Toyota just got done building a huge new building inside the ramp circle for the Washington Street exit on 128 northbound. I grimaced watching it go up over the past few months, because it's yet another case of encroachment that is a bad idea for everyone but that business. I doubt they would have done it if there would have been any kind of movement for the C&D option in this project in the next decade.
Dude, you don't know businesses. If they smell that they're about to get taken, they will improve everything they can to claim maximum damages. I'm sure they did the math.

I know exactly how they work. In ten-twenty years, when the project finally moves forward, that building might get taken, or it might not. But I don't think they built it with the intention of being taken; it's just a potential risk. If at the end of the day it does get taken, they would still get paid, regardless if they replaced it or not.

That's why I said it's bad for everybody except that business. Even then, getting taken is not a walk in the park, they have to relocate and that costs money and other secondary effects.

edit: clarifying
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on July 20, 2018, 08:44:21 PM
How is such legal?  If they make improvements knowing that they'll get taken, they deserve no damages at all.  In fact, THEY should be paying damages to the STATE for even thinking to try such a thing!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on July 20, 2018, 09:59:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 20, 2018, 08:44:21 PM
How is such legal?  If they make improvements knowing that they'll get taken, they deserve no damages at all.  In fact, THEY should be paying damages to the STATE for even thinking to try such a thing!

The same way everybody else builds up near a highway; the commonwealth didn't own the land ages ago and it's between the town and the landowners for things like permits. There's also no guarantee that they'll get taken; the C&D option may not be used (even though I think it has to be done as part of that project). Woburn Toyota was already using that area and had buildings there; it was torn down and replaced with a much larger building inside their existing footprint, replacing an outdoor lot. They didn't go beyond any area they didn't already have. The odds of this project happening in the next ten years are remarkably slim, and the land value is going up anyway even if improvements weren't made due to the rising real estate costs of Woburn and Reading. "Getting paid more if they get taken" is pretty low on their list of priorities, I imagine. Even then, there's been buildings there for fifty-ish years, they were probably due to be replaced. If it turns out they have to be taken twenty years from now, then so be it.

However, even with that new building, a potential upgrade road may not encroach upon it, depending on how it would be constructed. Some parking lot might get lost, but the build itself may be safe.

It took me some time to go dig things up from the project website on Archive.org, but all of the potential takings and alternatives are detailed. H3-B was the recommended strategy, which would result in the least amount of takings, and may only slightly encroach on the area I was talking about. Relocating the ramps is part of the options, but it would end up taking a building on the west side of the ramps, not the east side.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160810130707/http://9395info.com/downloads/AlternativesAnalysis.pdf
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on July 21, 2018, 08:54:37 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 20, 2018, 08:44:21 PM
How is such legal?  If they make improvements knowing that they'll get taken, they deserve no damages at all.  In fact, THEY should be paying damages to the STATE for even thinking to try such a thing!

So they aren't allowed to make improvements to their own property, while waiting on the state to maybe do construction there?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on July 21, 2018, 11:50:04 PM
Well, if there's something going in that will likely take your land, it seems potentially imprudent.  At the very least you shouldn't be suing for damages over it since you should have known better.  Any activity like should be at the landowner's risk only, not the state's.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJStephens on July 22, 2018, 12:17:55 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 16, 2018, 08:18:57 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on July 14, 2018, 02:49:05 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 13, 2018, 11:22:55 PM
MassDOT has announced both spans of the Whittier Bridge over the Merrimack River are open as of tonight and four lanes are open now in both directions north and south of the bridge on I-95:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/whittier-bridgei-95-improvement-project-opening-to-four-lanes-in-each-direction-today/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/whittier-bridgei-95-improvement-project-opening-to-four-lanes-in-each-direction-today/)

Years if not decades overdue, it is good to see that slight capacity improvements are being made to the Boston metro area's highway network.  Others being the US 3 reconstruction, the Route 128 add a lane (forty to forty five years in the making) and this Merrimack River crossing.  A Route 128 / I-93 fully directional stack sure would be nice to see, but that might be too much to hope for.   
A northern Add-A-Lane along I-95/MA 128 would be nice as well.  Heck, from the MA 28 to the Walnut St. interchanges, most if not all of the overpasses/underpasses were originally constructed to accommodate a future 7th & 8th lane. 

Why such wasn't done when that stretch was overhauled in 1982 (128 had already received the I-95 designation at the time) boggles the mind.  Yes, the northern I-95/MA 128 interchange was still year away at the time but that widening would move the Woburn/Reading bottleneck away from MA 28 & I-93 and would have been able to handle the additional traffic spurned by development that has taken place along the corridor since then.

Would have figured former Gov. Ed "Can Do" King could have done it..  Remember the Paul Szep cartoons of him in the boston globe, with the beanie cap w/ propeller on top.. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on July 25, 2018, 08:30:24 PM
Did CT 15 ever have a MA counterpart where I-84 currently is from the MA Line to the Mass Pike?  I think on some old maps I did see, I believe, a mention of a MA 15 where I-84 is now located within Mass.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on July 25, 2018, 09:48:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 25, 2018, 08:30:24 PM
Did CT 15 ever have a MA counterpart where I-84 currently is from the MA Line to the Mass Pike?  I think on some old maps I did see, I believe, a mention of a MA 15 where I-84 is now located within Mass.

Yes. The street name is even called "Route 15", even though it doesn't carry that designation anymore.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on July 25, 2018, 10:25:57 PM
Then it was an upgraded expressway in MA as well.   As in CT it was the former Wibur Cross Highway that was a divided highway turned freeway later, so in Mass it was the same I take.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 25, 2018, 11:41:47 PM
Correct. On October 1, 1980, CT's portion was truncated to East Hartford and MA's was eliminated (and later reassigned to the 1000 feet of roadway between RI 15 and MA 152 in Seekonk).  Many mapping programs still (erroneously) refer to Mashapaug Rd as Route 15. Maybe there should be a designation a la New Hampshire or PA that refer to roads as "Old Route xx"
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 26, 2018, 09:18:46 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 25, 2018, 11:41:47 PMMany mapping programs still (erroneously) refer to Mashapaug Rd as Route 15.
Even the Pilot station along that road (reachable by Exit 1 off I-84 in Sturbridge, MA) lists its address on credit card receipts as Route 15.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 27, 2018, 06:54:10 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 25, 2018, 08:30:24 PM
Did CT 15 ever have a MA counterpart where I-84 currently is from the MA Line to the Mass Pike?  I think on some old maps I did see, I believe, a mention of a MA 15 where I-84 is now located within Mass.
Yes. The old MA 15 begins in Holland and ends at Main St. in Sturbridge.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on July 27, 2018, 09:48:09 PM
I seem to remember I-86 not making it quite to the Pike at one time.  Wish I still had the Pike ticket from back then that had MA 15 marked on it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 29, 2018, 11:27:05 PM
I have added new photos from my latest tour through the I-95 Add-A-Lane Project area in Needham and Wellesley. Work is getting closer to completion. Here's the view northbound prior to the MA 9 exit:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95addalane718i.jpg&hash=c358b130440da2ed75a7d845fbbbd5fba509908f)

The rest can be seen on my I-95 in Mass. Photo Gallery: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 30, 2018, 09:10:39 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 27, 2018, 09:48:09 PM
I seem to remember I-86 not making it quite to the Pike at one time.  Wish I still had the Pike ticket from back then that had MA 15 marked on it.
Until I-86 was changed back to I-84, the toll tickets read MA 15 - even though I-86 did directly connect with the Pike.  Also, the signs for Exit 9 had I-86 and MA 15 shields on them.  When I-86 was changed back to I-84, and MA 15 removed from the freeway, the MA 15 shield was changed to a US 20 shield, and 'TO' added.  The revised legend was carried through on the 1995 re-signing project, however, US 20 has been relegated to secondary signs under the current West Stockbridge to Auburn sign project - which is logical, given that US 20 goes to neither Hartford nor NY City.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PaulRAnderson on August 01, 2018, 02:42:01 PM
A co-worker of mine says there's a new sign on the Mass Pike in Blandford, replacing the one that says:

    HIGHEST TURNPIKE
    ELEVATION 1724 FEET

    NEXT HIGHEST ELEVATION
    ON I-90
    OACOMA, SOUTH DAKOTA
    1729 FEET

Can anyone confirm and post a picture?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 01, 2018, 03:58:34 PM
No picture...but as I was through that area on July 17th (coming back to CT from Troy, NY), I can confirm today's sign is worded differently.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on August 01, 2018, 04:16:20 PM
Quote from: PaulRAnderson on August 01, 2018, 02:42:01 PM
A co-worker of mine says there's a new sign on the Mass Pike in Blandford, replacing the one that says:

    HIGHEST TURNPIKE
    ELEVATION 1724 FEET

    NEXT HIGHEST ELEVATION
    ON I-90
    OACOMA, SOUTH DAKOTA
    1729 FEET

Can anyone confirm and post a picture?
No photo, but here's the official sign plan with the new wording, confirmed by those who have seen the sign:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi90elevsign.jpg&hash=61664c91ae74e6b4b9ba86ea3df65810b6102d5b)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: empirestate on August 04, 2018, 11:23:32 AM
Quote from: PaulRAnderson on August 01, 2018, 02:42:01 PM
A co-worker of mine says there's a new sign on the Mass Pike in Blandford, replacing the one that says:

    HIGHEST TURNPIKE
    ELEVATION 1724 FEET

    NEXT HIGHEST ELEVATION
    ON I-90
    OACOMA, SOUTH DAKOTA
    1729 FEET

Can anyone confirm and post a picture?

I can confirm; I reported this earlier in this thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10638.msg2340362#msg2340362
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 22, 2018, 06:22:17 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3378746,-71.2671506,3a,60y,127.01h,66.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa7_i5KDxInmBzYl-Mqdw7A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Some button copy goodness I found...no idea if it's still there,
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on August 22, 2018, 11:18:44 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 22, 2018, 06:22:17 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3378746,-71.2671506,3a,60y,127.01h,66.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa7_i5KDxInmBzYl-Mqdw7A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Some button copy goodness I found...no idea if it's still there,
No, this sign, and other entrance ramps signs, was replaced when All Electronic Tolling went into effect at the end of October 2016:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi90toll1016bb.JPG&hash=6aad054e0cbf21e5436452f36c361bda3ed9dbe0)

More AET sign images available at: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i90photos.html#aet (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i90photos.html#aet)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on August 23, 2018, 09:06:38 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 22, 2018, 11:18:44 PM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi90toll1016bb.JPG&hash=6aad054e0cbf21e5436452f36c361bda3ed9dbe0)
I know the reasoning behind using Series C or D (?) lettering for the control cities is due to this sign being designed to MassDOT's new (post-paddle) D6 standards but IMHO, either Series E should have been used here.  Such easily fits this sign panel.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Henry on August 23, 2018, 10:23:38 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 25, 2018, 08:30:24 PM
Did CT 15 ever have a MA counterpart where I-84 currently is from the MA Line to the Mass Pike?  I think on some old maps I did see, I believe, a mention of a MA 15 where I-84 is now located within Mass.
Yes, I remember seeing that in old maps, especially when I-86 was signed on that section instead.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on August 23, 2018, 10:50:42 AM
MA 15 was also on old (early 1980s) Pike tickets.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jon daly on August 23, 2018, 11:43:48 AM
I-195 back-ups that are backing up to Seekonk during rush hour:

http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20180820/that-construction-clogged-route-195-commute-dot-looking-for-remedies

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 23, 2018, 09:48:47 PM
What exactly is wrong with the Washington Bridge?  Drove over it recently prior to construction and it didn't look like it needed repair.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jon daly on August 23, 2018, 10:03:41 PM
Per WJAR, it's been more than 20 years since the westbound portion of the Washington Bridge was repaired.

https://turnto10.com/news/local/construction-on-interstate-195-west-to-start-sunday-night
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jon daly on August 27, 2018, 07:32:20 PM
I heard this report that mentioned congestion pricing today:

https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2018/08/26/traffic-congestion-is-there-any-way-out
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 28, 2018, 10:56:18 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 23, 2018, 09:06:38 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 22, 2018, 11:18:44 PM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi90toll1016bb.JPG&hash=6aad054e0cbf21e5436452f36c361bda3ed9dbe0)
I know the reasoning behind using Series C or D (?) lettering for the control cities is due to this sign being designed to MassDOT's new (post-paddle) D6 standards but IMHO, either Series E should have been used here.  Such easily fits this sign panel.
MassDPW's original D6/D8 (paddle) sign standards did call for variable font depending on legend length.  That is something they will be revisiting as they refine their new LGS standards.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 29, 2018, 11:23:08 PM
I recall when the DCR was created some of the old MDC roads were transferred to MassDOT.  Is there a good source of info on which?  The MassDOT roads shapefile says MassDOT owns Route 16 in Medford, but some locals say this isn't the case.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 30, 2018, 10:48:09 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 29, 2018, 11:23:08 PM
I recall when the DCR was created some of the old MDC roads were transferred to MassDOT.  Is there a good source of info on which?  The MassDOT roads shapefile says MassDOT owns Route 16 in Medford, but some locals say this isn't the case.
The transfer of Route 16 from DCR to MassDOT is fairly recent, and may still be in process AFAIK.  And most of the old MDC roads are still under DCR jurisdiction - it's only snow removal and other maintenance on the major parkways (Storrow Drive, Soldiers Field Road, VFW Parkway for examples) that has been transferred to MassDOT.  This change occurred shortly after a winter where some pedestrians were struck by cars - they were forced to walk in the road because the sidewalks hadn't been cleared.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on August 30, 2018, 10:50:31 AM
Drove through the new roundabout in Beverly at exit 18 (MA128 @ MA22). Overall it's easier to make that left onto 22 North. Not sure how I feel about the paddle signs though. Interestingly this project was fully funded by the city, as they wanted to get it done as soon as possible.

Also NJ has taken over part of MA 22 in Hamilton. :)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180830/ff951df3fb730f03aa315a8d8e5c3faa.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180830/113cbfe466bec23cd3b6b7ba18ea3910.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180830/5dd66ad6fe96589a791e0ad9616fe60d.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180830/18fedd74596d7f02d1decedd798a296b.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180830/da2a3ac0d91656d58a886d3f51879fe9.jpg)

SM-G900P

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on August 30, 2018, 11:23:07 AM
Quote from: 5foot14 on August 30, 2018, 10:50:31 AM
Drove through the new roundabout in Beverly at exit 18 (MA128 @ MA22). Overall it's easier to make that left onto 22 North. Not sure how I feel about the paddle signs though. Interestingly this project was fully funded by the city, as they wanted to get it done as soon as possible.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180830/ff951df3fb730f03aa315a8d8e5c3faa.jpg)
The D6 (paddle) sign (for northbound 22) lists the control cities in the incorrect order.  One encounters Wenham first, then Essex... with Hamilton in between.  IMHO, there's certainly room on that panel to do the Wenham/Essex combo.  Either that or MassDOT could've just stuck with the traditional (for this location) single listing for Essex.
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 30, 2018, 11:31:38 AM
Quote from: roadman on August 30, 2018, 10:48:09 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 29, 2018, 11:23:08 PM
I recall when the DCR was created some of the old MDC roads were transferred to MassDOT.  Is there a good source of info on which?  The MassDOT roads shapefile says MassDOT owns Route 16 in Medford, but some locals say this isn't the case.
The transfer of Route 16 from DCR to MassDOT is fairly recent, and may still be in process AFAIK.  And most of the old MDC roads are still under DCR jurisdiction - it's only snow removal and other maintenance on the major parkways (Storrow Drive, Soldiers Field Road, VFW Parkway for examples) that has been transferred to MassDOT.  This change occurred shortly after a winter where some pedestrians were struck by cars - they were forced to walk in the road because the sidewalks hadn't been cleared.

Thank you!

Recent as in this year?

I should clarify that I'm talking about the part west of 93.  Sometimes I forget about the fact that 16 runs all the way past Wellington east of 93.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 30, 2018, 11:37:28 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 26, 2018, 09:18:46 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 25, 2018, 11:41:47 PMMany mapping programs still (erroneously) refer to Mashapaug Rd as Route 15.
Even the Pilot station along that road (reachable by Exit 1 off I-84 in Sturbridge, MA) lists its address on credit card receipts as Route 15.

The Mobil station there has stenciled on its window the address "236 Route 15."
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 30, 2018, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 30, 2018, 11:31:38 AM
Quote from: roadman on August 30, 2018, 10:48:09 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 29, 2018, 11:23:08 PM
I recall when the DCR was created some of the old MDC roads were transferred to MassDOT.  Is there a good source of info on which?  The MassDOT roads shapefile says MassDOT owns Route 16 in Medford, but some locals say this isn't the case.
The transfer of Route 16 from DCR to MassDOT is fairly recent, and may still be in process AFAIK.  And most of the old MDC roads are still under DCR jurisdiction - it's only snow removal and other maintenance on the major parkways (Storrow Drive, Soldiers Field Road, VFW Parkway for examples) that has been transferred to MassDOT.  This change occurred shortly after a winter where some pedestrians were struck by cars - they were forced to walk in the road because the sidewalks hadn't been cleared.

Thank you!

Recent as in this year?

I should clarify that I’m talking about the part west of 93.  Sometimes I forget about the fact that 16 runs all the way past Wellington east of 93.

Yes for both this year and the part west of 93.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Jim on August 31, 2018, 01:41:34 PM
Apologies if this was posted in a thread I didn't see, but I figured some might be interested in this Berkshire Eagle editorial about US 20.

https://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/our-opinion-historic-route-20deserves-recognition,548853 (https://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/our-opinion-historic-route-20deserves-recognition,548853)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 31, 2018, 01:56:18 PM
Quote from: Jim on August 31, 2018, 01:41:34 PM
Apologies if this was posted in a thread I didn't see, but I figured some might be interested in this Berkshire Eagle editorial about US 20.

https://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/our-opinion-historic-route-20deserves-recognition,548853 (https://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/our-opinion-historic-route-20deserves-recognition,548853)
Unlike Route 66, US 20 is still an ACTIVE designation.  Designating it as a "National Historic Highway" is just more political BS this country doesn't need.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 31, 2018, 05:36:12 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 31, 2018, 01:56:18 PM
Quote from: Jim on August 31, 2018, 01:41:34 PM
Apologies if this was posted in a thread I didn't see, but I figured some might be interested in this Berkshire Eagle editorial about US 20.

https://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/our-opinion-historic-route-20deserves-recognition,548853 (https://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/our-opinion-historic-route-20deserves-recognition,548853)
Unlike Route 66, US 20 is still an ACTIVE designation.  Designating it as a "National Historic Highway" is just more political BS this country doesn't need.

I guess everything is political if you look at it the right way, but is tourism and economic development really that bad?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 31, 2018, 07:39:40 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 31, 2018, 05:36:12 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 31, 2018, 01:56:18 PM
Quote from: Jim on August 31, 2018, 01:41:34 PM
Apologies if this was posted in a thread I didn't see, but I figured some might be interested in this Berkshire Eagle editorial about US 20.

https://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/our-opinion-historic-route-20deserves-recognition,548853 (https://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/our-opinion-historic-route-20deserves-recognition,548853)
Unlike Route 66, US 20 is still an ACTIVE designation.  Designating it as a "National Historic Highway" is just more political BS this country doesn't need.

I guess everything is political if you look at it the right way, but is tourism and economic development really that bad?

Point taken.  However, perhaps the people promoting this idea should present some realistic projections about the increased tourism and economic development before they force DOTs to rush headlong into providing signs for them.  And the other question is this:  How many other designations (Scenic Byway, Heritage Trail, etc.) do the various sections of US 20 in different states have?  But let's plop down even more signs - again, on a ACTIVE US Route that will only serve to distract drivers and create future maintenance headaches for local communities and state DOTs.

Plus, the whole premise that US 20 can suddenly become the next Route 66, in my opinion, demonstrates how the folks promoting this haven't really thought it through.  Route 66 became iconic both for being featured in popular culture since the Great Depression, and also as a symbol of how the Interstate system radically changed the country, and not for the better in several ways.  US 20 doesn't have, and never will have, that pedigree or aura no matter how many signs you put up.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on September 01, 2018, 01:25:56 AM
Quote from: roadman on August 31, 2018, 07:39:40 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 31, 2018, 05:36:12 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 31, 2018, 01:56:18 PM
Quote from: Jim on August 31, 2018, 01:41:34 PM
Apologies if this was posted in a thread I didn't see, but I figured some might be interested in this Berkshire Eagle editorial about US 20.

https://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/our-opinion-historic-route-20deserves-recognition,548853 (https://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/our-opinion-historic-route-20deserves-recognition,548853)
Unlike Route 66, US 20 is still an ACTIVE designation.  Designating it as a "National Historic Highway" is just more political BS this country doesn't need.

I guess everything is political if you look at it the right way, but is tourism and economic development really that bad?

Point taken.  However, perhaps the people promoting this idea should present some realistic projections about the increased tourism and economic development before they force DOTs to rush headlong into providing signs for them.  And the other question is this:  How many other designations (Scenic Byway, Heritage Trail, etc.) do the various sections of US 20 in different states have?  But let's plop down even more signs - again, on a ACTIVE US Route that will only serve to distract drivers and create future maintenance headaches for local communities and state DOTs.

Plus, the whole premise that US 20 can suddenly become the next Route 66, in my opinion, demonstrates how the folks promoting this haven't really thought it through.  Route 66 became iconic both for being featured in popular culture since the Great Depression, and also as a symbol of how the Interstate system radically changed the country, and not for the better in several ways.  US 20 doesn't have, and never will have, that pedigree or aura no matter how many signs you put up.
I take it you're not attending the Mentor road meet, then.
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 01, 2018, 02:59:38 AM
Quote from: roadman on August 31, 2018, 07:39:40 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 31, 2018, 05:36:12 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 31, 2018, 01:56:18 PM
Quote from: Jim on August 31, 2018, 01:41:34 PM
Apologies if this was posted in a thread I didn't see, but I figured some might be interested in this Berkshire Eagle editorial about US 20.

https://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/our-opinion-historic-route-20deserves-recognition,548853 (https://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/our-opinion-historic-route-20deserves-recognition,548853)
Unlike Route 66, US 20 is still an ACTIVE designation.  Designating it as a "National Historic Highway" is just more political BS this country doesn't need.

I guess everything is political if you look at it the right way, but is tourism and economic development really that bad?

Point taken.  However, perhaps the people promoting this idea should present some realistic projections about the increased tourism and economic development before they force DOTs to rush headlong into providing signs for them.  And the other question is this:  How many other designations (Scenic Byway, Heritage Trail, etc.) do the various sections of US 20 in different states have?  But let's plop down even more signs - again, on a ACTIVE US Route that will only serve to distract drivers and create future maintenance headaches for local communities and state DOTs.

Plus, the whole premise that US 20 can suddenly become the next Route 66, in my opinion, demonstrates how the folks promoting this haven't really thought it through.  Route 66 became iconic both for being featured in popular culture since the Great Depression, and also as a symbol of how the Interstate system radically changed the country, and not for the better in several ways.  US 20 doesn't have, and never will have, that pedigree or aura no matter how many signs you put up.

I'll bet they can pull some tourists down 20 with the right campaign.  People now go to Pittsfield for fun, so anything is possible.  And I'll bet that even without an official designation the concept will gain traction.  Western Mass. in general is bigger draw now than I recall it ever being.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on September 19, 2018, 03:24:00 PM
Have posted probably one of the final sets of photos from the I-95 Add-A-Lane Project in Needham and Wellesley. All four traffic lanes were open when I drove by there this past Sunday:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95addalane918b.JPG&hash=508361338f432b11fa1f3a3b8f1a2768ae4e9bf4)

MassDOT indicates final lane striping is to take place this week. Though the project is not officially to be finished until next spring, it appears most of the work is nearing completion. The complete set is on my I-95 in Mass. Photo Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: CapeCodder on September 20, 2018, 08:41:28 PM
I have a history question.

Where was the original southern terminus of MA 3? I've seen it mapped to end at Scusset Beach, then again it was taken down Sandwich Road (the road on the cape side of the Canal.) to end at the Bourne Rotary.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on September 20, 2018, 09:23:54 PM
Quote from: CapeCodder on September 20, 2018, 08:41:28 PM
Where was the original southern terminus of MA 3? I've seen it mapped to end at Scusset Beach, then again it was taken down Sandwich Road (the road on the cape side of the Canal.) to end at the Bourne Rotary.

The north end of the old Sagamore Bridge, where Canal Street now ends at Gibbs Road.
http://gis.massdot.state.ma.us/Images/HistoricMaps/MassRoadMap_1929.pdf

By the way, the bypass on Gibbs Road/Swift Road was laid out in 1931, leaving behind Old Plymouth Road.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 21, 2018, 08:45:20 AM
Memory Lane: Driving through Boston video circa 1976 via the old South Station Tunnel, Central Artery, Tobin Bridge, Northeast Expressway along with another section of US 1 in S. Lynnfield.

Note some of the old BGS'; pay close attention around 0:45-48 for a then-recently obsolete route designation).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrMWOdzrdxk
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 21, 2018, 01:19:24 PM
I-95 NORTH
Chelsea
Revere
:-o

I know that's part of US Route 1 now. One of those ghost ramps still exist today. Weird seeing no car dealership by the Lynnfield tunnel or the movie theater complex in Revere!

This is now making me think...how long has US Route 1 been on its current alignment? In this case, I mean from Exit 27 of I-93 in Boston up to the I-95 North on ramp in Peabody? (Many Concord Coach Lines busses I've been on to Portland, ME go that way.)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 21, 2018, 01:36:24 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 21, 2018, 01:19:24 PM
I-95 NORTH
Chelsea
Revere
:-o

I know that's part of US Route 1 now. One of those ghost ramps still exist today.

Actually, both bridges that were to connect I-95 with the sand fill over the Rumney Marsh (since removed), one for I-95 NB and one for I-95 SB, are still in place.  Before the signs in this area were replaced in 1998, there was also a sign gantry in Copeland Circle just before the I-95 NB bridge, as well as an unfinished ramp connecting the Copeland Circle (MA 60 under US 1) roadway to the NB I-95 alignment.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 21, 2018, 01:41:44 PM
Copeland Circle...the rotary near the aforementioned movie theater for MA Route 60? A CCL bus took that as an altetnate a couple times, heading to MA Route 1A South towards the Logan Airport area and the beginning of I-90 West (via TW Tunnel to South Station).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 21, 2018, 01:54:24 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 21, 2018, 01:41:44 PM
Copeland Circle...the rotary near the aforementioned movie theater for MA Route 60?
Yes.  Have amended my post.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 21, 2018, 02:21:18 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 21, 2018, 01:19:24 PM
US 1 was rerouted and signed along the Tobin Bridge & Northeast Expressway (both of which were formerly I-95) circa 1975.  At the same time, I-95, I-93 (extension) & MA 1A (extension) were placed/rerouted to their current corridors.  The eastern end of MA 60 was rerouted away from Revere St. and onto the lower-portion of the American Legion Highway (former-US 1) to MA 1A/16 at Bell Circle circa 1978. 

Assuming that 1976 date of that video is correct, that Chelsea/Revere pull-through BGS obviously didn't get its US 1 shield the same time the other ones at the I-93 split were changed (from I-95 to US 1).  I'm not surprised.  I remember the structure-mounted BGS (along the Central Artery viaduct) for the Callahan Tunnel got its route shield changed (from US 1 to MA 1A) a tad late in the game as well.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJStephens on September 21, 2018, 02:58:13 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 21, 2018, 01:36:24 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 21, 2018, 01:19:24 PM
I-95 NORTH
Chelsea
Revere
:-o

I know that's part of US Route 1 now. One of those ghost ramps still exist today.

Actually, both bridges that were to connect I-95 with the sand fill over the Rumney Marsh (since removed), one for I-95 NB and one for I-95 SB, are still in place.  Before the signs in this area were replaced in 1998, there was also a sign gantry in Copeland Circle just before the I-95 NB bridge, as well as an unfinished ramp connecting the Copeland Circle (MA 60 under US 1) roadway to the NB I-95 alignment.

Used to possess an older (seventies) spiral bound Boston area road map.  The dashed double lines of the marsh alignment were clearly shown.  Right up to the southern fringe of Lynn.  Don't believe any structures in either Lynn or Peabody were demolished for the 95 alignment, it was cancelled before that could happen.   Lynn incidentally was a leader in arson fires for a while - late seventies/early eighties, as owners likely gave up on their aging three decker wood frame homes.
The video was really neat thanks for posting.   The 1976 date seems correct, a big bumper Maverick (73 up) and an AMC Matador are prominent.  No downsized GM metric midsizes visible, which debuted in fall of 1977.   And a Datsun Z car.   Interesting they were using formed Jersey barriers (CBR's) already, as seen in the US 1 median upgrades.    Was in a friends' parents brand new Saab 900 (mid eighties) on that Storrow Drive off ramp (near the old Boston Garden) and he almost put that car into the side rails showing off.   
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 21, 2018, 03:23:36 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on September 21, 2018, 02:58:13 PMUsed to possess an older (seventies) spiral bound Boston area road map.  The dashed double lines of the marsh alignment were clearly shown.  Right up to the southern fringe of Lynn.  Don't believe any structures in either Lynn or Peabody were demolished for the 95 alignment, it was cancelled before that could happen.
At that time, many of the maps not only showed the dash-lines along the march alignment but north of there to roughly the Peabody/Danvers border as well (south of the MA 114 interchange (now Exit 47A-B)). 

Quote from: DJStephens on September 21, 2018, 02:58:13 PMThe video was really neat thanks for posting.
You're welcome.  I found it on a Facebook post earlier this morning. 

Quote from: DJStephens on September 21, 2018, 02:58:13 PMThe 1976 date seems correct, a big bumper Maverick (73 up) and an AMC Matador are prominent.  No downsized GM metric midsizes visible, which debuted in fall of 1977.   And a Datsun Z car.
My questioning of the 1976 date was under the thought that the video may have been filmed a year or two earlier (1974-1975); given the 95 NORTH Chelsea-Revere pull-through BGS.  I didn't get a chance to view the video more closely (I was pressed for time) to identify the newest car(s) in it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJStephens on September 21, 2018, 04:27:44 PM
Yes usually date old pictures or videos by the cars in them.   A year or two earlier - certainly possible.  Believe that grimy overhead BGS with the tiny I-95 shield under the upper deck - survived later than the mid seventies.   It was likely forgotten, it was there, for a good while. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: froggie on September 21, 2018, 04:39:02 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 21, 2018, 03:23:36 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on September 21, 2018, 02:58:13 PMUsed to possess an older (seventies) spiral bound Boston area road map.  The dashed double lines of the marsh alignment were clearly shown.  Right up to the southern fringe of Lynn.  Don't believe any structures in either Lynn or Peabody were demolished for the 95 alignment, it was cancelled before that could happen.
At that time, many of the maps not only showed the dash-lines along the march alignment but north of there to roughly the Peabody/Danvers border as well (south of the MA 114 interchange (now Exit 47A-B)).

Do any scans of these maps exist online?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 21, 2018, 05:04:51 PM
There was still a tiny I-95 shield above the road northbound in Chelsea. At the base of the last off ramp as the bridge steel was ending. Possibly into the 2000s.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on September 21, 2018, 05:07:07 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on September 21, 2018, 04:27:44 PM
Yes usually date old pictures or videos by the cars in them.   A year or two earlier - certainly possible.  Believe that grimy overhead BGS with the tiny I-95 shield under the upper deck - survived later than the mid seventies.   It was likely forgotten, it was there, for a good while. 
It disappeared no earlier than 2002, because I saw it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 21, 2018, 07:36:46 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 21, 2018, 04:39:02 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 21, 2018, 03:23:36 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on September 21, 2018, 02:58:13 PMUsed to possess an older (seventies) spiral bound Boston area road map.  The dashed double lines of the marsh alignment were clearly shown.  Right up to the southern fringe of Lynn.  Don't believe any structures in either Lynn or Peabody were demolished for the 95 alignment, it was cancelled before that could happen.
At that time, many of the maps not only showed the dash-lines along the march alignment but north of there to roughly the Peabody/Danvers border as well (south of the MA 114 interchange (now Exit 47A-B)).

Do any scans of these maps exist online?
The last official (meaning from the Commonwealth) Massachusetts state road map to show the full proposed alignment of I-95 between Revere & Peabody was their 1971 edition (http://gis.massdot.state.ma.us/images/historicmaps/MassRoadMap_1971.pdf).

After doing an extensive/exhaustive search, I was not successful in finding any other scans of maps covering that area & vintage.
However, I do know that Rand McNally, American Map, etc. showed the proposed I-95 through Lynn (actually, along the eastern edge of Lynn Woods) through their 1974 edition maps.  I have one or two hard-copies of those maps from that vintage.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 29, 2018, 10:38:57 AM
Anyone here know what this VMS is for? Or if if has a special purpose? It's rather old and weird-looking.  Located on the Mass Pike W-bound near the location of the former Stockbridge toll plaza.
https://goo.gl/maps/JHXBWZGuUuj (https://goo.gl/maps/JHXBWZGuUuj)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on November 01, 2018, 01:09:36 PM
Some random things I was wondering about Massachusetts highways.....

1. Why doesn't MA 213 have any mile markers?

2. Who (or what group) within MassDOT determines route numbers and where state  routes go?

3. Why is so little of the state route system under MassDOT jurisdiction?

SM-G900P

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on November 01, 2018, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on November 01, 2018, 01:09:36 PM
1. Why doesn't MA 213 have any mile markers?

It has two bridge mile markers, one around 0.2 and one around 2, both to 3 decimal places. However, there are no standard mile markers.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on November 02, 2018, 12:13:46 PM
True, those bridge markers are present. I should have been more clear, I was referring more to enhanced mile markers like all the other state expressways have. I know it's only 5 miles long, but I feel it should still have them

SM-G900P

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 02, 2018, 03:07:32 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on November 01, 2018, 01:09:36 PM
2. Who (or what group) within MassDOT determines route numbers and where state routes go?
SM-G900P

Some of the state routes are holdovers from the New England Interstate system, while some are coordinated with other states in the case of multi-state routes.  Sometimes, a group of them are kind of clustered together (MA 149-151 are all in the same general area, as are 104-106). The rest: who knows?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on November 02, 2018, 10:29:53 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 02, 2018, 03:07:32 PM
MA 149-151 are all in the same general area

150 is nowhere near the other two.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on November 03, 2018, 07:53:42 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on November 01, 2018, 01:09:36 PM

1. Why doesn't MA 213 have any mile markers?

SM-G900P

I would guess, and it's just a guess, that it could be because perhaps 213 hasn't had a re-signing project since Mass started using mile markers around a decade ago. But I'm not sure about this because I would have figured the reconstruction of the 213-93 interchange and the accompanying signing projects would have given Massdot an excuse to put mile markers on the Loop Connector
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on November 05, 2018, 11:55:24 AM
I've loaded what likely will be my last photos covering the near completion of the I-95/MA 128 Add-A-Lane Project to my I-95 in Mass. Photo Gallery, here's an example of the oversized MA 128 shields used in the recently installed reassurance markers:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fi95addalane1018j.jpg&hash=329b1fc2f2e161de1de2b11af6caf4cb36c3b582)

The rest of the photos are at:http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on November 05, 2018, 12:24:57 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 02, 2018, 03:07:32 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on November 01, 2018, 01:09:36 PM
2. Who (or what group) within MassDOT determines route numbers and where state routes go?
SM-G900P
Some of the state routes are holdovers from the New England Interstate system, while some are coordinated with other states in the case of multi-state routes.  Sometimes, a group of them are kind of clustered together (MA 149-151 are all in the same general area, as are 104-106). The rest: who knows?
Adding to the previous comment. Whatever system Mass. developed for its route numbers collapsed early on when the NE Route system gave way to the US Route system in 1927. Under the NE system 1 and 2 digit numbers were reserved for multistate (longer) routes, while 3 digits were in-state (shorter) routes (with a few exceptions). When that system went away, Mass. started assigning two-digit numbers for its own route system, whatever length they were, in many cases changing from recently assigned 3-digit numbers to 2-digit ones. Looking at route lists from the 1929-1933 maps, for example, MA 102 from Taunton to Weymouth was changed to MA 18 in 1931 (which had been assigned 2 years earlier to a shorter route from Rockland to Hingham). Route 102 then reappeared at the other end of the state in W. Stockbridge. While as previously stated, some effort was made to cluster similar numbered routes in one place (MA 130, 132, and 134 on Cape Cod, MA 104, 105 and 106 in the Taunton area), numbers assigned around them were in very different places, MA 107 is in Revere, for example, MA 131 is in Brimfield, MA 133 is Lowell. There was apparently no thought to placing significance on odd vs. even numbers and geographic direction, thus MA 18 is north-south, but so is MA 27, etc.

IMO the route number system still largely reflects traffic patterns of the 1950s and thus should be modernized, removing outdated or redundant routes. MA 28, for example, still runs from the Cape to the NH border, though no one would use that route between those 2 destinations today. I would restrict that route to Boston northward, use MA 25 for the Cape Cod portion, and remove the concurrencies it has with many routes south of Boston (MA 18, US 6).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jon daly on November 05, 2018, 12:49:29 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 05, 2018, 12:24:57 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 02, 2018, 03:07:32 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on November 01, 2018, 01:09:36 PM
2. Who (or what group) within MassDOT determines route numbers and where state routes go?
SM-G900P
Some of the state routes are holdovers from the New England Interstate system, while some are coordinated with other states in the case of multi-state routes.  Sometimes, a group of them are kind of clustered together (MA 149-151 are all in the same general area, as are 104-106). The rest: who knows?
Adding to the previous comment. Whatever system Mass. developed for its route numbers collapsed early on when the NE Route system gave way to the US Route system in 1927. Under the NE system 1 and 2 digit numbers were reserved for multistate (longer) routes, while 3 digits were in-state (shorter) routes (with a few exceptions). When that system went away, Mass. started assigning two-digit numbers for its own route system, whatever length they were, in many cases changing from recently assigned 3-digit numbers to 2-digit ones. Looking at route lists from the 1929-1933 maps, for example, MA 102 from Taunton to Weymouth was changed to MA 18 in 1931 (which had been assigned 2 years earlier to a shorter route from Rockland to Hingham). Route 102 then reappeared at the other end of the state in W. Stockbridge. While as previously stated, some effort was made to cluster similar numbered routes in one place (MA 130, 132, and 134 on Cape Cod, MA 104, 105 and 106 in the Taunton area), numbers assigned around them were in very different places, MA 107 is in Revere, for example, MA 131 is in Brimfield, MA 133 is Lowell. There was apparently no thought to placing significance on odd vs. even numbers and geographic direction, thus MA 18 is north-south, but so is MA 27, etc.

IMO the route number system still largely reflects traffic patterns of the 1950s and thus should be modernized, removing outdated or redundant routes. MA 28, for example, still runs from the Cape to the NH border, though no one would use that route between those 2 destinations today. I would restrict that route to Boston northward, use MA 25 for the Cape Cod portion, and remove the concurrencies it has with many routes south of Boston (MA 18, US 6).

This is an interesting post. I can think of some  other route numberings  in southern New England that don't make sense. If I were heading from Norwich, Conn. to the Boston area, CT/RI/MA 138 would not be my route of choice; except for , perhaps the stretch that goes to I-95 north in RI. Even before the interstate was built, I would've turned left inn Wyoming on  to RI-3.

RI 102 strikes me as a lazy loop around the Providence area. It's a beautiful drive for the weekends, but I wouldn't use it for commuting purposes or longer distance travel.
Title: MOVED: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on November 05, 2018, 11:54:47 PM
Fictional discussion has been moved to Fictional Highways (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=20.0).

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23901.0
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: froggie on November 07, 2018, 01:21:55 PM
There's an ongoing study looking at where to place a new interchange on the Mass Pike (I-90) between Exit 2 and Exit 3 (https://www.mass.gov/lists/i-90-interchange-study-documents).  Now that the Pike has gone full AET, building such an interchange becomes somewhat more practical as there's no need for a trumpet and toll plaza.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on November 07, 2018, 01:32:26 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 07, 2018, 01:21:55 PM
There's an ongoing study looking at where to place a new interchange on the Mass Pike (I-90) between Exit 2 and Exit 3 (https://www.mass.gov/lists/i-90-interchange-study-documents).  Now that the Pike has gone full AET, building such an interchange becomes somewhat more practical as there's no need for a trumpet and toll plaza.

As much as I like the peacefulness of driving a 30-mile stretch with no exits, it is an absolute PITA if I'm stopping somewhere in the middle. US 20 isn't exactly fast and, on the east end, there's no way around the mess in downtown Westfield. Somewhere within a couple miles of the service area is most likely, as inconvenient as it would be to get from there up to US 20. I wonder if such a thing would include upgrades to Chester/Blandford Road?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on November 14, 2018, 01:03:14 PM
So does Massachusetts allow the use of Clearview? I know the feds went back to approving it, but I was under the impression Massachusetts had not approved its use. I ask because I spotted a Clearview sign on US 20 north at MA 9 in Northborough...

https://earth.app.goo.gl/?apn=com.google.earth&ibi=com.google.b612&isi=293622097&ius=googleearth&link=https%3a%2f%2fearth.google.com%2fweb%2f%4042.28085564,-71.67117442,116.00498199a,0d,54.63498045y,70.99800527h,94.17402508t,0r%2fdata%3dIhoKFmUxV2xJZVVmWS1wYVRjUlJZcGQwMWcQAg

SM-G900P
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on November 14, 2018, 01:35:16 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on November 14, 2018, 01:03:14 PM
So does Massachusetts allow the use of Clearview? I know the feds went back to approving it, but I was under the impression Massachusetts had not approved its use. I ask because I spotted a Clearview sign on US 20 north at MA 9 in Northborough...

https://earth.app.goo.gl/?apn=com.google.earth&ibi=com.google.b612&isi=293622097&ius=googleearth&link=https%3a%2f%2fearth.google.com%2fweb%2f%4042.28085564,-71.67117442,116.00498199a,0d,54.63498045y,70.99800527h,94.17402508t,0r%2fdata%3dIhoKFmUxV2xJZVVmWS1wYVRjUlJZcGQwMWcQAg

SM-G900P


That was a fabricator error (both for the use of Clearview and the full spelling of the town names) and should have been replaced by now.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on November 14, 2018, 01:51:02 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 14, 2018, 01:35:16 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on November 14, 2018, 01:03:14 PM
So does Massachusetts allow the use of Clearview? I know the feds went back to approving it, but I was under the impression Massachusetts had not approved its use. I ask because I spotted a Clearview sign on US 20 north at MA 9 in Northborough...

https://earth.app.goo.gl/?apn=com.google.earth&ibi=com.google.b612&isi=293622097&ius=googleearth&link=https%3a%2f%2fearth.google.com%2fweb%2f%4042.28085564,-71.67117442,116.00498199a,0d,54.63498045y,70.99800527h,94.17402508t,0r%2fdata%3dIhoKFmUxV2xJZVVmWS1wYVRjUlJZcGQwMWcQAg
That was a fabricator error (both for the use of Clearview and the full spelling of the town names) and should have been replaced by now.
As of October 2017 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2809337,-71.6711206,3a,75y,65.76h,74.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSgUJzmwOf9PgRTBvy0e2VQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), those Clearview signs are still there.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on November 14, 2018, 02:18:23 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 14, 2018, 01:51:02 PM
As of October 2017 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2809337,-71.6711206,3a,75y,65.76h,74.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSgUJzmwOf9PgRTBvy0e2VQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), those Clearview signs are still there.
[/quote]

Groan.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on November 15, 2018, 12:27:37 PM
I drove by there Sunday November 11th and they were still there

SM-G900P

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on November 15, 2018, 12:56:46 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on November 15, 2018, 12:27:37 PM
I drove by there Sunday November 11th and they were still there

SM-G900P


Thank you.  Time for me to make a phone call.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 17, 2018, 12:59:11 PM
What's going on with the deck of the Alford Street bridge (Mass. 99) between Charlestown and... technically Charlestown, but Everett for all intents and purposes. 

The bridge underwent a major rehabilitation just a handful of years ago, but now the southbound side is completely closed with crews working on the deck.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on December 17, 2018, 05:51:34 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 17, 2018, 12:59:11 PM
What's going on with the deck of the Alford Street bridge (Mass. 99) between Charlestown and... technically Charlestown, but Everett for all intents and purposes. 

The bridge underwent a major rehabilitation just a handful of years ago, but now the southbound side is completely closed with crews working on the deck.
Well, apparently there's another rehabilitation project (#62665) going on to be completed by next summer. Here's the MassDOT Project listing description:
"The work under this project consists of rehabilitation of the structural, mechanical & electrical systems for the moveable span, replacement of the power and communication cables, new bridge signal equipment, pavement markings and signage, approach span structural repairs, approach roadway reconstruction and all incidental work."
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 17, 2018, 06:15:26 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on December 17, 2018, 05:51:34 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 17, 2018, 12:59:11 PM
What's going on with the deck of the Alford Street bridge (Mass. 99) between Charlestown and... technically Charlestown, but Everett for all intents and purposes. 

The bridge underwent a major rehabilitation just a handful of years ago, but now the southbound side is completely closed with crews working on the deck.
Well, apparently there's another rehabilitation project (#62665) going on to be completed by next summer. Here's the MassDOT Project listing description:
"The work under this project consists of rehabilitation of the structural, mechanical & electrical systems for the moveable span, replacement of the power and communication cables, new bridge signal equipment, pavement markings and signage, approach span structural repairs, approach roadway reconstruction and all incidental work."

Wow, that's nuts!  Something has to have gone wrong for that to be necessary so soon after so large a project.  I'm curious who is on the hook for that something wrong.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: WR of USA on December 17, 2018, 07:17:40 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 17, 2018, 06:15:26 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on December 17, 2018, 05:51:34 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 17, 2018, 12:59:11 PM
What's going on with the deck of the Alford Street bridge (Mass. 99) between Charlestown and... technically Charlestown, but Everett for all intents and purposes. 

The bridge underwent a major rehabilitation just a handful of years ago, but now the southbound side is completely closed with crews working on the deck.
Well, apparently there's another rehabilitation project (#62665) going on to be completed by next summer. Here's the MassDOT Project listing description:
"The work under this project consists of rehabilitation of the structural, mechanical & electrical systems for the moveable span, replacement of the power and communication cables, new bridge signal equipment, pavement markings and signage, approach span structural repairs, approach roadway reconstruction and all incidental work."

Wow, that's nuts!  Something has to have gone wrong for that to be necessary so soon after so large a project.  I'm curious who is on the hook for that something wrong.

Construction wasn't done properly:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/boston.cbslocal.com/2018/11/01/i-team-everett-casino-alford-street-bridge/amp/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on December 21, 2018, 10:33:06 PM
MA 99, at least the freeway portion, is like a northern Storrow drive in terms of drivability. And only one lane in parts now
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on December 26, 2018, 06:56:00 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 21, 2018, 10:33:06 PM
MA 99, at least the freeway portion, is like a northern Storrow drive in terms of drivability. And only one lane in parts now
MA 99 does not have a freeway portion.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 27, 2018, 12:17:17 PM
Quote from: roadman on December 26, 2018, 06:56:00 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 21, 2018, 10:33:06 PM
MA 99, at least the freeway portion, is like a northern Storrow drive in terms of drivability. And only one lane in parts now
MA 99 does not have a freeway portion.
Might be talking about RI 99.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on December 27, 2018, 01:06:40 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 21, 2018, 10:33:06 PM
MA 99, at least the freeway portion, is like a northern Storrow drive in terms of drivability. And only one lane in parts now
Assuming you mean RI 99, I don't see many similarities.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on December 27, 2018, 01:11:05 PM
Probably talking about the Jersey freeway in Charlestown, including the Sullivan Square underpass.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on December 27, 2018, 01:17:51 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 27, 2018, 01:11:05 PM
Probably talking about the Jersey freeway in Charlestown, including the Sullivan Square underpass.
That's a freeway?!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on December 28, 2018, 05:46:31 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 27, 2018, 01:17:51 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 27, 2018, 01:11:05 PM
Probably talking about the Jersey freeway in Charlestown, including the Sullivan Square underpass.
That's a freeway?!

It's limited access, open cut, no driveways between BHCC and the Malden Bridge. So quite a short freeway segment to be sure (I believe shorter than any other segment of limited-access roadway in Mass), but one nonetheless.

And yes it is now a Super 2, but a divided limited-access Super 2 in the open cut, as opposed to a non-freeway Super 2 such as US 44 in Middleboro which is undivided and has traffic lights.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on December 28, 2018, 06:12:34 PM
Though Storrow Drive barely qualifies as a freeway anymore due to it's speed limit of 40.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on December 28, 2018, 06:21:54 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 28, 2018, 06:12:34 PM
Though Storrow Drive barely qualifies as a freeway anymore due to it's speed limit of 40.
That's like saying you barely qualify as human due to you're age of 15.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on December 28, 2018, 07:35:59 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 28, 2018, 05:46:31 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 27, 2018, 01:17:51 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 27, 2018, 01:11:05 PM
Probably talking about the Jersey freeway in Charlestown, including the Sullivan Square underpass.
That's a freeway?!

It's limited access, open cut, no driveways between BHCC and the Malden Bridge. So quite a short freeway segment to be sure (I believe shorter than any other segment of limited-access roadway in Mass), but one nonetheless.

And yes it is now a Super 2, but a divided limited-access Super 2 in the open cut, as opposed to a non-freeway Super 2 such as US 44 in Middleboro which is undivided and has traffic lights.
I would just call it a ramp.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadsguy on December 28, 2018, 08:05:16 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 28, 2018, 07:35:59 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 28, 2018, 05:46:31 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 27, 2018, 01:17:51 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 27, 2018, 01:11:05 PM
Probably talking about the Jersey freeway in Charlestown, including the Sullivan Square underpass.
That's a freeway?!

It's limited access, open cut, no driveways between BHCC and the Malden Bridge. So quite a short freeway segment to be sure (I believe shorter than any other segment of limited-access roadway in Mass), but one nonetheless.

And yes it is now a Super 2, but a divided limited-access Super 2 in the open cut, as opposed to a non-freeway Super 2 such as US 44 in Middleboro which is undivided and has traffic lights.
I would just call it a ramp.

It's certainly set up as the mainline of MA 99, so I wouldn't call it a ramp, but it's basically one interchange. It's no more of a freeway than this (https://goo.gl/maps/7c74tQHgCaE2).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on December 28, 2018, 11:11:38 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 28, 2018, 08:05:16 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 28, 2018, 07:35:59 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 28, 2018, 05:46:31 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 27, 2018, 01:17:51 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 27, 2018, 01:11:05 PM
Probably talking about the Jersey freeway in Charlestown, including the Sullivan Square underpass.
That's a freeway?!

It's limited access, open cut, no driveways between BHCC and the Malden Bridge. So quite a short freeway segment to be sure (I believe shorter than any other segment of limited-access roadway in Mass), but one nonetheless.

And yes it is now a Super 2, but a divided limited-access Super 2 in the open cut, as opposed to a non-freeway Super 2 such as US 44 in Middleboro which is undivided and has traffic lights.
I would just call it a ramp.

It's certainly set up as the mainline of MA 99, so I wouldn't call it a ramp, but it's basically one interchange. It's no more of a freeway than this (https://goo.gl/maps/7c74tQHgCaE2).
The one underpass is a mainline, but then Sullivan Square is more of a glorified ramp. It felt even more that way when the old flyover also existed.
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 29, 2018, 04:08:42 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 28, 2018, 05:46:31 PM
It's limited access, open cut, no driveways between BHCC and the Malden Bridge.

Which bridge is the Malden Bridge?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on December 29, 2018, 05:34:16 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 29, 2018, 04:08:42 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 28, 2018, 05:46:31 PM
It's limited access, open cut, no driveways between BHCC and the Malden Bridge.

Which bridge is the Malden Bridge?

The bridge to Malden on 99. Probably shouldn't have capitalized bridge, but google maps had it in caps so I wasn't sure if maybe it was an official name
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ben114 on December 29, 2018, 07:56:35 PM
two things:

button copy, even though it is rare nowadays, still exists on I-495 on older and not yet replaced signage for Exit 13.

if you go to Millbury at the 146/90/20 interchange, the newer signs have a blue-background Pike pilgrim hat sign (these signs can be seen coming from US 20 and the second one is hidden behind the older one)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 29, 2018, 08:55:02 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 29, 2018, 05:34:16 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 29, 2018, 04:08:42 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 28, 2018, 05:46:31 PM
It's limited access, open cut, no driveways between BHCC and the Malden Bridge.

Which bridge is the Malden Bridge?

The bridge to Malden on 99. Probably shouldn't have capitalized bridge, but google maps had it in caps so I wasn't sure if maybe it was an official name

That's what I'm not clear on.  99 doesn't go into Malden for a good 3 miles from Sullivan Square.

Do you mean the Alford Street bridge over the Mystic River?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on December 29, 2018, 09:01:09 PM
It's called the Malden Bridge: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22malden+bridge%22+%22mystic+river%22
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on January 02, 2019, 09:40:51 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 27, 2018, 01:17:51 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 27, 2018, 01:11:05 PM
Probably talking about the Jersey freeway in Charlestown, including the Sullivan Square underpass.
That's a freeway?!
The key phrase in the above is Jersey freeway.

Here's a thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5649.0) that discusses & describes such.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on January 02, 2019, 05:01:25 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2019, 09:40:51 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 27, 2018, 01:17:51 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 27, 2018, 01:11:05 PM
Probably talking about the Jersey freeway in Charlestown, including the Sullivan Square underpass.
That's a freeway?!
The key phrase in the above is Jersey freeway.

Here's a thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5649.0) that discusses & describes such.
It's not a jersey freeway though as there are no driveways and access is completely limited
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on January 03, 2019, 09:46:18 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on January 02, 2019, 05:01:25 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2019, 09:40:51 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 27, 2018, 01:17:51 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 27, 2018, 01:11:05 PM
Probably talking about the Jersey freeway in Charlestown, including the Sullivan Square underpass.
That's a freeway?!
The key phrase in the above is Jersey freeway.

Here's a thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5649.0) that discusses & describes such.
It's not a jersey freeway though as there are no driveways and access is completely limited
Access to Bunker Hill Community College of MA 99 South (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3779106,-71.0700909,3a,75y,194.09h,72.93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYi7BB5_LYTSNBIb3B63RdA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DYi7BB5_LYTSNBIb3B63RdA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D9.645711%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656).  While such is styled like an interchange ramp; it's really a glorified driveway entry/exit.

Further south along MA 99/Rutherford Ave., Signalized intersection for US 1 North access ramps. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3725933,-71.0654783,3a,75y,133.99h,79.68t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stoGkLxK8GcSguVlrvB2IJQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DtoGkLxK8GcSguVlrvB2IJQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D16.21691%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)

Jersey freeways can have signalized intersections whereas limited-access highways/freeways/expressways typically do not (yes, I'm aware of some freak, isolated exceptions out there).

Long story short; MA 99/Rutherford Ave. isn't anymore of a limited-access highway than MA 2 along Commonwealth Ave. in Boston is.  Such has a couple of interchanges along the way as well.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: froggie on January 03, 2019, 11:54:03 AM
From my experience, I'd agree with calling Rutherford Ave controlled-access from the Tobin ramps up to the Mystic River.  The access to the community college is designed too much like a ramp to call it a "glorified driveway".

Though I'm curious why it was narrowed to a single lane each way under Sullivan Square.  Anyone have the story on that?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on January 03, 2019, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 03, 2019, 11:54:03 AM
From my experience, I'd agree with calling Rutherford Ave controlled-access from the Tobin ramps up to the Mystic River.  The access to the community college is designed too much like a ramp to call it a "glorified driveway".
While it may be designed like a ramp, there is absolutely no highway-style signage (not even hints of such) for that ramp either at the gore nor an approach (standard criteria for interchange ramps).  That said, such is viewed on the same level as either a driveway or (maybe more accurate description) an entry point to a shopping center/mall parking lot. 

Additionally & to the best of my knowledge, not one map cartographer (Rand McNally, AAA, Goshua, etc.) that uses a specific linetype and/or color to distinguish limited-access highways from non-limited-access ones has ever used such for this stretch of MA 99/Rutherford Ave.  And before one mentions oh, it's only for a short segment as a reason for not showing it as such; for many years, Rand McNally showed the short stretch of US 1 between MA 62 & I-95 in Danvers as a limited-access highway (south of 62, it was shown as just a divided highway).  The stretch of 99 between the Tobin Bridge ramps and the Mystic River is roughly twice the distance of that stretch of US 1

Quote from: froggie on January 03, 2019, 11:54:03 AM
Though I'm curious why it was narrowed to a single lane each way under Sullivan Square.  Anyone have the story on that?
This (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3826178,-71.0727815,3a,75y,153.7h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sc1VmPJqSZV1uS-7w80i5kQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (deteriorating concrete above) could be the reason.  Roadman or someone else from the area can confirm/correct/clarify.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on January 03, 2019, 02:43:16 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 03, 2019, 11:54:03 AM
From my experience, I'd agree with calling Rutherford Ave controlled-access from the Tobin ramps up to the Mystic River.  The access to the community college is designed too much like a ramp to call it a "glorified driveway".

Though I'm curious why it was narrowed to a single lane each way under Sullivan Square.  Anyone have the story on that?

From my experience, this is a surface arterial without access control that just happens to not have any driveways between these two underpasses. Nothing precludes such so access is not limited.
The single lane narrowing was done based on traffic volumes for safety reasons, instead of having 4 lanes with no shoulders in a narrow tub with concrete walls.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: froggie on January 03, 2019, 08:38:55 PM
I get that it's not officially designated as controlled-access or even limited-access...nonetheless, that is how it currently functions.

QuoteThe single lane narrowing was done based on traffic volumes for safety reasons, instead of having 4 lanes with no shoulders in a narrow tub with concrete walls.

There are Jersey barriers blocking the lane directly under the overpasses, so instead of 4 lanes you now have 2 lanes with no shoulders in a narrow tub.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on January 03, 2019, 09:30:45 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 03, 2019, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 03, 2019, 11:54:03 AM
From my experience, I'd agree with calling Rutherford Ave controlled-access from the Tobin ramps up to the Mystic River.  The access to the community college is designed too much like a ramp to call it a "glorified driveway".
While it may be designed like a ramp, there is absolutely no highway-style signage (not even hints of such) for that ramp either at the gore nor an approach (standard criteria for interchange ramps).  That said, such is viewed on the same level as either a driveway or (maybe more accurate description) an entry point to a shopping center/mall parking lot. 

Additionally & to the best of my knowledge, not one map cartographer (Rand McNally, AAA, Goshua, etc.) that uses a specific linetype and/or color to distinguish limited-access highways from non-limited-access ones has ever used such for this stretch of MA 99/Rutherford Ave.  And before one mentions oh, it's only for a short segment as a reason for not showing it as such; for many years, Rand McNally showed the short stretch of US 1 between MA 62 & I-95 in Danvers as a limited-access highway (south of 62, it was shown as just a divided highway).  The stretch of 99 between the Tobin Bridge ramps and the Mystic River is roughly twice the distance of that stretch of US 1

Quote from: froggie on January 03, 2019, 11:54:03 AM
Though I'm curious why it was narrowed to a single lane each way under Sullivan Square.  Anyone have the story on that?
This (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3826178,-71.0727815,3a,75y,153.7h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sc1VmPJqSZV1uS-7w80i5kQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (deteriorating concrete above) could be the reason.  Roadman or someone else from the area can confirm/correct/clarify.
I think it can be compromised to call 99 a “controlled access highway by coincidence” if we want to coin a term. Along those lines I’m curious how these maps listed the US 5 “roadway” (for lack of a better term) in West Springfield that roadwaywiz calls the “West Springfield Expressway”? 

This is another “controlled access highway by coincidence”, from 91 across the river and then up into westide where driveways begin along first one side then both
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on January 03, 2019, 10:26:14 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 03, 2019, 08:38:55 PM
I get that it's not officially designated as controlled-access or even limited-access...nonetheless, that is how it currently functions.

QuoteThe single lane narrowing was done based on traffic volumes for safety reasons, instead of having 4 lanes with no shoulders in a narrow tub with concrete walls.

There are Jersey barriers blocking the lane directly under the overpasses, so instead of 4 lanes you now have 2 lanes with no shoulders in a narrow tub.

Congratulations for post #10000!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on January 03, 2019, 10:50:54 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 03, 2019, 10:26:14 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 03, 2019, 08:38:55 PM
I get that it's not officially designated as controlled-access or even limited-access...nonetheless, that is how it currently functions.

QuoteThe single lane narrowing was done based on traffic volumes for safety reasons, instead of having 4 lanes with no shoulders in a narrow tub with concrete walls.

There are Jersey barriers blocking the lane directly under the overpasses, so instead of 4 lanes you now have 2 lanes with no shoulders in a narrow tub.

Congratulations for post #10000!
It feels trippy seeing the likes this forum way way to much thing without a photo above it. Looks weird.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: froggie on January 03, 2019, 11:36:09 PM
^ Not everyone feels the need to show an avatar...

Quote from: AMLNet49Along those lines I'm curious how these maps listed the US 5 "roadway"  (for lack of a better term) in West Springfield that roadwaywiz calls the "West Springfield Expressway" ?

Both Rand McNally and National Geographic (similar cartography as the old American Map and RoadMaster/GeoNova/aligned-with-Mapquest atlases) show 5 as freeway south of US 20 and multilane north.  AAA shows all of 5 in Springfield as simply multilane.

Since you also mentioned them, RMcN and NG also show 116 in Amherst as freeway (AAA doesn't).  Only NG shows Storrow Dr as a freeway...and that only west of where MA 28 splits off onto Beacon St.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on January 04, 2019, 12:28:43 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 03, 2019, 08:38:55 PM
I get that it's not officially designated as controlled-access or even limited-access...nonetheless, that is how it currently functions.

QuoteThe single lane narrowing was done based on traffic volumes for safety reasons, instead of having 4 lanes with no shoulders in a narrow tub with concrete walls.

There are Jersey barriers blocking the lane directly under the overpasses, so instead of 4 lanes you now have 2 lanes with no shoulders in a narrow tub.

Well, that's dumb.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on January 04, 2019, 12:42:02 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2019, 12:28:43 AM
Well, that's dumb.

I'd say #MassDOTLogic, but I'm going to guess without looking at GIS that the segment in question is local maintenance. And frankly, although MassDOT does a ton of weird things, town maintenance in MA is a million times weirder. As long as there aren't any NJ 23 shields installed on those Jersey barriers...  :-D
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on January 07, 2019, 10:41:26 AM
So the state put the Keep Right sign in when they rebuilt route 114 (back in the 80s) and then the Town of Danvers didn't want to inconvenience people on MacArthur Blvd.  This is not a good idea.  I'd expect this kind of weird sign in Peabody, but I thought Danvers knew better.  :P

Hope no one is coming the other way. Bring on the lawsuits! (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5513419,-70.9575536,3a,15y,23.38h,82.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGh2NM0asfeNtI5OpAiSpRw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

The "two way traffic both sides" thing should really not be in force on the section where it meets route 114.  Fortunately it's probably a low-enough traffic street and residents know the pattern.  Who's going to be able to parse the conflicting signs when also trying to watch for a break in the heavy traffic on 114?

I like (don't like) that exiting traffic the "wrong way" (using the left-hand roadway) doesn't even get a stop sign.  At least a stop sign facing that traffic would be a cue to entering traffic that there could be exiting traffic.  The island-mounted keep right sign just makes you think this is a normal dual carriageway with one-way roads. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Magical Trevor on January 07, 2019, 09:26:05 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on January 07, 2019, 10:41:26 AM
So the state put the Keep Right sign in when they rebuilt route 114 (back in the 80s) and then the Town of Danvers didn't want to inconvenience people on MacArthur Blvd.  This is not a good idea.  I'd expect this kind of weird sign in Peabody, but I thought Danvers knew better.  :P

Hope no one is coming the other way. Bring on the lawsuits! (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5513419,-70.9575536,3a,15y,23.38h,82.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGh2NM0asfeNtI5OpAiSpRw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

The "two way traffic both sides" thing should really not be in force on the section where it meets route 114.  Fortunately it's probably a low-enough traffic street and residents know the pattern.  Who's going to be able to parse the conflicting signs when also trying to watch for a break in the heavy traffic on 114?

I like (don't like) that exiting traffic the "wrong way" (using the left-hand roadway) doesn't even get a stop sign.  At least a stop sign facing that traffic would be a cue to entering traffic that there could be exiting traffic.  The island-mounted keep right sign just makes you think this is a normal dual carriageway with one-way roads.

Aaand then you get parking like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5515983,-70.9574217,3a,75y,35.53h,87.82t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spL0Or5XQ7kuvCS28beKNCA!2e0!5s20171101T000000!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: JWF1959 on January 12, 2019, 09:17:01 PM
Is anyone aware of new exit ramps being constructed on I95/128 in Waltham?  I have seen some small houses/business being torn down right around the Rt 117 overpass, and one business recently closed with the notice that their structure was being taken over due to construction of an "egress" (their words).

Haven't seen or heard of anything on the Mass DOT website.  Just curious as to when construction will start, and what the design will look like.  That area is a tremendous bottleneck as it is.  I can only imagine how bad it will get.

thx.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on January 12, 2019, 09:20:30 PM
https://www.city.waltham.ma.us/home/news/see-the-attached-presentation-from-the-waltham-traffic-commission-regarding-the-proposed
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on February 05, 2019, 07:01:09 PM
Sorry if I missed this, but what's up with the Caltrans style exit only messaging on the new I-95 signage?

Well sort of. As we know Caltrans uses patches for exit only scenarios.  They use simply "only"  for freeway-to-freeway interchanges and "exit only"  otherwise.

The new 95 signage around the mass pike uses Caltrans patches, except with the arrow embedded within the patch. Both freeway and nonfreeway exits alike use simply "only"  as opposed to "exit only" . It's a yellow patch with a black arrow and the word "only"  to the right, and this is universal along the add-a-lane portion of 128
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on February 13, 2019, 12:48:48 PM
The latest public meeting about exit 2A on the turnpike happened, and as expected, some people in the hilltowns are not enthused about building an exit inbetween 2 and 3 on the Masspike. The state has narrowed the choices down to Algerie Road, the Blandford maintenance facility or near the Blandford service plaza, and some of the cost estimates were revealed to be in the 30-35mil range.

https://www.masslive.com/boston/2019/02/state-estimates-295-million-to-378-million-cost-for-new-masspike-exit-between-lee-and-westfield.html

While I can understand opposition to the Otis proposal, either one of the Blandford ones needs to be done.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on February 13, 2019, 01:02:39 PM
Eesh.  None of those locations seem very helpful to me, but terrain is an issue east of the Plaza (I still wanted one at MA 8, but that would be too far west to help out with Exit 3 traffic).  Maybe the best would be at the Plaza?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on February 13, 2019, 02:47:28 PM
My personal opinion is that the service plaza area is the best compromise. The service plaza and maintenance facility are only two miles apart, the distance/convenience is kind of a wash between the two.

The majority of the movements are likely to be getting on the turnpike westbound and exiting to Blandford eastbound, and for that the service plaza is the better choice.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: empirestate on February 13, 2019, 02:47:43 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on February 13, 2019, 12:48:48 PM
The latest public meeting about exit 2A on the turnpike happened, and as expected, some people in the hilltowns are not enthused about building an exit inbetween 2 and 3 on the Masspike. The state has narrowed the choices down to Algerie Road, the Blandford maintenance facility or near the Blandford service plaza, and some of the cost estimates were revealed to be in the 30-35mil range.

https://www.masslive.com/boston/2019/02/state-estimates-295-million-to-378-million-cost-for-new-masspike-exit-between-lee-and-westfield.html

While I can understand opposition to the Otis proposal, either one of the Blandford ones needs to be done.

There's always got to be a quote from someone saying they don't see the need, doesn't there? :-D

Of course, whether one specific resident sees the need doesn't go one way or the other to show whether there actually is a need. And in public discourse, there is approximately a 0% chance that, when someone says they don't know something, they are inviting you to inform them of the thing they don't know. :spin:
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on February 13, 2019, 02:50:06 PM
There's a 30 mile gap between Exit 2 and Exit 3.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 13, 2019, 02:58:42 PM
Does anyone know why those who planned and constructed the Massachusetts Turnpike left such a long gap between the US 20 (Exit 2) and the US 202/SR-10 (Exit 3) interchanges? Was it the lack of development in-between those two interchanges?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on February 13, 2019, 04:58:10 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 13, 2019, 02:58:42 PM
Does anyone know why those who planned and constructed the Massachusetts Turnpike left such a long gap between the US 20 (Exit 2) and the US 202/SR-10 (Exit 3) interchanges? Was it the lack of development in-between those two interchanges?

The population density and movements at the time were not enough to warrant having staffed tollbooths.

Now, in the era of AET, in-filling some ramps will cost a lot less money over time.

Quote from: 1 on February 13, 2019, 02:50:06 PM
There's a 30 mile gap between Exit 2 and Exit 3.

To some that is a feature, not a bug.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 13, 2019, 07:34:51 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on February 13, 2019, 04:58:10 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 13, 2019, 02:58:42 PM
Does anyone know why those who planned and constructed the Massachusetts Turnpike left such a long gap between the US 20 (Exit 2) and the US 202/SR-10 (Exit 3) interchanges? Was it the lack of development in-between those two interchanges?

The population density and movements at the time were not enough to warrant having staffed tollbooths.

Now, in the era of AET, in-filling some ramps will cost a lot less money over time.

There was a proposed exit in there for the CT/MA 8 expressway, but environmentalists shot that down north of US 44.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 13, 2019, 11:21:06 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on February 13, 2019, 12:48:48 PM
The latest public meeting about exit 2A on the turnpike happened, and as expected, some people in the hilltowns are not enthused about building an exit inbetween 2 and 3 on the Masspike. The state has narrowed the choices down to Algerie Road, the Blandford maintenance facility or near the Blandford service plaza, and some of the cost estimates were revealed to be in the 30-35mil range.

https://www.masslive.com/boston/2019/02/state-estimates-295-million-to-378-million-cost-for-new-masspike-exit-between-lee-and-westfield.html

While I can understand opposition to the Otis proposal, either one of the Blandford ones needs to be done.
Do the lay people have their own solution?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: froggie on February 14, 2019, 11:54:32 AM
^ Many of them probably see this new interchange as a "solution in search of a problem".
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 14, 2019, 12:05:03 PM
Well, these 3 options seem to be designed more for local traffic for long distance traffic.  It does nothing to make things easier for traffic coming up from western CT on Route 8 bound for the Capital District.  My question is if MassDOT has ever considered making Exit 1 a full interchange now that the toll plaza is gone.  That would at least make a somewhat convenient option for traffic to and from the west that would otherwise be forced to use Exit B3 or Exit 2. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on February 14, 2019, 02:11:38 PM
There has been discussion about upgrading Exit 1 to full interchange, but no actual plans from MassDOT on public record. It would certainly be a far lower priority than filling in the 30 mile gap.

The goal of exit 2A is:

1. Get westbound turnpike traffic from Westfield and eastbound traffic to Westfield off of exit 3 and out of the center of Westfield. This is probably 70% of the push for this interchange.

2. Prevent excessive backtracking for towns in that 30 mile gap from either Lee or Westfield. This is related to #1, but a different set of traffic.

3. Allow easier access for emergency vehicles and to allow people to turn around without having to go all the way to Lee or Westfield.

Traffic from Route 8 to the capital district is probably very low on their list of priorities. An exit by the US 20/MA 8 junction would be too far west to be useful for the above three priorities, and since it's only 6 miles from exit 2 to that junction, probably not much of a time saver. I can't think of other exit placements that would take significant time off of such a trip. Exit 2, 20 to 8 is most likely the fastest, most efficient route. Without a US 7 or MA 8 expressway, time savings would be minimal.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 14, 2019, 03:37:13 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on February 14, 2019, 02:11:38 PM
There has been discussion about upgrading Exit 1 to full interchange, but no actual plans from MassDOT on public record. It would certainly be a far lower priority than filling in the 30 mile gap.

The goal of exit 2A is:

1. Get westbound turnpike traffic from Westfield and eastbound traffic to Westfield off of exit 3 and out of the center of Westfield. This is probably 70% of the push for this interchange.

2. Prevent excessive backtracking for towns in that 30 mile gap from either Lee or Westfield. This is related to #1, but a different set of traffic.

3. Allow easier access for emergency vehicles and to allow people to turn around without having to go all the way to Lee or Westfield.

Traffic from Route 8 to the capital district is probably very low on their list of priorities. An exit by the US 20/MA 8 junction would be too far west to be useful for the above three priorities, and since it's only 6 miles from exit 2 to that junction, probably not much of a time saver. I can't think of other exit placements that would take significant time off of such a trip. Exit 2, 20 to 8 is most likely the fastest, most efficient route. Without a US 7 or MA 8 expressway, time savings would be minimal.
Or Albany-bound passenger car traffic can go west a wee bit and give the Taconic SP some love.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on February 14, 2019, 06:23:16 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 14, 2019, 03:37:13 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on February 14, 2019, 02:11:38 PM
There has been discussion about upgrading Exit 1 to full interchange, but no actual plans from MassDOT on public record. It would certainly be a far lower priority than filling in the 30 mile gap.

The goal of exit 2A is:

1. Get westbound turnpike traffic from Westfield and eastbound traffic to Westfield off of exit 3 and out of the center of Westfield. This is probably 70% of the push for this interchange.

2. Prevent excessive backtracking for towns in that 30 mile gap from either Lee or Westfield. This is related to #1, but a different set of traffic.

3. Allow easier access for emergency vehicles and to allow people to turn around without having to go all the way to Lee or Westfield.

Traffic from Route 8 to the capital district is probably very low on their list of priorities. An exit by the US 20/MA 8 junction would be too far west to be useful for the above three priorities, and since it's only 6 miles from exit 2 to that junction, probably not much of a time saver. I can't think of other exit placements that would take significant time off of such a trip. Exit 2, 20 to 8 is most likely the fastest, most efficient route. Without a US 7 or MA 8 expressway, time savings would be minimal.
Or Albany-bound passenger car traffic can go west a wee bit and give the Taconic SP some love.
Hopefully, when and if they decide to place the new interchange, it will not be known as Exit 2A but will be given a mileage based number. The new interchange can then be the excuse MassDOT could use to at least convert the Pike to mileage based exit numbers.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ben114 on February 14, 2019, 08:25:26 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on February 14, 2019, 06:23:16 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 14, 2019, 03:37:13 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on February 14, 2019, 02:11:38 PM
There has been discussion about upgrading Exit 1 to full interchange, but no actual plans from MassDOT on public record. It would certainly be a far lower priority than filling in the 30 mile gap.

The goal of exit 2A is:

1. Get westbound turnpike traffic from Westfield and eastbound traffic to Westfield off of exit 3 and out of the center of Westfield. This is probably 70% of the push for this interchange.

2. Prevent excessive backtracking for towns in that 30 mile gap from either Lee or Westfield. This is related to #1, but a different set of traffic.

3. Allow easier access for emergency vehicles and to allow people to turn around without having to go all the way to Lee or Westfield.

Traffic from Route 8 to the capital district is probably very low on their list of priorities. An exit by the US 20/MA 8 junction would be too far west to be useful for the above three priorities, and since it's only 6 miles from exit 2 to that junction, probably not much of a time saver. I can't think of other exit placements that would take significant time off of such a trip. Exit 2, 20 to 8 is most likely the fastest, most efficient route. Without a US 7 or MA 8 expressway, time savings would be minimal.
Or Albany-bound passenger car traffic can go west a wee bit and give the Taconic SP some love.
Hopefully, when and if they decide to place the new interchange, it will not be known as Exit 2A but will be given a  mileage base number. The new interchange being the excuse for MassDOT would use to at least convert the Pike to mileage based exit numbers.
prays that this would start the exit renumbering about 3 years overdue
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 13, 2019, 06:23:05 AM
I may have posted this one before...but how often do you see a 5.5 mile advance sign like this? Took this I-91 gantry picture outside of the Basketball Hall Of Fame in Springfield.

(https://i.imgur.com/tse5Kcs.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 13, 2019, 09:33:50 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 05, 2019, 07:01:09 PM
Sorry if I missed this, but what’s up with the Caltrans style exit only messaging on the new I-95 signage?

Well sort of. As we know Caltrans uses patches for exit only scenarios.  They use simply “only” for freeway-to-freeway interchanges and “exit only” otherwise.

The new 95 signage around the mass pike uses Caltrans patches, except with the arrow embedded within the patch. Both freeway and nonfreeway exits alike use simply “only” as opposed to “exit only”. It’s a yellow patch with a black arrow and the word “only” to the right, and this is universal along the add-a-lane portion of 128

"ONLY" was used on secondary road entrances to I-95 instead of "Exit Only" because the ramps on these non-controlled access roadways are considered to be entrances, not exits.  "ONLY" was also used on certain mainline signs (i.e. to Kendrick St C/D road northbound).  Due to the lane geometry, and given the width of the signs, it was felt that a full "Exit Only" banner would potentially confuse drivers in the right through lane (despite the arrow).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on March 13, 2019, 12:45:40 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 13, 2019, 06:23:05 AM
I may have posted this one before...but how often do you see a 5.5 mile advance sign like this? Took this I-91 gantry picture outside of the Basketball Hall Of Fame in Springfield.

(https://i.imgur.com/tse5Kcs.jpg)

The reason why is because it's telling traffic headed to the Masspike westbound to stay on I-91 North and use Exit 14 to get on the westbound pike since it's the shortest overall route. Eastbound traffic should use I-291 to get on the turnpike instead. If there wasn't a split routing, they wouldn't have posted the advance.

You could get on I-291 and enter the turnpike westbound there, but it's a longer, less efficient route.

I'm sure such things are noted in other areas where you have a split-type routing, but it's not very frequent.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 13, 2019, 01:13:56 PM
I feel bad for those people who need to use Turnpike exit 5 from this point! 😞
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 13, 2019, 01:54:37 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on March 13, 2019, 12:45:40 PM

You could get on I-291 and enter the turnpike westbound there, but it's a longer, less efficient route.


In the pre-AET days, if you accessed the turnpike westbound from I-91 via I-291, you also incurred a higher toll.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 13, 2019, 04:33:33 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 13, 2019, 01:13:56 PM
I feel bad for those people who need to use Turnpike exit 5 from this point! 😞

I just get off St. James St on I-291 and go up Liberty St through Chicopee Falls past the $800 million Pride and then up 33 (cheap gas and booze up there).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ben114 on March 13, 2019, 05:22:00 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 13, 2019, 06:23:05 AM
I may have posted this one before...but how often do you see a 5.5 mile advance sign like this? Took this I-91 gantry picture outside of the Basketball Hall Of Fame in Springfield.

(https://i.imgur.com/tse5Kcs.jpg)
I think that might be the farthest single-exit advance sign in the state.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on March 13, 2019, 05:26:43 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on March 13, 2019, 05:22:00 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 13, 2019, 06:23:05 AM
I may have posted this one before...but how often do you see a 5.5 mile advance sign like this? Took this I-91 gantry picture outside of the Basketball Hall Of Fame in Springfield.

(https://i.imgur.com/tse5Kcs.jpg)
I think that might be the farthest single-exit advance sign in the state.
Wasn't or isn't there a 20 mile ahead sign for Bradley Int'l Airport on I-91?

Maybe it was in CT proper.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 13, 2019, 06:25:36 PM
Southbound in MA, I think. Couldn't verify that this time around, since I was on an Amtrak train to and from. As for the state line, I had Google Maps track me in Enfield there and Longmeadow back. Looked to be quite accurate, as it's a swampy on either side there.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on March 13, 2019, 08:19:15 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 13, 2019, 01:13:56 PM
I feel bad for those people who need to use Turnpike exit 5 from this point! 😞

"From this point" as from downtown Springfield? You'd just stay on 91 up to 391 to Chicopee points. Alternatively, 291 to Fuller Road. But that's just to get to Chicopee locations, you wouldn't use those routes to get on the turnpike.

Exit 5 is for local Chicopee traffic and Westover ARB. There isn't a reason to use it to get to Springfield or Holyoke when 4 and 6 exist.

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 13, 2019, 06:25:36 PM
Southbound in MA, I think. Couldn't verify that this time around, since I was on an Amtrak train to and from. As for the state line, I had Google Maps track me in Enfield there and Longmeadow back. Looked to be quite accurate, as it's a swampy on either side there.

On I-91 SB in Longmeadow around MM 1, there's an advance 11 mile Exit 40 sign.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 13, 2019, 10:06:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 13, 2019, 05:26:43 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on March 13, 2019, 05:22:00 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 13, 2019, 06:23:05 AM
I may have posted this one before...but how often do you see a 5.5 mile advance sign like this? Took this I-91 gantry picture outside of the Basketball Hall Of Fame in Springfield.
I think that might be the farthest single-exit advance sign in the state.
Wasn't or isn't there a 20 mile ahead sign for Bradley Int'l Airport on I-91?

Maybe it was in CT proper.

There's a 13 mile advance sign for Bradley on the Jennings Rd overpass just past Exit 33 NB.  The difference between the 13 mile one in CT and the 11 mile one in MA is that the 13 miles from Jennings Rd is to the airport itself (Exit 33 is at MP 39, and Exit 40 is at MP 48; and CT 20/SR 401 is about a 4 mile jog); where MA signage is to the CT 20 exit on I-91 itself (sign is at MP 1 in MA, then 10 miles from MP 58 to MP 48 in CT). 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on March 14, 2019, 04:14:08 PM
Oh, you mean this one?

http://(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8221/29375415602_ef95464ace_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LKNFCN)91NB-Exit34 (https://flic.kr/p/LKNFCN) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I always thought the fact that it doubled as a pull-through was interesting.  I doubt its replacement in the future will be that unique. 

(Funny how the CT News thread is treading towards Mass and this one is treading towards CT :-))


And over the weekend, I took I-91 North to I-291 East to I-90 West.  But I went that direction for the sole purpose of getting shots of the signs on I-291 East.  And after going to Exit 4 on I-90, I continued back north on I-91.  It didn't cost me anything, as there are no gantries between Exits 4 & 7 on the 'pike.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on March 15, 2019, 11:38:10 AM
I can't figure out why this sign exists, as it's not for Gillette Stadium or Jordan's Furniture. MA 24 southbound immediately after exiting off I-93.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7892/33500084498_9d2dfc0fb8_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 15, 2019, 12:23:36 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 15, 2019, 11:38:10 AM
I can't figure out why this sign exists, as it's not for Gillette Stadium or Jordan's Furniture. MA 24 southbound immediately after exiting off I-93.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7892/33500084498_9d2dfc0fb8_c.jpg)
IKEA in Stoughton.  Signs were put in by MassHighway at the request of the State Police after a spate of rear-end collisions approaching the Route 139 exit after the store first opened in early 2006.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on March 15, 2019, 01:33:32 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 15, 2019, 12:23:36 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 15, 2019, 11:38:10 AM
I can't figure out why this sign exists, as it's not for Gillette Stadium or Jordan's Furniture. MA 24 southbound immediately after exiting off I-93.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7892/33500084498_9d2dfc0fb8_c.jpg)
IKEA in Stoughton.  Signs were put in by MassHighway at the request of the State Police after a spate of rear-end collisions approaching the Route 138 exit after the store first opened in early 2006.

The problem is that sign is about 2-3 miles too early. I also assume you meant the Route 139 exit? Of course the exit is a couple miles beyond that exit.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 15, 2019, 10:43:15 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 15, 2019, 11:38:10 AM
I can't figure out why this sign exists, as it's not for Gillette Stadium or Jordan's Furniture. MA 24 southbound immediately after exiting off I-93.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7892/33500084498_9d2dfc0fb8_c.jpg)
These remind me of the old "Expect Stopped Traffic" signs on the Pike at the Exit 10 complex.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ben114 on March 16, 2019, 11:19:44 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 15, 2019, 10:43:15 PM
These remind me of the old "Expect Stopped Traffic" signs on the Pike at the Exit 10 complex.
I believe they are still up.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on March 16, 2019, 04:00:31 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 15, 2019, 11:38:10 AM
I can't figure out why this sign exists, as it's not for Gillette Stadium or Jordan's Furniture. MA 24 southbound immediately after exiting off I-93.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7892/33500084498_9d2dfc0fb8_c.jpg)

A few of these signs on the MA 140 freeway approaching the MA 24 North exit, both due to backups on the ramp and due to the abrupt end of the freeway just past it, as this is also an abrupt stop if the light is red.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on March 18, 2019, 08:10:50 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 15, 2019, 01:33:32 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 15, 2019, 12:23:36 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 15, 2019, 11:38:10 AM
I can't figure out why this sign exists, as it's not for Gillette Stadium or Jordan's Furniture. MA 24 southbound immediately after exiting off I-93.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7892/33500084498_9d2dfc0fb8_c.jpg)
IKEA in Stoughton.  Signs were put in by MassHighway at the request of the State Police after a spate of rear-end collisions approaching the Route 138 exit after the store first opened in early 2006.

The problem is that sign is about 2-3 miles too early. I also assume you meant the Route 139 exit? Of course the exit is a couple miles beyond that exit.

It is quicker from the north to get off at 139 WB and use Turnpike Street to get to IKEA.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: storm2k on March 19, 2019, 12:35:17 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 13, 2019, 06:23:05 AM
I may have posted this one before...but how often do you see a 5.5 mile advance sign like this? Took this I-91 gantry picture outside of the Basketball Hall Of Fame in Springfield.

(https://i.imgur.com/tse5Kcs.jpg)

You've likely never driven (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1966492,-87.8859878,3a,75y,333.43h,105.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sec_oPN6DZve9lOm1Yi5y3w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) on any of the Illinois Tollways (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2336728,-88.8188794,3a,75y,73.84h,96.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWx12_L87woA-qbNVRZVvaQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). They make that a science.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 21, 2019, 01:49:48 PM
Quote from: storm2k on March 19, 2019, 12:35:17 AM
You've likely never driven (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1966492,-87.8859878,3a,75y,333.43h,105.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sec_oPN6DZve9lOm1Yi5y3w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) on any of the Illinois Tollways (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2336728,-88.8188794,3a,75y,73.84h,96.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWx12_L87woA-qbNVRZVvaQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). They make that a science.
The second photo would also qualify for Department of Redundancy Department, as Genoa Road is noted on two signs, and the bridge as well.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: amroad17 on March 26, 2019, 02:55:36 AM
Quote from: storm2k on March 19, 2019, 12:35:17 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 13, 2019, 06:23:05 AM
I may have posted this one before...but how often do you see a 5.5 mile advance sign like this? Took this I-91 gantry picture outside of the Basketball Hall Of Fame in Springfield.

(https://i.imgur.com/tse5Kcs.jpg)

You've likely never driven (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1966492,-87.8859878,3a,75y,333.43h,105.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sec_oPN6DZve9lOm1Yi5y3w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) on any of the Illinois Tollways (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2336728,-88.8188794,3a,75y,73.84h,96.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWx12_L87woA-qbNVRZVvaQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). They make that a science.
How about the Dixon 25 Miles exit sign at Exit 76 on I-88 West in Rochelle, IL?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 29, 2019, 04:28:03 PM
https://www.wcvb.com/article/apparent-road-rage-incident-stops-traffic-on-route-128/26986832?fbclid=IwAR1qEpSVr-RmGtyPK9GKx__yLxfJ5xY0224QeQIbW9GuVPUqoAOvJ98FjLI

Maybe these women on I-95/MA 128 in Danvers disagreed on the merits of Clearview font? Doubt it!
😜
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on March 29, 2019, 07:09:48 PM
That's actually on "solo" 128, north(east) of Peabody.... not on the I-95 cosigned portion.  I was confused at first, and given it was a news report, assumed it was on the I-95 portion, but then I noticed the number of lanes. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 29, 2019, 09:50:10 PM
Thanks for the heads up! I've never been on the MA Route 128-only part by itself! I have been at the exit where the two split off a few times though. Going by Google Street View, the exits actually go DOWN as you head north and east? Huh?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on March 29, 2019, 09:50:40 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 29, 2019, 09:50:10 PM
Going by Google Street View, the exits actually go DOWN as you head north and east? Huh?

Yes.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on March 30, 2019, 12:37:13 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 29, 2019, 09:50:10 PM
Thanks for the heads up! I've never been on the MA Route 128-only part by itself! I have been at the exit where the two split off a few times though. Going by Google Street View, the exits actually go DOWN as you head north and east? Huh?
Relic of the old system where 128 was numbered clockwise starting at 15. I believe everything had Exit 15 at MA 128 and counting up from there.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 30, 2019, 03:55:06 AM
Fun question: When did this font start appearing on Massachusetts town line signs?

https://goo.gl/maps/pnoL2ydqBtq

In this case, it's the New Hampshire/Massachusetts state line on US Route 1, looking in from Seabrook, NH.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: wytout on March 30, 2019, 07:06:55 AM
Not really a font change. Just mixed case. CT has been doing this on their town line signs for the past couple years as well.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 30, 2019, 07:34:33 AM
Far and few between. Any town line signs I see here in Berlin, Newington and New Britain look the same as always.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 31, 2019, 09:53:58 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 30, 2019, 12:37:13 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 29, 2019, 09:50:10 PM
Thanks for the heads up! I've never been on the MA Route 128-only part by itself! I have been at the exit where the two split off a few times though. Going by Google Street View, the exits actually go DOWN as you head north and east? Huh?
Relic of the old system where 128 was numbered clockwise starting at 15. I believe everything had Exit 15 at MA 128 and counting up from there.
Yes, when MassDPW first introduced exit numbering, every junction of a freeway with the MA 128 freeway section was signed Exit 25 (not 15).  The only route that hasn't been changed is US 3 from Burlington to Tyngsborough, which still retains its original numbers.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on April 01, 2019, 08:53:26 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 30, 2019, 12:37:13 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on March 29, 2019, 09:50:10 PM
Thanks for the heads up! I've never been on the MA Route 128-only part by itself! I have been at the exit where the two split off a few times though. Going by Google Street View, the exits actually go DOWN as you head north and east? Huh?
Relic of the old system where 128 was numbered counter-clockwise starting at 15 9*.
FTFY.
*Exits 9 through 11 are actually intersections, the northern/easternmost interchange is Exit 12 (Crafts Rd./Rust Island).
Prior to 1962, 128's Exit 1 was Grant Circle (MA 127, current Exit 11) and the numbers increased as one headed south/west.

The reasoning for the opposite-direction (w/respect to current standards)/counter-clockwise exit numbering, for those who aren't familiar w/128's history, was due to this northern stretch was built first.

Quote from: wytout on March 30, 2019, 07:06:55 AMNot really a font change. Just mixed case. CT has been doing this on their town line signs for the past couple years as well.
Such a change, to mixed-case, is the result of an MUTCD (at least since 2009) push to use mixed-case lettering for cities & towns on all signage.  Similar's been done for street blade signage as well.  It's only recently trickled down to MassDOT.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 10, 2019, 05:39:02 PM
Now that there is no ticket system, is there any reason not to enter the Mass Pike through the back road of the Natick Service Area, off N. Main St. in Natick?

There are a couple of vaguely threatening signs about video monitoring and being charged for the full length of the Turnpike, but these seem like idle threats.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 10, 2019, 05:56:08 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 10, 2019, 05:39:02 PM
Now that there is no ticket system, is there any reason not to enter the Mass Pike through the back road of the Natick Service Area, off N. Main St. in Natick?

There are a couple of vaguely threatening signs about video monitoring and being charged for the full length of the Turnpike, but these seem like idle threats.
I mean, it's not a desnigated exit or entrance. It would be illegal even if there were no tolls.
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 10, 2019, 06:07:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 10, 2019, 05:56:08 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 10, 2019, 05:39:02 PM
Now that there is no ticket system, is there any reason not to enter the Mass Pike through the back road of the Natick Service Area, off N. Main St. in Natick?

There are a couple of vaguely threatening signs about video monitoring and being charged for the full length of the Turnpike, but these seem like idle threats.
I mean, it's not a desnigated exit or entrance. It would be illegal even if there were no tolls.

I guess my question should be better worded.  In practical terms, does anyone know if this is actually enforced?  I felt kind of stupid driving 20 minutes in traffic to get to the actual entrance a mile uproad from here.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ben114 on April 10, 2019, 06:52:07 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 10, 2019, 06:07:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 10, 2019, 05:56:08 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 10, 2019, 05:39:02 PM
Now that there is no ticket system, is there any reason not to enter the Mass Pike through the back road of the Natick Service Area, off N. Main St. in Natick?

There are a couple of vaguely threatening signs about video monitoring and being charged for the full length of the Turnpike, but these seem like idle threats.
I mean, it's not a desnigated exit or entrance. It would be illegal even if there were no tolls.

I guess my question should be better worded.  In practical terms, does anyone know if this is actually enforced?  I felt kind of stupid driving 20 minutes in traffic to get to the actual entrance a mile uproad from here.

Street view shows a gate at the entrance to the service plaza, so you can't get in.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on April 10, 2019, 07:05:25 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 10, 2019, 06:07:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 10, 2019, 05:56:08 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 10, 2019, 05:39:02 PM
Now that there is no ticket system, is there any reason not to enter the Mass Pike through the back road of the Natick Service Area, off N. Main St. in Natick?

There are a couple of vaguely threatening signs about video monitoring and being charged for the full length of the Turnpike, but these seem like idle threats.
I mean, it's not a desnigated exit or entrance. It would be illegal even if there were no tolls.

I guess my question should be better worded.  In practical terms, does anyone know if this is actually enforced?  I felt kind of stupid driving 20 minutes in traffic to get to the actual entrance a mile uproad from here.
Everyone's too afraid to find out lol.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 10, 2019, 07:29:18 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on April 10, 2019, 06:52:07 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 10, 2019, 06:07:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 10, 2019, 05:56:08 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 10, 2019, 05:39:02 PM
Now that there is no ticket system, is there any reason not to enter the Mass Pike through the back road of the Natick Service Area, off N. Main St. in Natick?

There are a couple of vaguely threatening signs about video monitoring and being charged for the full length of the Turnpike, but these seem like idle threats.
I mean, it's not a desnigated exit or entrance. It would be illegal even if there were no tolls.

I guess my question should be better worded.  In practical terms, does anyone know if this is actually enforced?  I felt kind of stupid driving 20 minutes in traffic to get to the actual entrance a mile uproad from here.

Street view shows a gate at the entrance to the service plaza, so you can't get in.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190410/578b666e7cc0b205d19795a69e15b02a.jpg)

Wide open.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on April 10, 2019, 07:46:13 PM
While not a legal entry/exit for vehicles, I think they leave it ungated for pedestrians to use so locals can park here to access the RMV office in the plaza.   The eastbound Charlton plaza's back gate was set up like that for a while in the 2000s.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on April 10, 2019, 07:57:17 PM
I'm sure the AARoads forum does not endorse the cool civil infraction of entering the Turnpike at unauthorized locations. Even if you're paying the toll via the AET system, they'd still want to discourage people using a setup that's not meant for a lot of incoming and outgoing traffic.

Plus, just because the gate is open that day doesn't mean it will be open some other day. Do you really want to risk a ticket from someone who is monitoring that gate calling a statie?

I do think they should open the gates at the Blandford plazas for hilltown locals until the new exit 2A is built, but that's because there's a 30 mile gap. Exit 13 is not that far away.

Quote from: Beeper1 on April 10, 2019, 07:46:13 PM
While not a legal entry/exit for vehicles, I think they leave it ungated for pedestrians to use so locals can park here to access the RMV office in the plaza. The eastbound Charlton plaza's back gate was set up like that for a while in the 2000s.

That's correct. I've never driven through the gate, but I have parked at the lot nearby to get to Cheesy Street Grille  without getting on the pike.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 10, 2019, 10:14:26 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on April 10, 2019, 07:57:17 PM
I'm sure the AARoads forum does not endorse the cool civil infraction of entering the Turnpike at unauthorized locations. Even if you're paying the toll via the AET system, they'd still want to discourage people using a setup that's not meant for a lot of incoming and outgoing traffic.

Plus, just because the gate is open that day doesn't mean it will be open some other day. Do you really want to risk a ticket from someone who is monitoring that gate calling a statie?

I do think they should open the gates at the Blandford plazas for hilltown locals until the new exit 2A is built, but that's because there's a 30 mile gap. Exit 13 is not that far away.

Quote from: Beeper1 on April 10, 2019, 07:46:13 PM
While not a legal entry/exit for vehicles, I think they leave it ungated for pedestrians to use so locals can park here to access the RMV office in the plaza. The eastbound Charlton plaza's back gate was set up like that for a while in the 2000s.

That's correct. I've never driven through the gate, but I have parked at the lot nearby to get to Cheesy Street Grille  without getting on the pike.

OK, I'm not asking anyone to endorse breaking the law, I am wondering if it's some kind of open secret that people generally use this.  Because I don't feel like getting a ticket in the mail, I'm not actually doing it.  But it seemed eminently doable today.

The sign on N. Main St. has actually been changed to instruct people going to the Registry to use the Mass Pike.  The reasoning I read somewhere it was that it's not a very good walk from the rugged, sloped parking lot then across the drive-through lane for anybody that is mobility impaired.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 10, 2019, 10:33:13 PM
Separate topic: is there any discussion at this point about the future of the Mass Pike/128 interchange?  Having driven and kayaked underneath it, it doesn't look like the steel is in great shape. 

I'm no engineer, and leave open the possibility that it just needs to be scraped and repainted, but today noticed the 128/95 SB to Mass Pike EB overpass over the Hultman Aqueduct has some supplemental steel legs inserted beneath it, which made me wonder about these rusty structures again.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 10, 2019, 11:23:01 PM
There's an entrance to the Charlton EB service area from US 20.  There is no gate; just a sign saying Authorized Parking Only and No Trailers.  There's even an LGS pointing you to it.  However, you'd have to jump a couple curbs, drive over the grass, or crash through a gate to get on the Pike.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on April 10, 2019, 11:45:08 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 10, 2019, 10:14:26 PM
OK, I'm not asking anyone to endorse breaking the law, I am wondering if it's some kind of open secret that people generally use this.  Because I don't feel like getting a ticket in the mail, I'm not actually doing it.  But it seemed eminently doable today.

The sign on N. Main St. has actually been changed to instruct people going to the Registry to use the Mass Pike.  The reasoning I read somewhere it was that it's not a very good walk from the rugged, sloped parking lot then across the drive-through lane for anybody that is mobility impaired.

I was making a Futurama reference, so no big. ;)

The walk is a bit steep, so I can see the point about the mobility impaired.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on April 11, 2019, 12:00:15 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 10, 2019, 06:07:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 10, 2019, 05:56:08 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 10, 2019, 05:39:02 PM
Now that there is no ticket system, is there any reason not to enter the Mass Pike through the back road of the Natick Service Area, off N. Main St. in Natick?

There are a couple of vaguely threatening signs about video monitoring and being charged for the full length of the Turnpike, but these seem like idle threats.
I mean, it's not a desnigated exit or entrance. It would be illegal even if there were no tolls.

I guess my question should be better worded.  In practical terms, does anyone know if this is actually enforced?  I felt kind of stupid driving 20 minutes in traffic to get to the actual entrance a mile uproad from here.
At this point, you're probably fine. Once you're on the MassPike, the gantries are between interchanges, so you're not going to be skipping anything. You'll get tolled for each gantry you passed under as if you entered at a valid interchange.
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 11, 2019, 12:53:19 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 10, 2019, 11:23:01 PM
There's an entrance to the Charlton EB service area from US 20.  There is no gate; just a sign saying Authorized Parking Only and No Trailers.  There's even an LGS pointing you to it.  However, you'd have to jump a couple curbs, drive over the grass, or crash through a gate to get on the Pike.

I did a quick scan on Google Maps, and they all seem have some way to get there from local streets, presumably because it was unfair to make employees pay a toll under the old ticket system to get in there (and, you know, maybe locals want to pay a few more bucks for a Big Mac than they can in town).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 11, 2019, 09:47:34 AM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on April 10, 2019, 07:57:17 PM
I'm sure the AARoads forum does not endorse the cool civil infraction of entering the Turnpike at unauthorized locations. Even if you're paying the toll via the AET system, they'd still want to discourage people using a setup that's not meant for a lot of incoming and outgoing traffic.

I 100 percent endorse this, and encourage people to try this and report back. :evilgrin:
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on April 11, 2019, 10:50:38 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 10, 2019, 11:23:01 PM
There's an entrance to the Charlton EB service area from US 20.  There is no gate; just a sign saying Authorized Parking Only and No Trailers.  There's even an LGS pointing you to it.  However, you'd have to jump a couple curbs, drive over the grass, or crash through a gate to get on the Pike.
The entrance to Charlton EB service area from US 20 is there to allow locals access to the Registry of Motor Vehicles office in the plaza without having to use the Pike.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 11, 2019, 10:58:03 AM
Quote from: roadman on April 11, 2019, 10:50:38 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 10, 2019, 11:23:01 PM
There's an entrance to the Charlton EB service area from US 20.  There is no gate; just a sign saying Authorized Parking Only and No Trailers.  There's even an LGS pointing you to it.  However, you'd have to jump a couple curbs, drive over the grass, or crash through a gate to get on the Pike.
The entrance to Charlton EB service area from US 20 is there to allow locals access to the Registry of Motor Vehicles office in the plaza without having to use the Pike.

It's been there for decades,before the Registry was there, and after it closed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 02, 2019, 01:49:51 PM
Does anyone know the age of these granite directional markers scattered around the metro west area?  Or how far they range, or who put them there?

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190502/413bb3f83ec8058aca749be53465652f.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 02, 2019, 02:45:11 PM
Here is another, in Sudbury.  I think the previous one is also in Sudbury, but I see them in Maynard, Concord, that general area.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190502/0e0e0585208f6606a00f8e730da378e4.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on May 11, 2019, 10:34:04 AM
MassDOT blog post about upcoming second phase of lane closures on US 1 due to Tobin Bridge reconstruction:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/travel-advisory-tobin-bridgechelsea-curves-rehabilitation-project/?hootPostID=eb53f446749f2bda4b529406a1eff051 (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/travel-advisory-tobin-bridgechelsea-curves-rehabilitation-project/?hootPostID=eb53f446749f2bda4b529406a1eff051)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on May 13, 2019, 03:50:43 PM
As of this morning, the former HOV lane on I-93 southbound through Somerville and Charlestown is no more.  It's now an express lane, bypassing the Sullivan Square and Storrow Drive exits and open to all traffic.  The reflectorized barriers (which took a severe beating every winter) between the HOV and regular lanes were taken down last week on the portion of 93 before the "lower deck."  They're still up from the police pull-out to the beginning of the concrete median ahead of the Zakim Bridge.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: deathtopumpkins on May 13, 2019, 05:20:39 PM
Confirmed - signage now calls it an "Express Lane" with no mention of HOV.

Will try and snag a picture from my dashcam later this week when it's not dark and raining.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on May 13, 2019, 05:47:26 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 13, 2019, 03:50:43 PM
As of this morning, the former HOV lane on I-93 southbound through Somerville and Charlestown is no more.  It's now an express lane, bypassing the Sullivan Square and Storrow Drive exits and open to all traffic.  The reflectorized barriers (which took a severe beating every winter) between the HOV and regular lanes were taken down last week on the portion of 93 before the "lower deck."  They're still up from the police pull-out to the beginning of the concrete median ahead of the Zakim Bridge.
This is only for the duration of the Tobin Bridge/Chelsea Curves reconstruction project, from the MassDOT blog post linked above:
"In order to accommodate travelers during this necessary construction work, MassDOT is opening the I-93 southbound carpool lane between Medford and the Zakim Bridge to all vehicles regardless of the number of occupants. This lane will continue to function as an "express lane"  and vehicles in this lane on I-93 southbound will not have access to Exit 28 (Mystic Avenue) or Exit 26 (Storrow Drive)."
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on May 14, 2019, 02:35:27 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 13, 2019, 05:47:26 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 13, 2019, 03:50:43 PM
As of this morning, the former HOV lane on I-93 southbound through Somerville and Charlestown is no more.  It's now an express lane, bypassing the Sullivan Square and Storrow Drive exits and open to all traffic.  The reflectorized barriers (which took a severe beating every winter) between the HOV and regular lanes were taken down last week on the portion of 93 before the "lower deck."  They're still up from the police pull-out to the beginning of the concrete median ahead of the Zakim Bridge.
This is only for the duration of the Tobin Bridge/Chelsea Curves reconstruction project, from the MassDOT blog post linked above:
"In order to accommodate travelers during this necessary construction work, MassDOT is opening the I-93 southbound carpool lane between Medford and the Zakim Bridge to all vehicles regardless of the number of occupants. This lane will continue to function as an "express lane"  and vehicles in this lane on I-93 southbound will not have access to Exit 28 (Mystic Avenue) or Exit 26 (Storrow Drive)."

I wish they would leave it to what they changed it to permanently. Maybe they will if they get feedback that it should stay.

An express lane bypassing the traffic due to the 2 exits is much more valuable than an HOV lane. Many people can't use the HOV lane anyways since a lot of traffic exits at those 2 exits. However, a single occupant vehicle has to sit in that traffic instead of bypassing it. Maybe they'll figure out that this is a net benefit, or better yet nuke the whole lane and possibly squeeze another lane into the already existing deck.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on May 15, 2019, 08:06:33 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 14, 2019, 02:35:27 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 13, 2019, 05:47:26 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 13, 2019, 03:50:43 PM
As of this morning, the former HOV lane on I-93 southbound through Somerville and Charlestown is no more.  It's now an express lane, bypassing the Sullivan Square and Storrow Drive exits and open to all traffic.  The reflectorized barriers (which took a severe beating every winter) between the HOV and regular lanes were taken down last week on the portion of 93 before the "lower deck."  They're still up from the police pull-out to the beginning of the concrete median ahead of the Zakim Bridge.
This is only for the duration of the Tobin Bridge/Chelsea Curves reconstruction project, from the MassDOT blog post linked above:
"In order to accommodate travelers during this necessary construction work, MassDOT is opening the I-93 southbound carpool lane between Medford and the Zakim Bridge to all vehicles regardless of the number of occupants. This lane will continue to function as an “express lane” and vehicles in this lane on I-93 southbound will not have access to Exit 28 (Mystic Avenue) or Exit 26 (Storrow Drive)."

I wish they would leave it to what they changed it to permanently. Maybe they will if they get feedback that it should stay.

An express lane bypassing the traffic due to the 2 exits is much more valuable than an HOV lane. Many people can't use the HOV lane anyways since a lot of traffic exits at those 2 exits. However, a single occupant vehicle has to sit in that traffic instead of bypassing it. Maybe they'll figure out that this is a net benefit, or better yet nuke the whole lane and possibly squeeze another lane into the already existing deck.

Having navigated the new express lane for three days now:  Traffic is flowing LOTS better, even in the non-express lanes, judging by the average speed of traffic and confirmed using the GoTime signs.  With the HOV restrictions in place, travel time from the beginning of the HOV lane to the Zakim Bridge (three miles) was typically 9 minutes at the time I'm there every work day, between 6:30 and 6:45AM.  Now, with the express lane, it's typically 6 minutes.  The traffic volume does not appear to have changed, but the addition of the express lane has considerably improved the traffic flow.

The suggestion to make this arrangement permanent has merit, IMO.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on May 21, 2019, 06:13:36 PM
MassDOT has released its Draft 2020-2024 STIP document. Newly funded sign replacement projects scheduled for 2024 start include:
MA 128 Peabody to Gloucester  $1.9M
MA 146 Uxbridge to Worcester  $1.1M
I-195/I-495 Dartmouth to Raynham  $8.1M
There is no listing for any milepost based exit number conversion project.

The Draft STIP document is available at: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/05/21/FFY20_24STIP.pdf (https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/05/21/FFY20_24STIP.pdf)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJ Particle on May 22, 2019, 06:03:56 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 21, 2019, 06:13:36 PM
There is no listing for any milepost based exit number conversion project.

I hate Cape Cod NIMBYs....   :angry:
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on May 22, 2019, 08:45:31 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on May 22, 2019, 06:03:56 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 21, 2019, 06:13:36 PM
There is no listing for any milepost based exit number conversion project.

I hate Cape Cod NIMBYs....   :angry:
No kidding.  I handed out the FMIS authorization in my office when MassDOT requested the funding for the switchover (with HSIP funding, no less, which was very interesting since FHWA's NY Division was being overly strict about that program's use at the time).  Having MassDOT do a 180 due to public opposition made me scream.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on May 22, 2019, 10:44:21 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 21, 2019, 06:13:36 PM
MassDOT has released its Draft 2020-2024 STIP document. Newly funded sign replacement projects scheduled for 2024 start include:
MA 128 Peabody to Gloucester  $1.9M
Many signs along that stretch of 128 are fairly recent; particularly from Beverly/Wenham up to Grant Circle (MA 127/Exit 11) in Gloucester.  The only areas that still have pockets of 90s or older vintage signs are Peabody/Danvers/Beverly; mainly from Exit 19 (Sohier Rd./Brimball Ave.) and southwestward.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on May 22, 2019, 11:28:59 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 22, 2019, 10:44:21 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 21, 2019, 06:13:36 PM
MassDOT has released its Draft 2020-2024 STIP document. Newly funded sign replacement projects scheduled for 2024 start include:
MA 128 Peabody to Gloucester  $1.9M
Many signs along that stretch of 128 are fairly recent; particularly from Beverly/Wenham up to Grant Circle (MA 127/Exit 11) in Gloucester.  The only areas that still have pockets of 90s or older vintage signs are Peabody/Danvers/Beverly; mainly from Exit 19 (Sohier Rd./Brimball Ave.) and southwestward.
Most of the Route 128 signs between Lowell Street and Grant Circle, with the exception of Route 114 to Route 62, were last updated in 2004.  MassDOT typically allows for a 18 to 20 year cycle of replacing freeway sign panels, so the date of this new project makes sense.  Note that this project will be panels only.  The signs at Route 35 and Route 62 were replaced as part of the recent interchange reconfigurations, and the signs between Route 114 and Endicott Street will be replaced as part of a separate project to redo the bridge over the Waters River, which will include some minor widening to allow for a third lane between Route 114 and Endicott Street each way.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 22, 2019, 12:16:09 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on May 22, 2019, 06:03:56 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 21, 2019, 06:13:36 PM
There is no listing for any milepost based exit number conversion project.

I hate Cape Cod NIMBYs....   :angry:
I'm bummed they replaced all the signs on the Mid-Cape.  They could've issued residents an ultimatum; say "yes" to mile-based exits or you'll be stuck with non-reflective, peeling signs.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on May 22, 2019, 12:43:55 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 22, 2019, 12:16:09 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on May 22, 2019, 06:03:56 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 21, 2019, 06:13:36 PM
There is no listing for any milepost based exit number conversion project.

I hate Cape Cod NIMBYs....   :angry:
I'm bummed they replaced all the signs on the Mid-Cape.  They could've issued residents an ultimatum; say "yes" to mile-based exits or you'll be stuck with non-reflective, peeling signs.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on May 22, 2019, 01:26:57 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 22, 2019, 11:28:59 AM
Most of the Route 128 signs between Lowell Street and Grant Circle, with the exception of Route 114 to Route 62, were last updated in 2004.
I didn't know that those newer signs were that old.  Such still look in great shape IMHO.

Quote from: roadman on May 22, 2019, 11:28:59 AM...the signs between Route 114 and Endicott Street will be replaced as part of a separate project to redo the bridge over the Waters River, which will include some minor widening to allow for a third lane between Route 114 and Endicott Street each way.
That widening's a long time coming.  Although such will make cemetery entrance (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5448606,-70.9361112,3a,75y,19.93h,73.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sw2yzVlPARhbOWmprnGMRVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) along the northbound lanes very interesting*.

*to be read in Arte Johnson/Wolfgang voice.

Edit to add:

Will this widening also mean that the Endicott St. overpass (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5486656,-70.9364817,3a,75y,354.26h,73.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYeitsecMfCZZh3CUknZ5bg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DYeitsecMfCZZh3CUknZ5bg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D287.36438%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) will be replaced as well?  The openings underneath the current structure don't appear wide enough to accommodate the additional two lanes.

The other option would be to convert the half-cloverleaf into a diamond interchange (is that indeed the plan?).  That way the additional lanes/lead-in ramps between the Endicott St. and MA 114 Westbound won't impact the overpass structure.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on May 24, 2019, 12:33:10 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2019, 08:45:31 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on May 22, 2019, 06:03:56 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 21, 2019, 06:13:36 PM
There is no listing for any milepost based exit number conversion project.

I hate Cape Cod NIMBYs....   :angry:
No kidding.  I handed out the FMIS authorization in my office when MassDOT requested the funding for the switchover (with HSIP funding, no less, which was very interesting since FHWA's NY Division was being overly strict about that program's use at the time).  Having MassDOT do a 180 due to public opposition made me scream.

(personal opinion emphasized)

So government listening to the will of the public is a bad thing?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on May 24, 2019, 07:33:19 AM
Quote from: mass_citizen on May 24, 2019, 12:33:10 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 22, 2019, 08:45:31 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on May 22, 2019, 06:03:56 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 21, 2019, 06:13:36 PM
There is no listing for any milepost based exit number conversion project.

I hate Cape Cod NIMBYs....   :angry:
No kidding.  I handed out the FMIS authorization in my office when MassDOT requested the funding for the switchover (with HSIP funding, no less, which was very interesting since FHWA's NY Division was being overly strict about that program's use at the time).  Having MassDOT do a 180 due to public opposition made me scream.

(personal opinion emphasized)

So government listening to the will of the public is a bad thing?

It was a vocal minority, and the Cape shouldn't affect the whole state.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on May 24, 2019, 09:02:59 AM
Quote from: 1 on May 24, 2019, 07:33:19 AMIt was a vocal minority, and the Cape shouldn't affect the whole state.
That's just it.  IMHO, MassDOT could've very easily proceeded with the changes along other highways (I would've started with the Interstates first) and revisited the changes for Mid-Cape Highway (US 6) later on... i.e. save it for last.  After seeing that the changes elsewhere didn't create The End of the World As We Know It (apologies to R.E.M.).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on May 24, 2019, 09:34:00 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 24, 2019, 09:02:59 AM
Quote from: 1 on May 24, 2019, 07:33:19 AMIt was a vocal minority, and the Cape shouldn't affect the whole state.
That's just it.  IMHO, MassDOT could've very easily proceeded with the changes along other highways (I would've started with the Interstates first) and revisited the changes for Mid-Cape Highway (US 6) later on... i.e. save it for last.  After seeing that the changes elsewhere didn't create The End of the World As We Know It (apologies to R.E.M.).
Darn right.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 24, 2019, 11:36:45 AM
This is the first comprehensive study to fix Cape traffic I've ever seen
https://www.boston.com/cars/local-news/2019/05/23/cape-cod-traffic-plan-massdot/amp (https://www.boston.com/cars/local-news/2019/05/23/cape-cod-traffic-plan-massdot/amp)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on May 24, 2019, 08:08:00 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 24, 2019, 09:02:59 AM
Quote from: 1 on May 24, 2019, 07:33:19 AMIt was a vocal minority, and the Cape shouldn't affect the whole state.
That's just it.  IMHO, MassDOT could've very easily proceeded with the changes along other highways (I would've started with the Interstates first) and revisited the changes for Mid-Cape Highway (US 6) later on... i.e. save it for last.  After seeing that the changes elsewhere didn't create The End of the World As We Know It (apologies to R.E.M.).

It would even follow precedent from other states (e.g., Pennsylvania going mileage-based on Interstates but not other roads).  Mass needs to go ahead and do it, starting with the Pike.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on May 24, 2019, 09:10:31 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 24, 2019, 11:36:45 AM
This is the first comprehensive study to fix Cape traffic I've ever seen
https://www.boston.com/cars/local-news/2019/05/23/cape-cod-traffic-plan-massdot/amp (https://www.boston.com/cars/local-news/2019/05/23/cape-cod-traffic-plan-massdot/amp)

Good grief it's bad enough on signs, but now on official plans they can't get what's a state route and what's a US route right? Usually US routes get relegated, its refreshing to see a state route get upgraded for once...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 24, 2019, 10:09:11 PM
That whole project will be a PITA since the bridges are Federal property.  I dread a situation where MassDOT acts but the ACoE does nothing.

BTW any full-build option in the study was dead on arrival due to environmental concerns.  Personally I would also like to see these things happen:

-Widening of western portion of US 6 from 10' to 12' lanes.  Add full shoulder.
-Lengthening of acceleration areas on all on-ramps
-Temporary "Stop" signs or metered ramps at Exits 10-12, in operation Memorial Day through Columbus Day
-Addition of half-mile long "passing areas" along the super-2 portion of US 6.
-Relocation of Exit 6 service area to median strip just east of current location.
-Add climbing lane west of Exit 6.
-During major traffic incidents, re-route traffic onto Service Rd.  Construct new cut-aways to it.
-Formal adoption of a contraflow plan for storm evacuation
-Decommission MA 25 and make it I-495 instead.  Having a primary SR number on a short freeway makes no sense.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 24, 2019, 11:25:29 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 24, 2019, 10:09:11 PM
-Decommission MA 25 and make it I-495 instead.  Having a primary SR number on a short freeway makes no sense.

Perhaps MassDOT should take a page from the NYSDOT playbook and renumber MA 25 as MA 495.  The only reason MA 25 exists is that it was the original number for I-495 south of I-95 in Mansfield.  Not often that a child route intersects with and then continues past its parent (not counting the new I-95/I-295 crossing in NJ).  I-476 and I-390 are a couple others, and then there's the rare duplex with the parent a la I-287 (which was planned when I-87 followed I-684 then I-84 to Newburgh instead of the Thruway),
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on May 24, 2019, 11:52:19 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 24, 2019, 11:25:29 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 24, 2019, 10:09:11 PM
-Decommission MA 25 and make it I-495 instead.  Having a primary SR number on a short freeway makes no sense.

Perhaps MassDOT should take a page from the NYSDOT playbook and renumber MA 25 as MA 495.  The only reason MA 25 exists is that it was the original number for I-495 south of I-95 in Mansfield.  Not often that a child route intersects with and then continues past its parent (not counting the new I-95/I-295 crossing in NJ).  I-476 and I-390 are a couple others, and then there's the rare duplex with the parent a la I-287 (which was planned when I-87 followed I-684 then I-84 to Newburgh instead of the Thruway),

For ease of exit numbering, if they do not ever go mileage-based and the existing numbers stay, making 25 become part of 195 would be an alternative that would make sense because the numbers would count upward on the extension instead of having to renumber everything on the existing 495.  On the other hand, if Mass goes mileage-based, extending 495 to the Canal would be an ideal time to renumber and extend all at once, but FHWA wanting Interstates to end at other Interstates probably would not allow either to be extended anyway.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 25, 2019, 12:08:53 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on May 24, 2019, 11:52:19 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 24, 2019, 11:25:29 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 24, 2019, 10:09:11 PM
-Decommission MA 25 and make it I-495 instead.  Having a primary SR number on a short freeway makes no sense.

Perhaps MassDOT should take a page from the NYSDOT playbook and renumber MA 25 as MA 495.  The only reason MA 25 exists is that it was the original number for I-495 south of I-95 in Mansfield.  Not often that a child route intersects with and then continues past its parent (not counting the new I-95/I-295 crossing in NJ).  I-476 and I-390 are a couple others, and then there's the rare duplex with the parent a la I-287 (which was planned when I-87 followed I-684 then I-84 to Newburgh instead of the Thruway),

For ease of exit numbering, if they do not ever go mileage-based and the existing numbers stay, making 25 become part of 195 would be an alternative that would make sense because the numbers would count upward on the extension instead of having to renumber everything on the existing 495.  On the other hand, if Mass goes mileage-based, extending 495 to the Canal would be an ideal time to renumber and extend all at once, but FHWA wanting Interstates to end at other Interstates probably would not allow either to be extended anyway.

Renumbering it as MA 495 and signing it East-West could alleviate having to re-milepost I-495.  Even leaving it as MA 25, I have I-195 as Exit 1 because it falls within the 0-1 MP of both I-495 and MA 25 heading out in opposite directions.  The same thing would happen in NJ with an Exit 0 for the NJTP at the I-287/NJ 440 transition point if NJ 440 were ever given exit numbers.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 25, 2019, 03:16:41 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 24, 2019, 11:25:29 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 24, 2019, 10:09:11 PM
-Decommission MA 25 and make it I-495 instead.  Having a primary SR number on a short freeway makes no sense.

Perhaps MassDOT should take a page from the NYSDOT playbook and renumber MA 25 as MA 495.  The only reason MA 25 exists is that it was the original number for I-495 south of I-95 in Mansfield.  Not often that a child route intersects with and then continues past its parent (not counting the new I-95/I-295 crossing in NJ).  I-476 and I-390 are a couple others, and then there's the rare duplex with the parent a la I-287 (which was planned when I-87 followed I-684 then I-84 to Newburgh instead of the Thruway),
Why would you do that when the highway is built to Interstate standards?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on May 25, 2019, 04:15:48 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on May 24, 2019, 11:52:19 PM
For ease of exit numbering, if they do not ever go mileage-based and the existing numbers stay, making 25 become part of 195 would be an alternative that would make sense because the numbers would count upward on the extension instead of having to renumber everything on the existing 495.  On the other hand, if Mass goes mileage-based, extending 495 to the Canal would be an ideal time to renumber and extend all at once, but FHWA wanting Interstates to end at other Interstates probably would not allow either to be extended anyway.
I like this idea.  It would still end at a US route and one of the bridges to Cape Cod, so I would think it would be a logical exception.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 27, 2019, 04:36:34 PM
One of three button copy BGS that are related to the Mass Pike.  All pics taken within the last month or so.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47937989656_832c386997_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2g37Jc3)

The others:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7872/47494111751_1f7b2d534f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fmTJKH)


(https://live.staticflickr.com/7805/46759791984_6eac45ac32_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ef1a55)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on May 28, 2019, 11:39:25 PM
Other than the couple other entrance signs around Boston, that might be it. I know the CT-style 33 is gone.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on May 29, 2019, 01:20:17 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 27, 2019, 04:36:34 PM

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7872/47494111751_1f7b2d534f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fmTJKH)


I know exactly where this one is, and I thought it was endangered when I still lived in that area thirteen years ago. I think the only thing that's saving it is that it's on a town maintained road, not a state maintained road. AFAIK it's the last one of this style left in the state once the one in Lee was taken down for the AET project.

The ones on the I-91-US 5 connector ramps in Holyoke are doomed, though, pretty sure they're on deck to be replaced soon.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on May 29, 2019, 07:32:53 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 28, 2019, 11:39:25 PM
Other than the couple other entrance signs around Boston, that might be it. I know the CT-style 33 is gone.

It's actually still there.  The world's longest ongoing sign replacement contract is not complete and must be saving this one for last.  I was through there earlier this week and the westbound assembly with the button copy signs for MA-33 and I-291 is still in place.  A new gantry has been installed just a few feet behind the old one last fall, but the new signs were never attached and are still MIA.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on May 29, 2019, 11:46:56 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on May 29, 2019, 07:32:53 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 28, 2019, 11:39:25 PM
Other than the couple other entrance signs around Boston, that might be it. I know the CT-style 33 is gone.

It's actually still there.  The world's longest ongoing sign replacement contract is not complete and must be saving this one for last.  I was through there earlier this week and the westbound assembly with the button copy signs for MA-33 and I-291 is still in place.  A new gantry has been installed just a few feet behind the old one last fall, but the new signs were never attached and are still MIA.

That's funny because someone told me they saw it being taken down. They must have seen the new sign go up and assumed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 30, 2019, 09:34:46 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 15, 2019, 08:06:33 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 14, 2019, 02:35:27 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 13, 2019, 05:47:26 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 13, 2019, 03:50:43 PM
As of this morning, the former HOV lane on I-93 southbound through Somerville and Charlestown is no more.  It's now an express lane, bypassing the Sullivan Square and Storrow Drive exits and open to all traffic.  The reflectorized barriers (which took a severe beating every winter) between the HOV and regular lanes were taken down last week on the portion of 93 before the "lower deck."  They're still up from the police pull-out to the beginning of the concrete median ahead of the Zakim Bridge.
This is only for the duration of the Tobin Bridge/Chelsea Curves reconstruction project, from the MassDOT blog post linked above:
"In order to accommodate travelers during this necessary construction work, MassDOT is opening the I-93 southbound carpool lane between Medford and the Zakim Bridge to all vehicles regardless of the number of occupants. This lane will continue to function as an “express lane” and vehicles in this lane on I-93 southbound will not have access to Exit 28 (Mystic Avenue) or Exit 26 (Storrow Drive)."

I wish they would leave it to what they changed it to permanently. Maybe they will if they get feedback that it should stay.

An express lane bypassing the traffic due to the 2 exits is much more valuable than an HOV lane. Many people can't use the HOV lane anyways since a lot of traffic exits at those 2 exits. However, a single occupant vehicle has to sit in that traffic instead of bypassing it. Maybe they'll figure out that this is a net benefit, or better yet nuke the whole lane and possibly squeeze another lane into the already existing deck.

Having navigated the new express lane for three days now:  Traffic is flowing LOTS better, even in the non-express lanes, judging by the average speed of traffic and confirmed using the GoTime signs.  With the HOV restrictions in place, travel time from the beginning of the HOV lane to the Zakim Bridge (three miles) was typically 9 minutes at the time I'm there every work day, between 6:30 and 6:45AM.  Now, with the express lane, it's typically 6 minutes.  The traffic volume does not appear to have changed, but the addition of the express lane has considerably improved the traffic flow.

The suggestion to make this arrangement permanent has merit, IMO.

I only need to drive into Boston about once a week, but I agree about the immediate improvement. I have even started skipping the Leverett Connector and going downtown and turning around to get to Storrow.

But I wonder if it is sustainable. Lots of people are still using the relatively slower left lane of 93, leading me to believe they don't know the express lane is open for all vehicles. I suspect once time passes and word gets out it will begin to fill up more.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mrsman on May 30, 2019, 11:55:54 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 30, 2019, 09:34:46 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 15, 2019, 08:06:33 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 14, 2019, 02:35:27 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 13, 2019, 05:47:26 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 13, 2019, 03:50:43 PM
As of this morning, the former HOV lane on I-93 southbound through Somerville and Charlestown is no more.  It's now an express lane, bypassing the Sullivan Square and Storrow Drive exits and open to all traffic.  The reflectorized barriers (which took a severe beating every winter) between the HOV and regular lanes were taken down last week on the portion of 93 before the "lower deck."  They're still up from the police pull-out to the beginning of the concrete median ahead of the Zakim Bridge.
This is only for the duration of the Tobin Bridge/Chelsea Curves reconstruction project, from the MassDOT blog post linked above:
"In order to accommodate travelers during this necessary construction work, MassDOT is opening the I-93 southbound carpool lane between Medford and the Zakim Bridge to all vehicles regardless of the number of occupants. This lane will continue to function as an "express lane"  and vehicles in this lane on I-93 southbound will not have access to Exit 28 (Mystic Avenue) or Exit 26 (Storrow Drive)."

I wish they would leave it to what they changed it to permanently. Maybe they will if they get feedback that it should stay.

An express lane bypassing the traffic due to the 2 exits is much more valuable than an HOV lane. Many people can't use the HOV lane anyways since a lot of traffic exits at those 2 exits. However, a single occupant vehicle has to sit in that traffic instead of bypassing it. Maybe they'll figure out that this is a net benefit, or better yet nuke the whole lane and possibly squeeze another lane into the already existing deck.

Having navigated the new express lane for three days now:  Traffic is flowing LOTS better, even in the non-express lanes, judging by the average speed of traffic and confirmed using the GoTime signs.  With the HOV restrictions in place, travel time from the beginning of the HOV lane to the Zakim Bridge (three miles) was typically 9 minutes at the time I'm there every work day, between 6:30 and 6:45AM.  Now, with the express lane, it's typically 6 minutes.  The traffic volume does not appear to have changed, but the addition of the express lane has considerably improved the traffic flow.

The suggestion to make this arrangement permanent has merit, IMO.

I only need to drive into Boston about once a week, but I agree about the immediate improvement. I have even started skipping the Leverett Connector and going downtown and turning around to get to Storrow.

But I wonder if it is sustainable. Lots of people are still using the relatively slower left lane of 93, leading me to believe they don't know the express lane is open for all vehicles. I suspect once time passes and word gets out it will begin to fill up more.

Generally speaking, converting an HOV lane to general traffic improves the flow for all users.  The only question is whether giving everybody a small benefit is better than giving the preferred user (i.e. HOVs) a huge benefit.  The thinking is that if you encourage more people to carpool, there will be less overall cars.  However, I am not sure that HOV is working as it was intended in the Boston area.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 30, 2019, 05:10:18 PM
Quote from: mrsman on May 30, 2019, 11:55:54 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 30, 2019, 09:34:46 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 15, 2019, 08:06:33 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 14, 2019, 02:35:27 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 13, 2019, 05:47:26 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 13, 2019, 03:50:43 PM
As of this morning, the former HOV lane on I-93 southbound through Somerville and Charlestown is no more.  It's now an express lane, bypassing the Sullivan Square and Storrow Drive exits and open to all traffic.  The reflectorized barriers (which took a severe beating every winter) between the HOV and regular lanes were taken down last week on the portion of 93 before the "lower deck."  They're still up from the police pull-out to the beginning of the concrete median ahead of the Zakim Bridge.
This is only for the duration of the Tobin Bridge/Chelsea Curves reconstruction project, from the MassDOT blog post linked above:
"In order to accommodate travelers during this necessary construction work, MassDOT is opening the I-93 southbound carpool lane between Medford and the Zakim Bridge to all vehicles regardless of the number of occupants. This lane will continue to function as an "express lane"  and vehicles in this lane on I-93 southbound will not have access to Exit 28 (Mystic Avenue) or Exit 26 (Storrow Drive)."

I wish they would leave it to what they changed it to permanently. Maybe they will if they get feedback that it should stay.

An express lane bypassing the traffic due to the 2 exits is much more valuable than an HOV lane. Many people can't use the HOV lane anyways since a lot of traffic exits at those 2 exits. However, a single occupant vehicle has to sit in that traffic instead of bypassing it. Maybe they'll figure out that this is a net benefit, or better yet nuke the whole lane and possibly squeeze another lane into the already existing deck.

Having navigated the new express lane for three days now:  Traffic is flowing LOTS better, even in the non-express lanes, judging by the average speed of traffic and confirmed using the GoTime signs.  With the HOV restrictions in place, travel time from the beginning of the HOV lane to the Zakim Bridge (three miles) was typically 9 minutes at the time I'm there every work day, between 6:30 and 6:45AM.  Now, with the express lane, it's typically 6 minutes.  The traffic volume does not appear to have changed, but the addition of the express lane has considerably improved the traffic flow.

The suggestion to make this arrangement permanent has merit, IMO.

I only need to drive into Boston about once a week, but I agree about the immediate improvement. I have even started skipping the Leverett Connector and going downtown and turning around to get to Storrow.

But I wonder if it is sustainable. Lots of people are still using the relatively slower left lane of 93, leading me to believe they don't know the express lane is open for all vehicles. I suspect once time passes and word gets out it will begin to fill up more.

Generally speaking, converting an HOV lane to general traffic improves the flow for all users.  The only question is whether giving everybody a small benefit is better than giving the preferred user (i.e. HOVs) a huge benefit.  The thinking is that if you encourage more people to carpool, there will be less overall cars.  However, I am not sure that HOV is working as it was intended in the Boston area.

The complaints I read online are from express bus users.  It'll be interesting to see how those are affected in the long run. But right now, they're probably getting into the city pretty well.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 04, 2019, 10:43:09 AM
Quote from: mrsman on May 30, 2019, 11:55:54 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 30, 2019, 09:34:46 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 15, 2019, 08:06:33 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 14, 2019, 02:35:27 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 13, 2019, 05:47:26 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on May 13, 2019, 03:50:43 PM
As of this morning, the former HOV lane on I-93 southbound through Somerville and Charlestown is no more.  It's now an express lane, bypassing the Sullivan Square and Storrow Drive exits and open to all traffic.  The reflectorized barriers (which took a severe beating every winter) between the HOV and regular lanes were taken down last week on the portion of 93 before the "lower deck."  They're still up from the police pull-out to the beginning of the concrete median ahead of the Zakim Bridge.
This is only for the duration of the Tobin Bridge/Chelsea Curves reconstruction project, from the MassDOT blog post linked above:
"In order to accommodate travelers during this necessary construction work, MassDOT is opening the I-93 southbound carpool lane between Medford and the Zakim Bridge to all vehicles regardless of the number of occupants. This lane will continue to function as an "express lane"  and vehicles in this lane on I-93 southbound will not have access to Exit 28 (Mystic Avenue) or Exit 26 (Storrow Drive)."

I wish they would leave it to what they changed it to permanently. Maybe they will if they get feedback that it should stay.

An express lane bypassing the traffic due to the 2 exits is much more valuable than an HOV lane. Many people can't use the HOV lane anyways since a lot of traffic exits at those 2 exits. However, a single occupant vehicle has to sit in that traffic instead of bypassing it. Maybe they'll figure out that this is a net benefit, or better yet nuke the whole lane and possibly squeeze another lane into the already existing deck.

Having navigated the new express lane for three days now:  Traffic is flowing LOTS better, even in the non-express lanes, judging by the average speed of traffic and confirmed using the GoTime signs.  With the HOV restrictions in place, travel time from the beginning of the HOV lane to the Zakim Bridge (three miles) was typically 9 minutes at the time I'm there every work day, between 6:30 and 6:45AM.  Now, with the express lane, it's typically 6 minutes.  The traffic volume does not appear to have changed, but the addition of the express lane has considerably improved the traffic flow.

The suggestion to make this arrangement permanent has merit, IMO.

I only need to drive into Boston about once a week, but I agree about the immediate improvement. I have even started skipping the Leverett Connector and going downtown and turning around to get to Storrow.

But I wonder if it is sustainable. Lots of people are still using the relatively slower left lane of 93, leading me to believe they don't know the express lane is open for all vehicles. I suspect once time passes and word gets out it will begin to fill up more.

Generally speaking, converting an HOV lane to general traffic improves the flow for all users.  The only question is whether giving everybody a small benefit is better than giving the preferred user (i.e. HOVs) a huge benefit.  The thinking is that if you encourage more people to carpool, there will be less overall cars.  However, I am not sure that HOV is working as it was intended in the Boston area.

Another thing that occurred to me is that it's quite possible these lanes are written into law as part of the state's implementation plan under the Clean Air Act. If that's the case, a permanent removal would require study and EPA approval.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on June 04, 2019, 11:07:46 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 04, 2019, 10:43:09 AM
Another thing that occurred to me is that it’s quite possible these lanes are written into law as part of the state’s implementation plan under the Clean Air Act. If that’s the case, a permanent removal would require study and EPA approval.

You would be correct.  Back when the Zakim Bridge was first opened to traffic, MassHighway had to relocate the entrance to the lane to just south of Mystic Avenue.  As the south end of the lane was shortened to account for the Lower Deck to Zakim transition, the north end had to be extended to maintain the total HOV lane length as stipulated in the Clean Air Act agreement.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ben114 on June 21, 2019, 11:32:34 AM
On 495 today, found some new pull-through signs at the 140 exit in Mansfield (exits 11-12). Wasn't able to get a picture, but the signs have only one destination, Cape Cod SB / Marlboro NB
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on June 21, 2019, 12:05:42 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on June 21, 2019, 11:32:34 AM
On 495 today, found some new pull-through signs at the 140 exit in Mansfield (exits 11-12). Wasn't able to get a picture, but the signs have only one destination, Cape Cod SB / Marlboro NB
I believe somebody on Facebook posted pics of some of those new signs in that area and such indeed confirms those single control points for I-495.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: CapeCodder on July 08, 2019, 06:40:16 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 22, 2019, 01:26:57 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 22, 2019, 11:28:59 AM
Most of the Route 128 signs between Lowell Street and Grant Circle, with the exception of Route 114 to Route 62, were last updated in 2004.
I didn't know that those newer signs were that old.  Such still look in great shape IMHO.

Quote from: roadman on May 22, 2019, 11:28:59 AM...the signs between Route 114 and Endicott Street will be replaced as part of a separate project to redo the bridge over the Waters River, which will include some minor widening to allow for a third lane between Route 114 and Endicott Street each way.
That widening's a long time coming.  Although such will make cemetery entrance (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5448606,-70.9361112,3a,75y,19.93h,73.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sw2yzVlPARhbOWmprnGMRVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) along the northbound lanes very interesting*.

*to be read in Arte Johnson/Wolfgang voice.

Edit to add:

Will this widening also mean that the Endicott St. overpass (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5486656,-70.9364817,3a,75y,354.26h,73.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYeitsecMfCZZh3CUknZ5bg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DYeitsecMfCZZh3CUknZ5bg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D287.36438%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) will be replaced as well?  The openings underneath the current structure don't appear wide enough to accommodate the additional two lanes.

The other option would be to convert the half-cloverleaf into a diamond interchange (is that indeed the plan?).  That way the additional lanes/lead-in ramps between the Endicott St. and MA 114 Westbound won't impact the overpass structure.

That's the ONLY way into the cemetery too. You'd be driving along and "oops, gotta make a funeral pit stop."
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 30, 2019, 11:56:31 PM
MassDOT has posted its new 2019 Transportation Map on its website: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/04/05/State%20Map%202019.pdf (https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/04/05/State%20Map%202019.pdf)

Not very impressed with their US route shields, nor circle shields for state routes. They do have mileage based exit numbers posted, for I-395 in CT, but not for I-295 or RI 4 in RI. The Boston inset could use more route numbers besides those on expressways. Maybe they thought the numbers would be confused with those marking points of interest.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 31, 2019, 09:00:18 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 30, 2019, 11:56:31 PM
MassDOT has posted its new 2019 Transportation Map on its website: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/04/05/State%20Map%202019.pdf (https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/04/05/State%20Map%202019.pdf)
Where can one get print versions of that map without going into Boston?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 31, 2019, 09:56:14 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 31, 2019, 09:00:18 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 30, 2019, 11:56:31 PM
MassDOT has posted its new 2019 Transportation Map on its website: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/04/05/State%20Map%202019.pdf (https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/04/05/State%20Map%202019.pdf)
Where can one get print versions of that map without going into Boston?

You can request printed copies of the 2019 State Transportation Map here:

https://www.mass.gov/forms/contact-massdot
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 31, 2019, 10:08:18 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 31, 2019, 09:56:14 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 31, 2019, 09:00:18 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 30, 2019, 11:56:31 PM
MassDOT has posted its new 2019 Transportation Map on its website: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/04/05/State%20Map%202019.pdf (https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/04/05/State%20Map%202019.pdf)
Where can one get print versions of that map without going into Boston?

You can request printed copies of the 2019 State Transportation Map here:

https://www.mass.gov/forms/contact-massdot
Thanks.  I just send in my request via that web-link.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: seicer on July 31, 2019, 12:34:16 PM
Can MassDOT and other entities finally finish repainting lines on the Mass Pike and other interstates? Some of the lines have faded out completely. Driving on I-90 through the Berkshires in the rain was difficult enough. Not having any painted lines for guidance - and plenty of broken reflectors made the drive miserable. Even worse - I was behind some paint trucks a month ago on the Pike, but it doesn't appear the project was ever finished. New paint lines come and go almost at random.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: noelbotevera on July 31, 2019, 02:38:18 PM
Some Massachusetts questions from last month, as an outsider:

-Why are US 3's mileposts artificially high? The freeway starts at (roughly) MP 15 but the first milepost is MP 72.4.
-Why are there service plazas on only MA 128 (and I-95)?
-Does Massachusetts post town line changes on freeways? I can tell when the town line changes based on overpasses, but I can't recall if town lines on freeways are signed.
-Where is the "Mass Turnpike Points West" sign? I couldn't find any button copy in the state.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 31, 2019, 02:54:43 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 31, 2019, 02:38:18 PM
Some Massachusetts questions from last month, as an outsider:

-Why are US 3's mileposts artificially high? The freeway starts at (roughly) MP 15 but the first milepost is MP 72.4.
US 3's mileage includes MA 3's mileage.  MassDOT views US/MA 3 as one route.

Quote from: noelbotevera on July 31, 2019, 02:38:18 PM
-Why are there service plazas on only MA 128 (and I-95)?
Those existed prior to I-95's rerouting onto MA 128 & hence were allowed to remain.  Prior to the Interstate highway system taking effect; it was not uncommon to have service plazas along free highways in Massachusetts.

Quote from: noelbotevera on July 31, 2019, 02:38:18 PM
-Does Massachusetts post town line changes on freeways? I can tell when the town line changes based on overpasses, but I can't recall if town lines on freeways are signed.
Yes they do, but the signs tend to be small... except for the ones along the Mass Pike (I-90).

Quote from: noelbotevera on July 31, 2019, 02:38:18 PM
-Where is the "Mass Turnpike Points West" sign? I couldn't find any button copy in the state.
In Boston, along Trinity Place (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3481602,-71.0751099,3a,75y,237.57h,76.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-Wg4Jpvwv8TOotImxyqGqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) off Clarendon St. (MA 28)

As far as button-copy signs are concerned; such is becoming more rarer in the Bay State.
Here's this gem (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3491823,-71.0772173,3a,75y,233.95h,74.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPYHrEqTaIHA3a9Cd6zO_xA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) at Copley Square in Boston.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on August 05, 2019, 01:29:10 PM
Quote from: seicer on July 31, 2019, 12:34:16 PM
Can MassDOT and other entities finally finish repainting lines on the Mass Pike and other interstates? Some of the lines have faded out completely. Driving on I-90 through the Berkshires in the rain was difficult enough. Not having any painted lines for guidance - and plenty of broken reflectors made the drive miserable. Even worse - I was behind some paint trucks a month ago on the Pike, but it doesn't appear the project was ever finished. New paint lines come and go almost at random.

The state only appears to restripe freeways when they're resurfaced. God help you if you were driving on 290 from Auburn to Worcester in the past few years and wanted any kind of lane stripes; thankfully it's being resurfaced as we speak.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on August 06, 2019, 11:41:58 AM
MassDOT is permanently closing the Clarendon Street on-ramp to I-90 (Mass Pike) West arguing that due to lower traffic counts vs. surrounding ramps and a higher accident rate that this will improve driver safety:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/boston-i-90-westbound-clarendon-street-on-ramp-closing-permanently/?hootPostID=db9e7c67563a8a8bd421c7ef038173f5 (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/boston-i-90-westbound-clarendon-street-on-ramp-closing-permanently/?hootPostID=db9e7c67563a8a8bd421c7ef038173f5)
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 06, 2019, 03:09:31 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 31, 2019, 02:54:43 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 31, 2019, 02:38:18 PM
-Where is the "Mass Turnpike Points West" sign? I couldn't find any button copy in the state.
In Boston, along Trinity Place (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3481602,-71.0751099,3a,75y,237.57h,76.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-Wg4Jpvwv8TOotImxyqGqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) off Clarendon St. (MA 28)

Enjoy it while it lasts. This ramp closes for good 9/3 (honestly, I only remembered it was there about a month ago for the first time in years).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJ Particle on August 07, 2019, 04:33:41 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 31, 2019, 02:54:43 PMThose existed prior to I-95's rerouting onto MA 128 & hence were allowed to remain.  Prior to the Interstate highway system taking effect; it was not uncommon to have service plazas along free highways in Massachusetts.
I recall there used to be one on Southbound I-93 just north of the Braintree Split, but it closed in the 1980s.  I think there's also a pair of plazas on MA-24 just north of I-495.

...and then there's the sorta-plaza on US-6 at MA-132
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 07, 2019, 11:18:26 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on August 07, 2019, 04:33:41 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 31, 2019, 02:54:43 PMThose existed prior to I-95's rerouting onto MA 128 & hence were allowed to remain.  Prior to the Interstate highway system taking effect; it was not uncommon to have service plazas along free highways in Massachusetts.
I recall there used to be one on Southbound I-93 just north of the Braintree Split, but it closed in the 1980s.  I think there's also a pair of plazas on MA-24 just north of I-495.

...and then there's the sorta-plaza on US-6 at MA-132

The service plaza on I-93/Southeast Expressway southbound was just before the Braintree Split, and required traffic exiting the plaza to cross five lanes of traffic to access MA 3 south.  Because of this, it was closed in 1985 as a condition of MassDPW receiving Federal funding to reconstruct the Southeast Expressway.

The service plazas on Route 24 in Bridgewater/Raynham are still there.  To my knowledge, there have never been any significant issues with traffic entering or exiting the plazas, so they will likely be grandfathered in if and when Route 24 is eventually re-designated as an extension of I-93.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 07, 2019, 12:36:07 PM
How could that become part of I-93? Besides a ton of exit renumbering, what about the Current I-93 west of that exit?  :hmmm:
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 07, 2019, 01:47:52 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 07, 2019, 12:36:07 PM
How could that become part of I-93? Besides a ton of exit renumbering, what about the Current I-93 west of that exit?  :hmmm:

Extending I-93 down Route 24 to I-195 in Fall River has been discussed since the mid-1990s.  The biggest obstacle is not the need to re-number exits, but the fact that the roadway south of Raynham is not up to Interstate standards.  As for the short section of current I-93 between I-95 in Canton and Route 24 in Randolph, most likely it would not retain a number, but be signed as TO 95 westbound, and as TO 93 eastbound.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on August 07, 2019, 01:54:47 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 07, 2019, 01:47:52 PM
most likely it would not retain a number, but be signed as TO 95 westbound, and as TO 93 eastbound.

It's still US 1.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 07, 2019, 02:15:53 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 07, 2019, 01:54:47 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 07, 2019, 01:47:52 PM
most likely it would not retain a number, but be signed as TO 95 westbound, and as TO 93 eastbound.

It's still US 1.
Point taken.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on August 07, 2019, 09:07:20 PM
There is also the plaza on MA-3 southbound in Plymouth at Exit 5, which is also accessible from the cross road.  This one doesn't have a gas station, just food and a tourist info center.    Did this one ever have a gas station?

The only other one I can think of in Mass is the one in Beverly on 128 northbound.

At least being commercialized keeps these areas open.  Many of the normal rest areas on Mass highways are either entirely closed (I-195 EB in Swansea), or the parking is open but the restroom buildings are closed.  (I-95 NB in Mansfield, I-495 NB in Chelmsford, MA-25 EB near the Bourne Bridge)    This list doesn't count the many no facilities "parking areas" on MA highways. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on August 07, 2019, 09:43:40 PM
And to think the one in Mansfield used to be a very nice welcome center.  We used to stop there on the way to concerts at Great Woods.  Last time I stopped there a year or so ago, it was a disgrace... a row of portable toilets, trash everywhere, unkept landscaping.  Hideous. 

Connecticut reduced hours at its non-commercial rest areas for a few years, and just recently (last month) restored them to 24/7 operation.  They even restaffed the welcome centers throughout the state.  Rhode Island a couple years ago reopened its I-95 NB welcome center in Hopkinton after a few years-closure (and I have yet to determine why they haven't rebuilt the one on I-295 SB near Woonsocket.

Massachusetts by my count has only one on-highway welcome center that's still open (with flush toilets) and that's the one at the NH state line.  I believe I-495 SB Chelmsford and I-495 SB Haverhill are also open, but they're little more than vending machines and restrooms.  Dedham on I-95 SB is listed as a functioning rest area on the state's map online but I drove by it and its just port-o-lets as well.  An old (1960s-1970s?) Mass highway map showed a "new" welcome center on I-86 (today's I-84) in Sturbridge.  Today that's just a large parking area, and I never remember ever seeing a building there, at least from the 1990s, onward.  That didn't last long.

Now that neighboring states are putting out the welcome mat again, one would think Mass would do the same.... or at least find the funding to reopen perfectly good buildings and mow the lawn every now and then.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on August 07, 2019, 09:56:19 PM
The Welcome Center for I-86/84 was located off the highway, in the now-closed truck stop off Exit 1.   It's been gone for probably close to 20 years.  Sad considering this is a major entry point to the state.

The only other on-highway Info Center I can think of is on MA-2 westbound approaching Leominster.

There are two off-highway rest areas that are still open (on the mainland side of the Sagamore Bridge, and in Greenfield at the I-91/MA-2 roatary).  The Greenfield one is now mostly take over by the DMV as a branch office, though. 

All the Info Centers on the MassPike closed about 10 years ago.  The buildings are now EZ-Pass centers.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: abqtraveler on August 08, 2019, 12:51:36 AM
Something I've been curious about: Would anyone know the history behind US-3 and MA-3? As I understand things, MassDOT route logs regard these routes as a single continuous route from the south shore to the New Hampshire border. However, it changes from a US route to a state route in Boston. Any reason why US-3 was never applied to what is now MA-3, since MA-3 is a logical continuation of US-3? Thanks for any insight.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJ Particle on August 08, 2019, 03:08:04 AM
Quote from: Beeper1 on August 07, 2019, 09:07:20 PM
At least being commercialized keeps these areas open.  Many of the normal rest areas on Mass highways are either entirely closed (I-195 EB in Swansea), or the parking is open but the restroom buildings are closed.  (I-95 NB in Mansfield, I-495 NB in Chelmsford, MA-25 EB near the Bourne Bridge)    This list doesn't count the many no facilities "parking areas" on MA highways.
What's the status of the area on East US-6 around its near-junction with Independence Parkway?  Google Maps still shows a building there at the very least.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 08, 2019, 09:16:31 AM
I don't think there really needs to be one on 84 at the state line, considering the Charlton plaza is right after you merge onto the Pike, only 10 miles from the state line. This is especially true now that CT's Willington rest area is open 24/7 again.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on August 08, 2019, 01:47:51 PM
I've noticed some orange tags along I-495 between Exits 28 and 37, as well as I-95 from Exit 11 south to Exit 7.  This indicates new exit signs will soon be installed along these sections of highway, replacing the existing ones.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 08, 2019, 03:47:42 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on August 08, 2019, 01:47:51 PM
I've noticed some orange tags along I-495 between Exits 28 and 37, as well as I-95 from Exit 11 south to Exit 7.  This indicates new exit signs will soon be installed along these sections of highway, replacing the existing ones.

MassDOT Project # 607919, Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement along I-495 between Harvard and Lowell, and MassDOT Project # 608204, Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement along I-95 between Attleboro and Norwood.  Both projects are being constructed by Liddell Brothers.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on August 08, 2019, 08:13:16 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on August 08, 2019, 12:51:36 AM
Something I've been curious about: Would anyone know the history behind US-3 and MA-3? As I understand things, MassDOT route logs regard these routes as a single continuous route from the south shore to the New Hampshire border. However, it changes from a US route to a state route in Boston. Any reason why US-3 was never applied to what is now MA-3, since MA-3 is a logical continuation of US-3? Thanks for any insight.
The whole thing was New England Route 3. The application of US 3 north of Boston was a coincidence, but that was as far as the US highway was ever intended to go.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on August 09, 2019, 12:02:27 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 08, 2019, 08:13:16 PM
The whole thing was New England Route 3. The application of US 3 north of Boston was a coincidence, but that was as far as the US highway was ever intended to go.

Actually, it was New England Route 6.  When US Routes were being assigned in the 1920s, US 3 was assigned to NE 6 from Cambridge north into New Hampshire.  Massachusetts should have assigned a number other than 3 to what is now MA 3 to keep the federal and state routes separate.  MA 6 would have been ideal, but then you'd have a conflict with US 6.  However, US 6 shouldn't have been assigned that number because it's south of US 20!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: sturmde on August 09, 2019, 02:08:51 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 07, 2019, 12:36:07 PM
How could that become part of I-93? Besides a ton of exit renumbering, what about the Current I-93 west of that exit?  :hmmm:

Well, another option involves extending I-89 south from Concord... duplexed with I-93 to I-293, replacing I-293 to the Everett/293 interchange, replacing the Everett and then duplexed with US 3 to I-95/MA 128, running counterclockwise it will cover the 95-93 gap... and then it can continue wrongway to MA 3, and run down MA 3 to Plymouth and the Cape.  Sure.  A long I-89, running Cape Cod to Montreal (using A-35 and A-10 for the last part of that.)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 09, 2019, 05:30:05 PM
Quote from: sturmde on August 09, 2019, 02:08:51 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 07, 2019, 12:36:07 PM
How could that become part of I-93? Besides a ton of exit renumbering, what about the Current I-93 west of that exit?  :hmmm:

Well, another option involves extending I-89 south from Concord... duplexed with I-93 to I-293, replacing I-293 to the Everett/293 interchange, replacing the Everett and then duplexed with US 3 to I-95/MA 128, running counterclockwise it will cover the 95-93 gap... and then it can continue wrongway to MA 3, and run down MA 3 to Plymouth and the Cape.  Sure.  A long I-89, running Cape Cod to Montreal (using A-35 and A-10 for the last part of that.)

The simplest option if I-93 is extended down MA 24 would be to renumber I-93 to mileage based exits at that point, and to just re-extend MA 128 over the I-93 stub from Canton to MA 24 and/or have it be a silent I-595 a la US 50 in MD.  I've also always been for extending I-89 to Burlington (MA that is) and having it end at 95/128.   
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on August 11, 2019, 08:41:58 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on August 09, 2019, 12:02:27 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 08, 2019, 08:13:16 PM
The whole thing was New England Route 3. The application of US 3 north of Boston was a coincidence, but that was as far as the US highway was ever intended to go.

Actually, it was New England Route 6.  When US Routes were being assigned in the 1920s, US 3 was assigned to NE 6 from Cambridge north into New Hampshire.  Massachusetts should have assigned a number other than 3 to what is now MA 3 to keep the federal and state routes separate.  MA 6 would have been ideal, but then you'd have a conflict with US 6.  However, US 6 shouldn't have been assigned that number because it's south of US 20!
3 was 6 and 6 was 3 and you are me and we are all together.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: abqtraveler on August 11, 2019, 02:22:17 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 11, 2019, 08:41:58 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on August 09, 2019, 12:02:27 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 08, 2019, 08:13:16 PM
The whole thing was New England Route 3. The application of US 3 north of Boston was a coincidence, but that was as far as the US highway was ever intended to go.

Actually, it was New England Route 6.  When US Routes were being assigned in the 1920s, US 3 was assigned to NE 6 from Cambridge north into New Hampshire.  Massachusetts should have assigned a number other than 3 to what is now MA 3 to keep the federal and state routes separate.  MA 6 would have been ideal, but then you'd have a conflict with US 6.  However, US 6 shouldn't have been assigned that number because it's south of US 20!
3 was 6 and 6 was 3 and you are me and we are all together.

Add to the chaos that MassDOT doesn't distinguish between interstate, US, and state routes, so US-3 and MA-3 share the same route log, with US-3 being a continuation od MA-3's mileage.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 13, 2019, 04:01:01 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 07, 2019, 09:43:40 PM
And to think the one in Mansfield used to be a very nice welcome center.  We used to stop there on the way to concerts at Great Woods.  Last time I stopped there a year or so ago, it was a disgrace... a row of portable toilets, trash everywhere, unkept landscaping.  Hideous. 

It's an embarrassment and should be torn down if basic maintenance can't be done to the grounds. Not just because it looks horrendous, but because if the grounds have been this neglected for this long, the building envelope can't be holding its integrity indefinitely without upkeep.

For that matter, the state of the 95/128 rest area in Westwood was so bad the last time I used it that it wouldn't break my heart to see it closed as well if basic maintenance is untenable. These facilities look like Massachusetts is in a deep recession, not the surging ten-year economic boom we're in now.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 13, 2019, 04:09:05 AM
Quote from: sturmde on August 09, 2019, 02:08:51 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 07, 2019, 12:36:07 PM
How could that become part of I-93? Besides a ton of exit renumbering, what about the Current I-93 west of that exit?  :hmmm:

Well, another option involves extending I-89 south from Concord... duplexed with I-93 to I-293, replacing I-293 to the Everett/293 interchange, replacing the Everett and then duplexed with US 3 to I-95/MA 128, running counterclockwise it will cover the 95-93 gap... and then it can continue wrongway to MA 3, and run down MA 3 to Plymouth and the Cape.  Sure.  A long I-89, running Cape Cod to Montreal (using A-35 and A-10 for the last part of that.)

If only there were a route number to apply here, one people were familiar with that, I don't know, already existed at one end of this gap and could easily be extended three miles, one people already call this part anyway despite a decades-long cultural battle waged by MassDOT against public preference...

Oh, well, I guess extending I-89 signs another 80 miles is the only way to do it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on August 13, 2019, 01:06:26 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 13, 2019, 04:09:05 AM
If only there were a route number to apply here, one people were familiar with that, I don't know, already existed at one end of this gap and could easily be extended three miles, one people already call this part anyway despite a decades-long cultural battle waged by MassDOT against public preference...
But then you'd still be removing that section of road from the interstate highway system.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 13, 2019, 03:29:53 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 13, 2019, 01:06:26 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 13, 2019, 04:09:05 AM
If only there were a route number to apply here, one people were familiar with that, I don't know, already existed at one end of this gap and could easily be extended three miles, one people already call this part anyway despite a decades-long cultural battle waged by MassDOT against public preference...
But then you'd still be removing that section of road from the interstate highway system.

Which is why I suggested the silent designation of I-595, but keeping the MA 128 designation for simplicity/legacy. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on August 14, 2019, 01:01:32 PM
What about keeping I-93 as is but, make MA 24 into a spur route of I-93, such as I-193? Then nothing else but MA 24 has to change...

SM-G900P

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on August 14, 2019, 03:24:01 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on August 14, 2019, 01:01:32 PM
What about keeping I-93 as is but, make MA 24 into a spur route of I-93, such as I-193? Then nothing else but MA 24 has to change...

SM-G900P

MA 193 already exists. I recommend I-593.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 14, 2019, 05:10:57 PM
Or maybe leave MA 24 as... MA 24. Proposals to make MA 24 an Interstate have gone nowhere over the last couple of decades, and I don't expect that to change in the future.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 14, 2019, 05:55:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 14, 2019, 05:10:57 PM
Or maybe leave MA 24 as... MA 24. Proposals to make MA 24 an Interstate have gone nowhere over the last couple of decades, and I don't expect that to change in the future.

Yet they still exist, for the same reason as always — there's always going to be a significant push in the South Coast region for economic boosts, and an Interstate connection to Boston would go a long way to satisfy that desire.

This makes me have to ask, aside from how it transitions to surface boulevards at either end, is there any significant reason why 140 between 24 and US 6 could not be an Interstate spur itself? Assuming 24 down there ever qualified as an Interstate, that is.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 14, 2019, 05:56:28 PM
Roadgeekery in the mainstream: WGBH discusses the "bookleaf"  shape of Massachusetts town-line signs.

https://www.wgbh.org/news/lifestyle/2019/08/13/why-are-town-line-signs-in-massachusetts-shaped-like-a-book
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on August 14, 2019, 10:41:34 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 14, 2019, 03:24:01 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on August 14, 2019, 01:01:32 PM
What about keeping I-93 as is but, make MA 24 into a spur route of I-93, such as I-193? Then nothing else but MA 24 has to change...

SM-G900P

MA 193 already exists. I recommend I-593.
IMO Given that it would run between 2 interstates and cross a third, an even number would work better, I-293? That would be useful if there was thought of signing the more interstate ready portion north of I-495 first. Of course, we all know that if I-93 is to be rerouted, it should be down MA 3 to US 6 at the Sagamore Bridge.  :D
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on August 19, 2019, 09:12:18 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 14, 2019, 10:41:34 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 14, 2019, 03:24:01 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on August 14, 2019, 01:01:32 PM
What about keeping I-93 as is but, make MA 24 into a spur route of I-93, such as I-193? Then nothing else but MA 24 has to change...

SM-G900P

MA 193 already exists. I recommend I-593.
IMO Given that it would run between 2 interstates and cross a third, an even number would work better, I-293? That would be useful if there was thought of signing the more interstate ready portion north of I-495 first.
I've had the thought of redesignating MA 24 as I-293 (from I-195 northward) since the 1980s.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mb2001 on August 20, 2019, 10:33:44 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 19, 2019, 09:12:18 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 14, 2019, 10:41:34 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 14, 2019, 03:24:01 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on August 14, 2019, 01:01:32 PM
What about keeping I-93 as is but, make MA 24 into a spur route of I-93, such as I-193? Then nothing else but MA 24 has to change...

SM-G900P

MA 193 already exists. I recommend I-593.
IMO Given that it would run between 2 interstates and cross a third, an even number would work better, I-293? That would be useful if there was thought of signing the more interstate ready portion north of I-495 first.
I've had the thought of redesignating MA 24 as I-293 (from I-195 northward) since the 1980s.

The only problem is that I-293 already exists up in NH. They're in separate states so it's legal, but I'd recommend choosing a different number.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on August 21, 2019, 08:25:57 AM
Quote from: mb2001 on August 20, 2019, 10:33:44 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 19, 2019, 09:12:18 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 14, 2019, 10:41:34 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 14, 2019, 03:24:01 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on August 14, 2019, 01:01:32 PM
What about keeping I-93 as is but, make MA 24 into a spur route of I-93, such as I-193? Then nothing else but MA 24 has to change...

MA 193 already exists. I recommend I-593.
IMO Given that it would run between 2 interstates and cross a third, an even number would work better, I-293? That would be useful if there was thought of signing the more interstate ready portion north of I-495 first.
I've had the thought of redesignating MA 24 as I-293 (from I-195 northward) since the 1980s.

The only problem is that I-293 already exists up in NH. They're in separate states so it's legal, but I'd recommend choosing a different number.
MA 24 is far enough away from NH's I-293 so that (if it were to ever happen) redesignating it as such will not cause any confusion between those two routes.  The two I-291s in MA & CT are in much closer proximity and there's no confusion/mix-up issues regarding those two routes that I'm aware of.  If we were discussion doing such with MA 213 OTOH; your concern for confusion would be more warranted.

Truth be told, I don't believe there is a hard, fast rule regarding the minimum distance that two separate 3dis bearing the same route number in adjacent states can be from each other.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on August 21, 2019, 12:17:58 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 21, 2019, 08:25:57 AM
Quote from: mb2001 on August 20, 2019, 10:33:44 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 19, 2019, 09:12:18 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 14, 2019, 10:41:34 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 14, 2019, 03:24:01 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on August 14, 2019, 01:01:32 PM
What about keeping I-93 as is but, make MA 24 into a spur route of I-93, such as I-193? Then nothing else but MA 24 has to change...

MA 193 already exists. I recommend I-593.
IMO Given that it would run between 2 interstates and cross a third, an even number would work better, I-293? That would be useful if there was thought of signing the more interstate ready portion north of I-495 first.
I've had the thought of redesignating MA 24 as I-293 (from I-195 northward) since the 1980s.

The only problem is that I-293 already exists up in NH. They're in separate states so it's legal, but I'd recommend choosing a different number.
MA 24 is far enough away from NH's I-293 so that (if it were to ever happen) redesignating it as such will not cause any confusion between those two routes.  The two I-291s in MA & CT are in much closer proximity and there's no confusion/mix-up issues regarding those two routes that I'm aware of.  If we were discussion doing such with MA 213 OTOH; your concern for confusion would be more warranted.

Truth be told, I don't believe there is a hard, fast rule regarding the minimum distance that two separate 3dis bearing the same route number in adjacent states can be from each other.
This article from earlier this year talks about safety problems on Route 24 brings up current planned projects and the past proposals to upgrade the road to interstate standards. A member of the organization that pushed for an interstate designation about 10 years ago says that now it would be long-term and expensive project, if MassDOT decides to proceed.
https://www.heraldnews.com/news/20190304/road-from-hell-route-24-is-dangerous-deadly-highway (https://www.heraldnews.com/news/20190304/road-from-hell-route-24-is-dangerous-deadly-highway)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: empirestate on August 30, 2019, 01:37:32 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 14, 2019, 05:56:28 PM
Roadgeekery in the mainstream: WGBH discusses the "bookleaf"  shape of Massachusetts town-line signs.

https://www.wgbh.org/news/lifestyle/2019/08/13/why-are-town-line-signs-in-massachusetts-shaped-like-a-book

Gotta love how the very question posed by the headline, that is to say the whole central premise of the article, is off-handedly thrown away as unknown once you actually read it. :-D
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on August 30, 2019, 02:09:47 PM
Quote from: empirestate on August 30, 2019, 01:37:32 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 14, 2019, 05:56:28 PM
Roadgeekery in the mainstream: WGBH discusses the "bookleaf"  shape of Massachusetts town-line signs.

https://www.wgbh.org/news/lifestyle/2019/08/13/why-are-town-line-signs-in-massachusetts-shaped-like-a-book

Gotta love how the very question posed by the headline, that is to say the whole central premise of the article, is off-handedly thrown away as unknown once you actually read it. :-D
It's worth noting, and such is not mentioned in the above-article, that prior to the mid-1970s(?); the bookleaf design motif ran along the bottom of the sign as well. 
Example (https://www.facebook.com/brandinglowell/photos/pcb.488104224985296/488104064985312/?type=3&theater).
I don't believe that one has to have a Facebook account to view.

From the movie Alice's Restaurant: See 1:13:30 for old-style bookleaf sign.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP05C_agI3k
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 30, 2019, 03:33:21 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 30, 2019, 02:09:47 PM
Quote from: empirestate on August 30, 2019, 01:37:32 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 14, 2019, 05:56:28 PM
Roadgeekery in the mainstream: WGBH discusses the "bookleaf"  shape of Massachusetts town-line signs.

https://www.wgbh.org/news/lifestyle/2019/08/13/why-are-town-line-signs-in-massachusetts-shaped-like-a-book

Gotta love how the very question posed by the headline, that is to say the whole central premise of the article, is off-handedly thrown away as unknown once you actually read it. :-D
It's worth noting, and such is not mentioned in the above-article, that prior to the mid-1970s(?); the bookleaf design motif ran along the bottom of the sign as well. 
Example (https://www.facebook.com/brandinglowell/photos/pcb.488104224985296/488104064985312/?type=3&theater).
I don't believe that one has to have a Facebook account to view.

From the movie Alice's Restaurant: See 1:13:30 for old-style bookleaf sign.

I've always wondered where that NY border crossing at 1:13:54 is located.  There's really no spot that I'm familiar with where a highway runs so close parallel to the CT/NY border like that.  At least the MA/CT crossing looks like US 7 between Sheffield and North Canaan.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 30, 2019, 06:22:36 PM
The only one I'm aware of NY Route 120A by Greenwich. The bridge for it spans the state line over the Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway (CT Route 15). Also note the change in median style by the bridge.

(https://i.imgur.com/dCVGHH3.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on August 31, 2019, 10:43:06 AM
MassDOT has advertised for bids for the US 1 Chelsea to Danvers Sign Replacement Project, winning bidder to be announced on November 19. The project page with a link to the Notice to Contractors is at:
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-20-1030-0H100-0H002-43289&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-20-1030-0H100-0H002-43289&external=true&parentUrl=bid)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on September 01, 2019, 12:42:12 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 30, 2019, 03:33:21 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 30, 2019, 02:09:47 PM
Quote from: empirestate on August 30, 2019, 01:37:32 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 14, 2019, 05:56:28 PM
Roadgeekery in the mainstream: WGBH discusses the "bookleaf"  shape of Massachusetts town-line signs.

https://www.wgbh.org/news/lifestyle/2019/08/13/why-are-town-line-signs-in-massachusetts-shaped-like-a-book

Gotta love how the very question posed by the headline, that is to say the whole central premise of the article, is off-handedly thrown away as unknown once you actually read it. :-D
It's worth noting, and such is not mentioned in the above-article, that prior to the mid-1970s(?); the bookleaf design motif ran along the bottom of the sign as well. 
Example (https://www.facebook.com/brandinglowell/photos/pcb.488104224985296/488104064985312/?type=3&theater).
I don't believe that one has to have a Facebook account to view.

From the movie Alice's Restaurant: See 1:13:30 for old-style bookleaf sign.

I've always wondered where that NY border crossing at 1:13:54 is located.  There's really no spot that I'm familiar with where a highway runs so close parallel to the CT/NY border like that.  At least the MA/CT crossing looks like US 7 between Sheffield and North Canaan.
That seems like a movie setup. The sign just smacks of unofficialness.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on September 01, 2019, 05:20:15 PM
I'm also pretty sure that the bookleaf sign on route 7 in the 1960s coming to/from from Connecticut was on the US 7 North side of the road (same as it is today), and not the southbound side as seen in the movie. Michael Summa has a pic of the entering Mass side of this very sign that's up on Steve's site, and it's on the opposite side of their van.

I'm also fairly certain even the old bookleafs would say "Welcome to Town Name, ST" and not just "CONNECITCUT."
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 04, 2019, 09:39:09 AM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on September 01, 2019, 05:20:15 PM
I'm also pretty sure that the bookleaf sign on route 7 in the 1960s coming to/from from Connecticut was on the US 7 North side of the road (same as it is today), and not the southbound side as seen in the movie. Michael Summa has a pic of the entering Mass side of this very sign that's up on Steve's site, and it's on the opposite side of their van.

I'm also fairly certain even the old bookleafs would say "Welcome to Town Name, ST" and not just "CONNECITCUT."

At state borders, Massachusetts-installed bookleaf signs typically read 'ENTERING (town and state) - without a state shield or an EST (or INC) date - for the adjacent state.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 04, 2019, 02:10:30 PM
The state seal is usually missing when entering the bordering state. This was MA Route 111, coming in from Pepperell, MA in August of 2018.

(https://i.imgur.com/E1dU09K.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on September 04, 2019, 03:03:46 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 04, 2019, 09:39:09 AMAt state borders, Massachusetts-installed bookleaf signs typically read 'ENTERING (town and state) - without a state shield or an EST (or INC) date - for the adjacent state.

With at least one exception:  Where I-95 enters Rhode Island, the side of the bookleaf sign which says "ENTERING PAWTUCKET R.I." also has the RI state shield.

A bit hard to see, but here it is on GSV:  https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8944795,-71.3758556,3a,75y,210.2h,99.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siMaLHgeG6pwUpJmVPA7rXg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 04, 2019, 03:12:24 PM
Managed to get a better shot for you! :)

(https://i.imgur.com/PV3AUvd.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 04, 2019, 03:14:35 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on September 04, 2019, 03:03:46 PM
Quote from: roadman on September 04, 2019, 09:39:09 AMAt state borders, Massachusetts-installed bookleaf signs typically read 'ENTERING (town and state) - without a state shield or an EST (or INC) date - for the adjacent state.

With at least one exception:  Where I-95 enters Rhode Island, the side of the bookleaf sign which says "ENTERING PAWTUCKET R.I." also has the RI state shield.

A bit hard to see, but here it is on GSV:  https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8944795,-71.3758556,3a,75y,210.2h,99.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siMaLHgeG6pwUpJmVPA7rXg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 04, 2019, 03:12:24 PM
Managed to get a better shot for you! :)
(https://i.imgur.com/PV3AUvd.jpg)

It would appear that the rusted sign post is as old as this overhead gantry and sign panels (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8946162,-71.375728,3a,75y,237.12h,79.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGSY_JCWo7AMMpmXttdIumQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  Such dates back to 1977.  While the bookleaf sign is newer; one has to wonder if such was a match-in-kind replacement.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 04, 2019, 04:35:08 PM
Looks like there's a few at the MA/NY border.  The ones for MA/NY 23 and MA/NY 71 are pretty blurry, but I found  this one (https://goo.gl/maps/U6BATqSkGRF7HyHm7) on US 20. 

Found this one (https://goo.gl/maps/4mtnxQc6pAFZNEwG6) with the CT symbol at the border on CT/MA 8.  The newer ones, such as the one just south of Six Flags on CT/MA 159, omit the CT state shield.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 05, 2019, 08:33:30 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 04, 2019, 04:35:08 PM
Looks like there's a few at the MA/NY border.  The ones for MA/NY 23 and MA/NY 71 are pretty blurry, but I found  this one (https://goo.gl/maps/U6BATqSkGRF7HyHm7) on US 20. 

Found this one (https://goo.gl/maps/4mtnxQc6pAFZNEwG6) with the CT symbol at the border on CT/MA 8.
It's interesting that those signs feature the Massachusetts shield on the side listing another state's town.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: AMLNet49 on September 14, 2019, 11:54:01 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 31, 2019, 10:43:06 AM
MassDOT has advertised for bids for the US 1 Chelsea to Danvers Sign Replacement Project, winning bidder to be announced on November 19. The project page with a link to the Notice to Contractors is at:
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-20-1030-0H100-0H002-43289&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-20-1030-0H100-0H002-43289&external=true&parentUrl=bid)

Would love to see exit numbers on this part of US 1. And on Route 1A between I-93 and MA 145
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 15, 2019, 08:04:21 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on September 14, 2019, 11:54:01 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 31, 2019, 10:43:06 AM
MassDOT has advertised for bids for the US 1 Chelsea to Danvers Sign Replacement Project, winning bidder to be announced on November 19. The project page with a link to the Notice to Contractors is at:
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-20-1030-0H100-0H002-43289&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-20-1030-0H100-0H002-43289&external=true&parentUrl=bid)

Would love to see exit numbers on this part of US 1. And on Route 1A between I-93 and MA 145

Both have a fair number of side streets. I'm assuming you don't number those.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 15, 2019, 12:34:02 PM
If exits were to be numbered on 1 and 1A, I would only number 1 exits up to Lynn St and 1A up to MA 145.  Would look something like this for mileage based exits:

US 1
Exit 47 (SB ONLY): Rutherford St Charlestown//TO I-93 NORTH
Exit 49 (NB ONLY): Beacon St
Exit 50: 4th St (NB) Carter Ave Chelsea/East Boston (SB)
Exit 51A (NB ONLY): Webster Ave Chelsea/Everett
Exit 51B (NB): MA 16 EAST TO MA 1A Revere Beach/Lynn
Exit 51 (SB): MA 16 WEST Everett/Somerville
Exit 52 (NB ONLY): Sargent St West Revere
Exit 53: MA 60 Malden/Revere
Exit 54 A/B: Lynn St Saugus/Malden

MA 1A
Exit 49: Havre St (NB) Porter St (SB)/ East Boston
Exit 50A: Logan Airport (NB); I-90 (Mass Pike) WEST TO I-93 SOUTH Ted Williams Tunnel/South Boston (NOTE: Logan would be signed as an I-90 exit)

Exit 50B: MA 145 NORTH Bennington St (NB); Saratoga St/Chelsea St (SB)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 15, 2019, 01:04:54 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 15, 2019, 12:34:02 PM
If exits were to be numbered on 1 and 1A, I would only number 1 exits up to Lynn St and 1A up to MA 145.  Would look something like this for mileage based exits:

US 1
Exit 47 (SB ONLY): Rutherford St Charlestown//TO I-93 NORTH
Exit 49 (NB ONLY): Beacon St
Exit 50: 4th St (NB) Carter Ave Chelsea/East Boston (SB)
Exit 51A (NB ONLY): Webster Ave Chelsea/Everett
Exit 51B (NB): MA 16 EAST TO MA 1A Revere Beach/Lynn
Exit 51 (SB): MA 16 WEST Everett/Somerville
Exit 52 (NB ONLY): Sargent St West Revere
Exit 53: MA 60 Malden/Revere
Exit 54 A/B: Lynn St Saugus/Malden

MA 1A
Exit 49: Havre St (NB) Porter St (SB)/ East Boston
Exit 50A: Logan Airport (NB); I-90 (Mass Pike) WEST TO I-93 SOUTH Ted Williams Tunnel/South Boston (NOTE: Logan would be signed as an I-90 exit)

Exit 50B: MA 145 NORTH Bennington St (NB); Saratoga St/Chelsea St (SB)

Oh, right, Bennington St., not Winthrop St. (also 145).

I'm not sure if it more helps or confuses to just number three exits.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on September 15, 2019, 04:53:22 PM
I would just number them starting at 1 (but still mile-based). It's extremely unlikely that the freeway will be extended to the southwest, and I-93 makes a good starting point.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 16, 2019, 11:08:36 AM
If you're going to add exit numbers to US 1, the numbering should extend from Chelsea all the way to the Ferncroft Rotary at the Danvers/Topsfield line.  And, IMO, adding exit numbers to Route 1A makes no sense from either a motorist or business perspective.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 16, 2019, 11:34:37 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 15, 2019, 12:34:02 PMUS 1
Exit 47 (SB ONLY): Rutherford St Charlestown//TO I-93 NORTH
Exit 49 (NB ONLY): Beacon St
Exit 50: 4th St (NB) Carter Ave Chelsea/East Boston (SB)
Exit 51A (NB ONLY): Webster Ave Chelsea/Everett
Exit 51B (NB): MA 16 EAST TO MA 1A Revere Beach/Lynn
Exit 51 (SB): MA 16 WEST Everett/Somerville
Exit 52 (NB ONLY): Sargent St West Revere
Exit 53: MA 60 Malden/Revere
Exit 54 A/B: Lynn St Saugus/Malden
Quote from: roadman on September 16, 2019, 11:08:36 AMIf you're going to add exit numbers to US 1, the numbering should extend from Chelsea all the way to the Ferncroft Rotary at the Danvers/Topsfield line.
Actually & on the contrary, I would have the numbering go only as far as MA 60 (above-Exit 53) for the simple reasons being that:
1.  The stretch between the Tobin Bridge & MA 60 is the Northeast Expressway (former-I-95).
2.  US 1 north of MA 60 is not and never has been a limited access-highway.

Quote from: roadman on September 16, 2019, 11:08:36 AMIMO, adding exit numbers to Route 1A makes no sense from either a motorist or business perspective.
Agreed.  OTOH, had such been extended northward (such was considered as part of the short-lived I-95 Relocated proposal); then numbering of the interchanges would make more sense.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: sturmde on September 18, 2019, 01:44:48 PM
For 1A coming up from the end of I-90, it would make more sense to continue I-90's exit numbers.  Mass could ask AASHTO to designate a BUSINESS SPUR 90 that would run from I-90's eastern end up to the intersection of 1A and 60... only for a logical eastern endpoint.  It could be unsigned though, but only exist to continue the exit numbering... akin to the eastern ends of I-20 and I-70.  (Actually, if you use the New Jersey east end of I-78 with traffic lights... okay, let's not.)

As for the Tobin and US 1 northward from I-93... using 1's mileage would be confusing.  Get AASHTO approval for an I-193 that would end at the MA 60 rotary.  I agree with other posters... the right turns on and off 1 isn't an exit.  It's more of a RIRO with a short deceleration NB, and zero deceleration off and zero acceleration lane on southbound.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 15, 2019, 12:34:02 PM
If exits were to be numbered on 1 and 1A, I would only number 1 exits up to Lynn St and 1A up to MA 145.  Would look something like this for mileage based exits:

US 1
Exit 47 (SB ONLY): Rutherford St Charlestown//TO I-93 NORTH
Exit 49 (NB ONLY): Beacon St
Exit 50: 4th St (NB) Carter Ave Chelsea/East Boston (SB)
Exit 51A (NB ONLY): Webster Ave Chelsea/Everett
Exit 51B (NB): MA 16 EAST TO MA 1A Revere Beach/Lynn
Exit 51 (SB): MA 16 WEST Everett/Somerville
Exit 52 (NB ONLY): Sargent St West Revere
Exit 53: MA 60 Malden/Revere
Exit 54 A/B: Lynn St Saugus/Malden

MA 1A
Exit 49: Havre St (NB) Porter St (SB)/ East Boston
Exit 50A: Logan Airport (NB); I-90 (Mass Pike) WEST TO I-93 SOUTH Ted Williams Tunnel/South Boston (NOTE: Logan would be signed as an I-90 exit)

Exit 50B: MA 145 NORTH Bennington St (NB); Saratoga St/Chelsea St (SB)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 18, 2019, 02:03:30 PM
Maybe the Northeast Expressway's exits could start with the Interstate 93/US 1 interchange being Mile 0 and having the exits count up from there. Also, forget about making the Northeast Expressway Interstate 193. The Northeast Expressway is not up to Interstate Standards, and any attempt to bring it up to Interstate Standards would likely cause an uproar among the locals.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 18, 2019, 02:10:56 PM
Quote from: sturmde on September 18, 2019, 01:44:48 PMFor 1A coming up from the end of I-90, it would make more sense to continue I-90's exit numbers.  Mass could ask AASHTO to designate a BUSINESS SPUR 90 that would run from I-90's eastern end up to the intersection of 1A and 60... only for a logical eastern endpoint.
I have to ask, what purpose would such serve... especially if the road corridors in question aren't being upgraded/improved in your proposal?  The East Boston Expressway portion of MA 1A runs only about 3/4 mile beyond where it meets I-90.  Like US 1 north of MA 60, MA 1A north of there (MA 145) while divided is a Jersey-type highway with no controlled access.

Quote from: sturmde on September 18, 2019, 01:44:48 PMAs for the Tobin and US 1 northward from I-93... using 1's mileage would be confusing.  Get AASHTO approval for an I-193 that would end at the MA 60 rotary.
Since SR 193 already exists in CT/MA, I-393 would be the number to use.  If one were to do such, it would probably make more sense to reroute US 1 back to its pre-1975 alignment up to I-90 (MA 1A would end at Bell Circle/US 1/MA 16/145) and have it run concurrent w/I-90 through the Ted Williams Tunnel and run concurrent w/I-93 south of there.  The Sunmer/Callahan Tunnels would be a southern extension of MA 145.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 18, 2019, 02:03:30 PMMaybe the Northeast Expressway's exits could start with the Interstate 93/US 1 interchange being Mile 0 and having the exits count up from there. Also, forget about making the Northeast Expressway Interstate 193. The Northeast Expressway is not up to Interstate Standards, and any attempt to bring it up to Interstate Standards would likely cause an uproar among the locals.
As mentioned above, SR 193 already exists, I-393 would be the likely number used if such was ever seriously pondered.  Also, keep in mind that prior to 1975, the Northeast Expressway & the Tobin Bridge were part of I-95.  While both were built prior to the Interstate System becoming established; both were part of the system at one time.  So the uproar among the locals notion is unsubstantiated
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on September 21, 2019, 12:17:30 PM
Speaking of sign replacement contracts and exit numbers, MassDOT has advertised for a sign replacement contract for MA 28 between Bourne and Falmouth, Project 608571, estimated cost of $621,542. Winning bidder to be announced on Jan. 7, 2020. Under the postponed milepost exit conversion project, these exits would have received numbers. I am assuming that's no longer the case, but will the signs be designed for possible numbers in the future?

The bid page is at: https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-20-1030-0H100-0H002-43964&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-20-1030-0H100-0H002-43964&external=true&parentUrl=bid)

They have also advertised for the next I-95 sign replacement contract from Lynnfield to Peabody, more information on the I-95 Signing Work thread.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJStephens on September 22, 2019, 07:17:53 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 18, 2019, 02:10:56 PM
Quote from: sturmde on September 18, 2019, 01:44:48 PMFor 1A coming up from the end of I-90, it would make more sense to continue I-90's exit numbers.  Mass could ask AASHTO to designate a BUSINESS SPUR 90 that would run from I-90's eastern end up to the intersection of 1A and 60... only for a logical eastern endpoint.
I have to ask, what purpose would such serve... especially if the road corridors in question aren't being upgraded/improved in your proposal?  The East Boston Expressway portion of MA 1A runs only about 3/4 mile beyond where it meets I-90.  Like US 1 north of MA 60, MA 1A north of there (MA 145) while divided is a Jersey-type highway with no controlled access.

Quote from: sturmde on September 18, 2019, 01:44:48 PMAs for the Tobin and US 1 northward from I-93... using 1's mileage would be confusing.  Get AASHTO approval for an I-193 that would end at the MA 60 rotary.
Since SR 193 already exists in CT/MA, I-393 would be the number to use.  If one were to do such, it would probably make more sense to reroute US 1 back to its pre-1975 alignment up to I-90 (MA 1A would end at Bell Circle/US 1/MA 16/145) and have it run concurrent w/I-90 through the Ted Williams Tunnel and run concurrent w/I-93 south of there.  The Sunmer/Callahan Tunnels would be a southern extension of MA 145.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 18, 2019, 02:03:30 PMMaybe the Northeast Expressway's exits could start with the Interstate 93/US 1 interchange being Mile 0 and having the exits count up from there. Also, forget about making the Northeast Expressway Interstate 193. The Northeast Expressway is not up to Interstate Standards, and any attempt to bring it up to Interstate Standards would likely cause an uproar among the locals.
As mentioned above, SR 193 already exists, I-393 would be the likely number used if such was ever seriously pondered.  Also, keep in mind that prior to 1975, the Northeast Expressway & the Tobin Bridge were part of I-95.  While both were built prior to the Interstate System becoming established; both were part of the system at one time.  So the uproar among the locals notion is unsubstantiated

Remember viewing proposals (from the early seventies perhaps) to widen the Northeast Expressway N of the Tobin Bridge to four lanes in each direction.   Likely in a Mass. state university library in the eighties.   This was definitely N of the bridge.  The cross section on the bridge itself was limited to three lanes in each direction, with virtually no shoulders, similar to the late forties era Central Artery.   The Tobin Bridge is a double decker design, with opposing directions stacked atop each other.  Do not remember exactly where in Chelsea the double decker transitions into a surface alignment.   Also remember the graded earthen alignments in the Saugus Marsh, which were going to bring the I-95 alignment directly into Lynn, Mass.   These were NE of Bell Circle.   
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 23, 2019, 08:43:59 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on September 22, 2019, 07:17:53 PMRemember viewing proposals (from the early seventies perhaps) to widen the Northeast Expressway N of the Tobin Bridge to four lanes in each direction.   Likely in a Mass. state university library in the eighties.   This was definitely N of the bridge.
If such dates back to the early 70s; one has to wonder if the mid-70s overhaul that Northeast Expressway north of Chelsea received was a compromise to that redesign/overhaul.  One needs to remember that efforts to build I-95 north of Copeland/Cutler Circle (US 1 & MA 60) were all but scrapped by 1972-73.  The Chelsea leg of the Expressway, north of the base of the Tobin Bridge, would receive a then-much-needed overhaul during the mid-1980s.

Quote from: DJStephens on September 22, 2019, 07:17:53 PMDo not remember exactly where in Chelsea the double decker transitions into a surface alignment.
Google is one's friend here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chelsea,+MA+02150/@42.3938879,-71.0366494,383m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e371b266e21107:0x76239b15fba2b915!8m2!3d42.3917638!4d-71.0328284)

Quote from: DJStephens on September 22, 2019, 07:17:53 PMAlso remember the graded earthen alignments in the Saugus Marsh, which were going to bring the I-95 alignment directly into Lynn, Mass.   These were NE of Bell Circle.
I was born & raised in the North Shore (Marblehead) & knew those alignments & plans for I-95 very well.   
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Stephane Dumas on September 29, 2019, 08:47:31 AM
I founded by luck on Youtube these video showing future proposed improvements for I-495/I-90/Mass Pike interchange. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzBxrvXzs-5Hhw9nJqpkNx5edBuWXLWUu
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 30, 2019, 10:20:15 AM
^ More info on that project can be found here: https://www.mass.gov/i-495i-90-interchange-improvements

The preferred alternative is concept C-2 (plan view can be found on page 19 of the presentation from the last public meeting (https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/08/12/dot-hwy_495-90stakeholder_presentation_0719.pdf)), which adds new direct ramps from the Pike westbound to 495 northbound, and from 495 northbound to the Pike eastbound. All other movements are accommodated through the old toll plaza area, but with the ramps untangled so there is no weaving, and with 45 mph flyovers replacing the existing trumpet ramps.

MassDOT anticipates beginning construction in 2022, with project completion in 2027, and total costs coming to $296 million.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 30, 2019, 07:47:12 PM
I would rather have 2 lanes thru to I-495 South from I-90 East.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on October 01, 2019, 12:49:25 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 30, 2019, 07:47:12 PM
I would rather have 2 lanes thru to I-495 South from I-90 East.
Okay, why? I have not noticed that movement to be heavy enough to warrant 2 lanes.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 01, 2019, 02:52:10 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 01, 2019, 12:49:25 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 30, 2019, 07:47:12 PM
I would rather have 2 lanes thru to I-495 South from I-90 East.
Okay, why? I have not noticed that movement to be heavy enough to warrant 2 lanes.

Go there on a Summer Friday afternoon with Cape bound traffic from western MA and northern CT, or on game day when the Pats are playing at Gillette. Then you'll see the need for a second lane.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: deathtopumpkins on October 01, 2019, 09:02:22 AM
If one lane is sufficient for all but one day a week for a few months out of the year, then one lane is sufficient. There are other, more pressing needs to spend that money on.

And honestly, after construction the 90 east to 495 south movement will have its own lane with a design speed of 45 mph, and a two lane merge onto 495, with a ~2500 ft long acceleration lane. That's a tremendous improvement compared to the current single lane ramp with a <1000 ft acceleration lane on an uphill grade after a sharp curve.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on October 01, 2019, 04:54:33 PM
I am not sure what the solution is for the Pike east of I-84.  Another bad aspect of that road is that drivers slow down on upgrades.  So...flatten it out. :D
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on October 01, 2019, 05:56:38 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 01, 2019, 04:54:33 PMI am not sure what the solution is for the Pike east of I-84.
IMHO, the stretch between I-84 and I-290/395 should be 8 lanes; given that a sizeable amount of through-traffic is only using the Pike as a means of getting go/from those two free Interstates (I-84 & 290).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on October 01, 2019, 07:08:51 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 01, 2019, 05:56:38 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 01, 2019, 04:54:33 PMI am not sure what the solution is for the Pike east of I-84.
IMHO, the stretch between I-84 and I-290/395 should be 8 lanes; given that a sizeable amount of through-traffic is only using the Pike as a means of getting go/from those two free Interstates (I-84 & 290).
Not I-495?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on October 01, 2019, 08:28:56 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 01, 2019, 07:08:51 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 01, 2019, 05:56:38 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 01, 2019, 04:54:33 PMI am not sure what the solution is for the Pike east of I-84.
IMHO, the stretch between I-84 and I-290/395 should be 8 lanes; given that a sizeable amount of through-traffic is only using the Pike as a means of getting go/from those two free Interstates (I-84 & 290).
Not I-495?

That and to mention I-90 between I-84 and I-290/395 always seems to have an accident on it like clockwork any weekend day I am on it.

I-495, should be eight lanes from I-90 to MA 4, and I will argue to death on this, 10 lanes from MA 4 to MA 213, then back to 8 to MA 125 and its current 6 after. Traffic is just a constant nightmare on it from I-90 to I-95 (Salisbury), because it is the primary route (in part) for New Haven to Salisbury as opposed to 95, and its clogged constantly at all times from Littleton to Haverhill.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on October 02, 2019, 08:52:47 AM
Bold emphasis added:
Quote from: Rothman on October 01, 2019, 07:08:51 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 01, 2019, 05:56:38 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 01, 2019, 04:54:33 PMI am not sure what the solution is for the Pike east of I-84.
IMHO, the stretch between I-84 and I-290/395 should be 8 lanes; given that a sizeable amount of through-traffic is only using the Pike as a means of getting go/from those two free Interstates (I-84 & 290).
Not I-495?
Per your earlier comment, I was speaking strictly regarding the Pike (I-90).  I-495's another story and SectorZ pretty much outlined what should be done capacitywise.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 04, 2019, 08:11:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 01, 2019, 04:54:33 PM
I am not sure what the solution is for the Pike east of I-84.  Another bad aspect of that road is that drivers slow down on upgrades.  So...flatten it out. :D
I would favor a cars only/all vehicles split, widen to 12 lanes total.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on October 04, 2019, 10:29:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 04, 2019, 08:11:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 01, 2019, 04:54:33 PM
I am not sure what the solution is for the Pike east of I-84.  Another bad aspect of that road is that drivers slow down on upgrades.  So...flatten it out. :D
I would favor a cars only/all vehicles split, widen to 12 lanes total.
That's rather extreme. 8 lanes should suffice for most circumstances.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 04, 2019, 11:41:42 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 04, 2019, 10:29:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 04, 2019, 08:11:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 01, 2019, 04:54:33 PM
I am not sure what the solution is for the Pike east of I-84.  Another bad aspect of that road is that drivers slow down on upgrades.  So...flatten it out. :D
I would favor a cars only/all vehicles split, widen to 12 lanes total.
That's rather extreme. 8 lanes should suffice for most circumstances.

I would say 8 lanes east of I-84, 10 lanes inside 495, and 12 lanes inside 128 up to Allston/Brighton.  Inside of there, it gets a little tough with the city street grid. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ben114 on October 05, 2019, 07:48:08 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 04, 2019, 11:41:42 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 04, 2019, 10:29:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 04, 2019, 08:11:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 01, 2019, 04:54:33 PM
I am not sure what the solution is for the Pike east of I-84.  Another bad aspect of that road is that drivers slow down on upgrades.  So...flatten it out. :D
I would favor a cars only/all vehicles split, widen to 12 lanes total.
That's rather extreme. 8 lanes should suffice for most circumstances.

I would say 8 lanes east of I-84, 10 lanes inside 495, and 12 lanes inside 128 up to Allston/Brighton.  Inside of there, it gets a little tough with the city street grid.
With this, probably include a better connection from the Pike to Storrow Drive to keep traffic flowing with the lane drop after the interchange.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on October 06, 2019, 12:02:59 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 04, 2019, 11:41:42 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 04, 2019, 10:29:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 04, 2019, 08:11:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 01, 2019, 04:54:33 PM
I am not sure what the solution is for the Pike east of I-84.  Another bad aspect of that road is that drivers slow down on upgrades.  So...flatten it out. :D
I would favor a cars only/all vehicles split, widen to 12 lanes total.
That's rather extreme. 8 lanes should suffice for most circumstances.

I would say 8 lanes east of I-84, 10 lanes inside 495, and 12 lanes inside 128 up to Allston/Brighton.  Inside of there, it gets a little tough with the city street grid. 
I still disagree. 8 lanes seems fine all the way up to 128 unless you're really in a peak day like Thanksgiving. Inside there would take more study.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJStephens on October 06, 2019, 01:35:31 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 04, 2019, 11:41:42 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 04, 2019, 10:29:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 04, 2019, 08:11:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 01, 2019, 04:54:33 PM
I am not sure what the solution is for the Pike east of I-84.  Another bad aspect of that road is that drivers slow down on upgrades.  So...flatten it out. :D
I would favor a cars only/all vehicles split, widen to 12 lanes total.
That's rather extreme. 8 lanes should suffice for most circumstances.

I would say 8 lanes east of I-84, 10 lanes inside 495, and 12 lanes inside 128 up to Allston/Brighton.  Inside of there, it gets a little tough with the city street grid.

The Turnpike is a pre-Interstate design.   Yes it should be reconstructed at some point between 84 and 128, completely, by opening up the median, blasting rock faces outwards, and flattening vertical curves.   All new two span bridges, also, replacing early/mid fifties four span overpasses. 
Don't believe any widening could be done E of 128, due to a narrow footprint, and air right construction over the highway itself.  Newtonville and Newton Corner.   Have to wonder though why the Turnpike authority in the early sixties did not specify an eight lane cross section all the way out to 128.     The section E of route 128 was known for a long time as the Turnpike Extension, as the section W of 128 had been finished and open for at least 10-12 years before the Extension construction was underway.   
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PaulRAnderson on October 06, 2019, 03:14:01 PM
Quote
I would say 8 lanes east of I-84, 10 lanes inside 495, and 12 lanes inside 128 up to Allston/Brighton.  Inside of there, it gets a little tough with the city street grid.

The portion between I-84 and I-290 is choked up more than any other stretch.  Start with eight lanes there.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 06, 2019, 03:26:15 PM
Quote from: PaulRAnderson on October 06, 2019, 03:14:01 PM
Quote
I would say 8 lanes east of I-84, 10 lanes inside 495, and 12 lanes inside 128 up to Allston/Brighton.  Inside of there, it gets a little tough with the city street grid.

The portion between I-84 and I-290 is choked up more than any other stretch.  Start with eight lanes there.
Or add climbing lanes.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Route99 on October 06, 2019, 09:26:01 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on October 06, 2019, 01:35:31 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 04, 2019, 11:41:42 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 04, 2019, 10:29:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 04, 2019, 08:11:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 01, 2019, 04:54:33 PM
I am not sure what the solution is for the Pike east of I-84.  Another bad aspect of that road is that drivers slow down on upgrades.  So...flatten it out. :D
I would favor a cars only/all vehicles split, widen to 12 lanes total.
That's rather extreme. 8 lanes should suffice for most circumstances.

I would say 8 lanes east of I-84, 10 lanes inside 495, and 12 lanes inside 128 up to Allston/Brighton.  Inside of there, it gets a little tough with the city street grid.

The Turnpike is a pre-Interstate design.   Yes it should be reconstructed at some point between 84 and 128, completely, by opening up the median, blasting rock faces outwards, and flattening vertical curves.   All new two span bridges, also, replacing early/mid fifties four span overpasses. 
Don't believe any widening could be done E of 128, due to a narrow footprint, and air right construction over the highway itself.  Newtonville and Newton Corner.   Have to wonder though why the Turnpike authority in the early sixties did not specify an eight lane cross section all the way out to 128.     The section E of route 128 was known for a long time as the Turnpike Extension, as the section W of 128 had been finished and open for at least 10-12 years before the Extension construction was underway.   

At the time the Extension was built, construction of the Inner Belt (I-695) was still planned, with an interchange in the area where Comm. Ave crosses the Pike.  It was probably expected that much less traffic would use the part of the Pike west of that, since Rte 2 and the unbuilt SouthWest Expy (original I-95) would have been easily accessed alternatives.

That section should ideally be widened to 4 lanes, but it is probably not practical. One improvement that could be made would be to redesign the messy interchange with Rte 95/128 and Rte 30 now that the tollbooths are gone. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on October 07, 2019, 09:24:15 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on October 06, 2019, 01:35:31 AMHave to wonder though why the Turnpike authority in the early sixties did not specify an eight lane cross section all the way out to 128
Much of the Pike's Boston Extension was constructed adjacent to very active railroad corridors & tracks.  An 8-lane corridor plus shoulders would've drastically impacted those rail lines.

Historic note: Fred Salvucci's grandmother was evicted from her home due to the construction of the Boston Extension.  This would be the same Fred Salvucci that would later become Gov. Dukakis' Transportation Secretary and the master architect of the Big Dig.

Quote from: Route99 on October 06, 2019, 09:26:01 PMAt the time the Extension was built, construction of the Inner Belt (I-695) was still planned, with an interchange in the area where Comm. Ave crosses the Pike.  It was probably expected that much less traffic would use the part of the Pike west of that, since Rte 2 and the unbuilt SouthWest Expy (original I-95) would have been easily accessed alternatives.
Quite true.  Had the inner Belt (I-695) & the Route 2 Connector been built, a fair amount of east-west traffic would've used those roadways instead of the Boston Extension.

Quote from: Route99 on October 06, 2019, 09:26:01 PMThat section should ideally be widened to 4 lanes, but it is probably not practical.
See above.  Much of the Boston Extension abuts active railroad tracks.

Quote from: Route99 on October 06, 2019, 09:26:01 PMOne improvement that could be made would be to redesign the messy interchange with Rte 95/128 and Rte 30 now that the tollbooths are gone.
It's worth noting that some minor tweaks were done to that interchange, mostly on the Pike's end since those toll booths came down.  Given the surrounding area & unlike the I-495 interchange in Hopkinton, I don't believe there's too much one can do with the Weston (I-95 (MA 128)/MA 30) interchange without totally disturbing the surrounding area.  Not to mention that traffic would still need to be maintained during the construction process.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on October 07, 2019, 10:25:20 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 06, 2019, 03:26:15 PM
Quote from: PaulRAnderson on October 06, 2019, 03:14:01 PM
Quote
I would say 8 lanes east of I-84, 10 lanes inside 495, and 12 lanes inside 128 up to Allston/Brighton.  Inside of there, it gets a little tough with the city street grid.

The portion between I-84 and I-290 is choked up more than any other stretch.  Start with eight lanes there.
Or add climbing lanes.

Grades are not severe enough between I-84 and I-290 in either direction to justify climbing lanes.  However, at a minimum, they should extend the fourth lane eastbound that begins at I-84 from beyond the current lane drop to well past the entrance from the eastbound Charlton service plaza.  This is probably the biggest recurring congestion point, even when traffic is relatively light otherwise.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on October 07, 2019, 12:04:18 PM
Drivers on the Pike have begun to slow down on the weakest of grades.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 07, 2019, 05:41:46 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2019, 12:04:18 PM
Drivers on the Pike have begun to slow down on the weakest of grades.
It's the trucks that are the problem.  They take the center lane to pass someone and then they slow down on the upgrade.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on October 07, 2019, 07:53:58 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 07, 2019, 05:41:46 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2019, 12:04:18 PM
Drivers on the Pike have begun to slow down on the weakest of grades.
It's the trucks that are the problem.  They take the center lane to pass someone and then they slow down on the upgrade.
I don't think so.  Plenty of passenger vehicles slow down of their own accord.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on October 07, 2019, 09:52:03 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 07, 2019, 09:24:15 AM

Historic note: Fred Salvucci's grandmother was evicted from her home due to the construction of the Boston Extension.  This would be the same Fred Salvucci that would later lead the effort to kill off the Inner Belt, Southwest and Northeast Expressways, and brag about it.
FTFY. Source: had him as a lecturer.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on October 08, 2019, 09:07:43 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 07, 2019, 09:52:03 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 07, 2019, 09:24:15 AM
Historic note: Fred Salvucci's grandmother was evicted from her home due to the construction of the Boston Extension.  This would be the same Fred Salvucci that would later lead the effort to kill off the Inner Belt, Southwest and Northeast Expressways, and brag about it.
FTFY. Source: had him as a lecturer.
While the contents of your edit are, no doubt, true; such doesn't change the fact that he was Gov. Dukakis' Transportation Secretary from 1975-1979 and 1983-1991 and backed the Big Dig while serving under Gov. Dukakis.  Local newspapers, the Boston Herald in particular, in the mid-to-late 1980s referred to the Big Dig project as Freddie's Nightmare.

Initially the Big Dig proposal only involved replacing the Central Artery but no Third Harbor (Ted Williams) Tunnel.  Such changed sometime during the 1980s when the proposed alignment of the tunnel (originally planned to run through the Fort Point Channel (based on old plans/reports)) was realigned to what was ultimately built. 

With regards to your above-edit/fix to my earlier post; I would've personally have done the following:

Quote from: PHLBOS unedited replyThis would be the same Fred Salvucci that would later become Gov. Dukakis' Transportation Secretary and the master architect of the Big Dig.

Quote from: Suggested Alps quoteThis was also the same Fred Salvucci that would later lead the effort to kill off the Inner Belt, Southwest and Northeast Expressways, and brag about it.  I know this because I had him as a lecturer.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on October 08, 2019, 09:32:09 AM
Salvucci backed the Big Dig largely because of the public transportation improvements that were promised as mitigation.  While work on the Green Line Extension, which has taken way too long to complete and has gone horribly over budget, is still under way, the MBTA has cancelled restoration of light rail to Arborway and has delayed the Red-Blue Line connector.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on October 08, 2019, 04:47:07 PM
Quote from: roadman on October 08, 2019, 09:32:09 AM
Salvucci backed the Big Dig largely because of the public transportation improvements that were promised as mitigation.  While work on the Green Line Extension, which has taken way too long to complete and has gone horribly over budget, is still under way, the MBTA has cancelled restoration of light rail to Arborway and has delayed the Red-Blue Line connector.
From what I've seen in his interviews, public transportation benefits were nowhere near "largely" a reason for his support of the Big Dig.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on October 08, 2019, 09:52:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2019, 07:53:58 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 07, 2019, 05:41:46 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2019, 12:04:18 PM
Drivers on the Pike have begun to slow down on the weakest of grades.
It's the trucks that are the problem.  They take the center lane to pass someone and then they slow down on the upgrade.
I don't think so.  Plenty of passenger vehicles slow down of their own accord.

That's not just the Pike in Massachusetts. 495, on the tiny grades near the Chelmsford rest area or the borderline-unnoticeable hill near MA 133 in Tewksbury, traffic slows considerably and in rush hour grinds to a halt briefly. Wish people knew how to use cruise control...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on October 09, 2019, 09:42:17 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on October 08, 2019, 09:52:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2019, 07:53:58 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 07, 2019, 05:41:46 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2019, 12:04:18 PM
Drivers on the Pike have begun to slow down on the weakest of grades.
It's the trucks that are the problem.  They take the center lane to pass someone and then they slow down on the upgrade.
I don't think so.  Plenty of passenger vehicles slow down of their own accord.

That's not just the Pike in Massachusetts. 495, on the tiny grades near the Chelmsford rest area or the borderline-unnoticeable hill near MA 133 in Tewksbury, traffic slows considerably and in rush hour grinds to a halt briefly. Wish people knew how to use cruise control...

Also the minor grade on I-95 (128) south of Washington Street in Woburn.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on October 09, 2019, 12:40:23 PM
So the sign replacement project on I-495 has been progressing and I noticed some oddities at the end of the Ward Hill Connector...

The first pic shows the new paddle sign going NORTH on 125 right at the split.

The second pic, going south right at the split...

See what they did there?
I'm assuming they will correct that at some point.

Also the third pic shows the paddle sign where the connector ends at 125. I find it extremely unusual they chose an airport sign panel over ya know referencing route 125 South?(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191009/7af57c0683234a144617025c6aa7b760.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191009/1dc0d712af9c9de039246f796c1e8ff3.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191009/bbf2e91d3f5aa5442660a54ebbf096f1.jpg)

SM-G900P

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 22, 2019, 09:06:48 PM
Saw an odd thing when I looked at Apple Maps in the area of Clayton, MA and North Canaan, CT: there is a MA 73 shield on Clayton Rd and Canaan Rd through the town of New Marlborough.  The road passes from North Canaan into New Marlborough, then crosses back into North Canaan a couple miles later.  Is there any history behind this numbering, or is it an obvious error?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on October 22, 2019, 11:45:05 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 22, 2019, 09:06:48 PM
Saw an odd thing when I looked at Apple Maps in the area of Clayton, MA and North Canaan, CT: there is a MA 73 shield on Clayton Rd and Canaan Rd through the town of New Marlborough.  The road passes from North Canaan into New Marlborough, then crosses back into North Canaan a couple miles later.  Is there any history behind this numbering, or is it an obvious error?
Error
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 22, 2019, 11:56:18 PM
Quote from: roadman on October 08, 2019, 09:32:09 AM
Salvucci backed the Big Dig largely because of the public transportation improvements that were promised as mitigation.  While work on the Green Line Extension, which has taken way too long to complete and has gone horribly over budget, is still under way, the MBTA has cancelled restoration of light rail to Arborway and has delayed the Red-Blue Line connector.

He's been pretty clear that they had a holistic transportation vision in place, of which all these pieces were part. One thing he has emphasized time and time again is that the mitigation efforts were designed to mitigate in affected corridors, and that his successors abandoned that core principle by making substitutions like suburban parking lots rather than urban transit projects.

And from the horse's mouth, the last time I talked to him (as he kept his head down in the back of a Watertown church basement showing of a documentary on Hood Rubber, where his father worked), Mr. Salvucci reiterated that it was *his* childhood home obliterated by the Turnpike Extension.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 25, 2019, 03:49:43 PM
Were there ever any fanciful plans to expand Route 16 west of I 93? The 1960 overpasses over Main St. (Mass. 38) and 93 are really overbuilt, even with evening backups, and the one over Main St has pavement actually closed off by guardrail.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191025/317940a6c20f920ec7d3da9177d0ff5a.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Stephane Dumas on October 26, 2019, 10:58:03 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 25, 2019, 03:49:43 PM
Were there ever any fanciful plans to expand Route 16 west of I 93? The 1960 overpasses over Main St. (Mass. 38) and 93 are really overbuilt, even with evening backups, and the one over Main St has pavement actually closed off by guardrail.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191025/317940a6c20f920ec7d3da9177d0ff5a.jpg)

Could that freeway stub would had been part of the cancelled Inner beltway? http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/inner-belt/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadsguy on October 26, 2019, 11:04:02 AM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on October 26, 2019, 10:58:03 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 25, 2019, 03:49:43 PM
Were there ever any fanciful plans to expand Route 16 west of I 93? The 1960 overpasses over Main St. (Mass. 38) and 93 are really overbuilt, even with evening backups, and the one over Main St has pavement actually closed off by guardrail.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191025/317940a6c20f920ec7d3da9177d0ff5a.jpg)

Could that freeway stub would had been part of the cancelled Inner beltway? http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/inner-belt/

No, the Inner Beltway would have ended here (https://goo.gl/maps/NQ2BCTc4VJMkw3qc9) where the ramps to Storrow Drive now tie in.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 26, 2019, 12:03:44 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 26, 2019, 11:04:02 AM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on October 26, 2019, 10:58:03 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 25, 2019, 03:49:43 PM
Were there ever any fanciful plans to expand Route 16 west of I 93? The 1960 overpasses over Main St. (Mass. 38) and 93 are really overbuilt, even with evening backups, and the one over Main St has pavement actually closed off by guardrail.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191025/317940a6c20f920ec7d3da9177d0ff5a.jpg)

Could that freeway stub would had been part of the cancelled Inner beltway? http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/inner-belt/

No, the Inner Beltway would have ended here (https://goo.gl/maps/NQ2BCTc4VJMkw3qc9) where the ramps to Storrow Drive now tie in.

I know, that's something else entirely.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 26, 2019, 02:55:49 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 26, 2019, 12:03:44 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 26, 2019, 11:04:02 AM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on October 26, 2019, 10:58:03 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 25, 2019, 03:49:43 PM
Were there ever any fanciful plans to expand Route 16 west of I 93? The 1960 overpasses over Main St. (Mass. 38) and 93 are really overbuilt, even with evening backups, and the one over Main St has pavement actually closed off by guardrail.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191025/317940a6c20f920ec7d3da9177d0ff5a.jpg)

Could that freeway stub would had been part of the cancelled Inner beltway? http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/inner-belt/

No, the Inner Beltway would have ended here (https://goo.gl/maps/NQ2BCTc4VJMkw3qc9) where the ramps to Storrow Drive now tie in.

I know, that's something else entirely.
Interesting.  The only other thing I can think of is that its striped for channelizing down to one lane.  MassDOT also does this on I-91 NB prior to the US 5 multiplex, going from three lanes to two by striping out the right lane.

Another thought:  just looking around on Maps, perhaps there was a plan to make the Alewife Brook Pkwy limited-access, or an extension of MA 2 to I-93.  There is a sizable strip of land to the left of the Alewife, maybe that was ROW set aside for another carriageway.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on October 28, 2019, 09:22:28 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 26, 2019, 02:55:49 PMAnother thought:  just looking around on Maps, perhaps there was a plan to make the Alewife Brook Pkwy limited-access, or an extension of MA 2 to I-93.  There is a sizable strip of land to the left of the Alewife, maybe that was ROW set aside for another carriageway.
What you're describing is the cancelled Route 2 Connector, east of the Alewife Station.  Such would've gone roughly a few miles to the cancelled I-695/Inner Belt which would've connected to I-93.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on October 30, 2019, 01:48:14 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 28, 2019, 09:22:28 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 26, 2019, 02:55:49 PMAnother thought:  just looking around on Maps, perhaps there was a plan to make the Alewife Brook Pkwy limited-access, or an extension of MA 2 to I-93.  There is a sizable strip of land to the left of the Alewife, maybe that was ROW set aside for another carriageway.
What you're describing is the cancelled Route 2 Connector, east of the Alewife Station.  Such would've gone roughly a few miles to the cancelled I-695/Inner Belt which would've connected to I-93.
So I came across this website...
https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2007/07/unbuilt-highways/
It's essentially some guy who mapped out (using Google Maps) unbuilt highways in various cities, Boston being on of them. He based the map off of a website called Boston's Cancelled Highways, the link to that site is now unfortunately long dead (redirects to Aol). What's interesting is that the map shows a Mystic Valley Expressway, connecting route 2 to 93 along the existing parkway, and the article mentions it would have been an elevated route. That would seem to explain why the Main st overpass is overbuilt. However, lots of Google searching has turned up nothing about a Mystic Valley Expressway, and without his original source to check out, who knows if there was ever actually such a plan in mind? Anyone ever heard of such a thing or have any thoughts?

SM-G900P

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on October 30, 2019, 09:46:36 PM
I'm not sure how accurate those maps are, or at least Albany.  I'm pretty sure I-88 was supposed to follow what's now NY 7 between I-87 and Troy, for example.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on October 31, 2019, 10:20:08 AM
Quote from: vdeane on October 30, 2019, 09:46:36 PM
I'm not sure how accurate those maps are, or at least Albany.  I'm pretty sure I-88 was supposed to follow what's now NY 7 between I-87 and Troy, for example.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of other areas but Boston's seems to be fairly accurate, its got all the well known unbuilt highways. The precise routing isn't exact (some routes didn't even have detailed plans laid out, such as the Mid-Circumfrential Highway) but it gives a good idea of the corridor the highway would take.

The only think kinda murky with Boston is the alleged Mystic Valley Expressway...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on October 31, 2019, 11:35:52 AM
Quote from: 5foot14 on October 31, 2019, 10:20:08 AM
Quote from: vdeane on October 30, 2019, 09:46:36 PM
I'm not sure how accurate those maps are, or at least Albany.  I'm pretty sure I-88 was supposed to follow what's now NY 7 between I-87 and Troy, for example.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of other areas but Boston's seems to be fairly accurate, its got all the well known unbuilt highways. The precise routing isn't exact (some routes didn't even have detailed plans laid out, such as the Mid-Circumfrential Highway) but it gives a good idea of the corridor the highway would take.

The only think kinda murky with Boston is the alleged Mystic Valley Expressway...

The 213 routing is a little off, too. He has it as an extension of the Lowell Connector. Likelier, it was supposed to start of US 3 near exit 32 in Chelmsford and cross the Merrimack west of the Rourke Bridge.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on October 31, 2019, 03:01:44 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on October 31, 2019, 11:35:52 AM
Quote from: 5foot14 on October 31, 2019, 10:20:08 AM
Quote from: vdeane on October 30, 2019, 09:46:36 PM
I'm not sure how accurate those maps are, or at least Albany.  I'm pretty sure I-88 was supposed to follow what's now NY 7 between I-87 and Troy, for example.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of other areas but Boston's seems to be fairly accurate, its got all the well known unbuilt highways. The precise routing isn't exact (some routes didn't even have detailed plans laid out, such as the Mid-Circumfrential Highway) but it gives a good idea of the corridor the highway would take.

The only think kinda murky with Boston is the alleged Mystic Valley Expressway...

The 213 routing is a little off, too. He has it as an extension of the Lowell Connector. Likelier, it was supposed to start of US 3 near exit 32 in Chelmsford and cross the Merrimack west of the Rourke Bridge.

Actually both may have been correct at one point or another...
http://www.bostonroads.com/history/1968-map_outside-128/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Dougtone on December 22, 2019, 01:04:33 PM
Here are some photos and a blog write-up of the historic Rocks Village Bridge over the Merrimack River between Haverhill (Rocks Village) and West Newbury, Mass.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/12/rocks-village-bridge-over-merrimack.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/12/rocks-village-bridge-over-merrimack.html)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Magical Trevor on January 14, 2020, 10:15:04 AM
Another rock fall has closed the right lane of Eastbound Massachusetts Turnpike in the same exact spot (mile 15.3-15.4 in Becket) as seven years ago. (https://whdh.com/news/rockslide-prompts-officials-to-shut-down-lane-on-mass-pike-in-becket/)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 14, 2020, 08:18:17 PM
Between Exit 2 (Lee) and 3 (Westfield). Bad enough there's already about 30 miles between those two interchanges. The reporter simply says "just west of Springfield". That's closer to Pittsfield at that point. Sheesh!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJ Particle on January 29, 2020, 07:51:57 AM
Just thought of something, and I dunno if anyone else has noticed this about MA-39...

It's a Chatham bypass of MA-28, right?

2+1 = 3
8+1 = 9

I'm willing to bet that was how MA-39 was numbered, wasn't it?   :hmmm:
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on January 29, 2020, 07:58:20 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on January 29, 2020, 07:51:57 AM
Just thought of something, and I dunno if anyone else has noticed this about MA-39...

It's a Chatham bypass of MA-28, right?

2+1 = 3
8+1 = 9

I'm willing to bet that was how MA-39 was numbered, wasn't it?   :hmmm:

Cape Cod canal:
25 + 3 = 28
3 + 3 = 6
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on January 29, 2020, 08:22:44 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 29, 2020, 07:58:20 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on January 29, 2020, 07:51:57 AM
Just thought of something, and I dunno if anyone else has noticed this about MA-39...

It's a Chatham bypass of MA-28, right?

2+1 = 3
8+1 = 9

I'm willing to bet that was how MA-39 was numbered, wasn't it?   :hmmm:

Cape Cod canal:
25 + 3 = 28
3 + 3 = 6
Illuminati confirmed!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 29, 2020, 06:33:31 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 29, 2020, 07:58:20 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on January 29, 2020, 07:51:57 AM
Just thought of something, and I dunno if anyone else has noticed this about MA-39...

It's a Chatham bypass of MA-28, right?

2+1 = 3
8+1 = 9

I'm willing to bet that was how MA-39 was numbered, wasn't it?   :hmmm:

Cape Cod canal:
25 + 3 = 28
3 + 3 = 6
US 6 is numbered in accordance with the grid, so that one is coincidental.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on January 29, 2020, 08:24:52 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 29, 2020, 07:58:20 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on January 29, 2020, 07:51:57 AM
Just thought of something, and I dunno if anyone else has noticed this about MA-39...

It's a Chatham bypass of MA-28, right?

2+1 = 3
8+1 = 9

I'm willing to bet that was how MA-39 was numbered, wasn't it?   :hmmm:

Cape Cod canal:
25 + 3 = 28
3 + 3 = 6
Los Angeles: 5 x 81 = 405
81 = 9 x 9 = 3 x 3 x 3 x 3
Kobe's numbers: 24 and 8
4 = 2^2. 8 = 2^3. reverse that and you have 3^2^2 = 3^4 = 81
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on January 29, 2020, 09:54:46 PM
As Chevy Chase (as Gerald Ford) would say...

"It was my understanding that there would be no math"

:bigass:

I'm guessing things like that are pure coincidence.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: empirestate on January 30, 2020, 07:33:33 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 29, 2020, 09:54:46 PM
As Chevy Chase (as Gerald Ford) would say...

"It was my understanding that there would be no math"

:bigass:

I'm guessing things like that are pure coincidence.

Not in Syracuse: I-690 + NY 5 =NY 695. :-)

(Also: NY 8 * 100 + NY 12 = NY 812.)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: ProfBrad on February 05, 2020, 05:22:58 AM
Over the past week Route 2 in Lincoln has an increased speed limit from 45 mph to 55 mph between Bedford Road and just past exit 50.It is 55 for about a mile and a half stretch.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 06, 2020, 05:28:17 PM
MassDOT is reinstating HOV status to the I-93 South lanes that were open to all traffic under a pilot program started in October 2018. Traffic rule changes made at the same time for the South Boston Bypass Road will remain in place:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-reinstates-hov-lane-from-the-kneeland-streetlincoln-street-area-to-i-93-southbound/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-reinstates-hov-lane-from-the-kneeland-streetlincoln-street-area-to-i-93-southbound/)
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 07, 2020, 03:23:49 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 06, 2020, 05:28:17 PM
MassDOT is reinstating HOV status to the I-93 South lanes that were open to all traffic under a pilot program started in October 2018. Traffic rule changes made at the same time for the South Boston Bypass Road will remain in place:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-reinstates-hov-lane-from-the-kneeland-streetlincoln-street-area-to-i-93-southbound/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-reinstates-hov-lane-from-the-kneeland-streetlincoln-street-area-to-i-93-southbound/)

I'm curious if that lane is part of the state implementation plan under the Clean Air Act as the northside one supposedly is. Not that with today's EPA there's any likelihood of enforcement one way or the other.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 26, 2020, 06:09:01 PM
Two sections of MA 28 in Reading will undergo a pilot Road Diet starting in April:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/reading-main-street-route-28-project-preparation-begins/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/reading-main-street-route-28-project-preparation-begins/)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on March 26, 2020, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 26, 2020, 06:09:01 PM
Two sections of MA 28 in Reading will undergo a pilot Road Diet starting in April:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/reading-main-street-route-28-project-preparation-begins/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/reading-main-street-route-28-project-preparation-begins/)

That is a good stretch to test it on. The part north of Reading center doesn't have enough traffic to justify its current configuration.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on March 31, 2020, 04:49:33 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 26, 2020, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 26, 2020, 06:09:01 PM
Two sections of MA 28 in Reading will undergo a pilot Road Diet starting in April:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/reading-main-street-route-28-project-preparation-begins/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/reading-main-street-route-28-project-preparation-begins/)

That is a good stretch to test it on. The part north of Reading center doesn't have enough traffic to justify its current configuration.
How long has that 4-lane stripe configuration been there?  One has to wonder if such predated the existence of I-93.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on March 31, 2020, 08:37:12 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 31, 2020, 04:49:33 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 26, 2020, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 26, 2020, 06:09:01 PM
Two sections of MA 28 in Reading will undergo a pilot Road Diet starting in April:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/reading-main-street-route-28-project-preparation-begins/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/reading-main-street-route-28-project-preparation-begins/)

That is a good stretch to test it on. The part north of Reading center doesn't have enough traffic to justify its current configuration.
How long has that 4-lane stripe configuration been there?  One has to wonder if such predated the existence of I-93.

Based on historic aerials, looks like between 1969 and 1971 it went from two to four lanes, which is a good few years after 93 was built and opened.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on April 19, 2020, 04:09:52 PM
One thing the coronavirus shutdown has given me is time to finish a planned critique of the current Massachusetts highway system and suggestions to fix them, something that I've promised on my Massachusetts highways website for over 5 years. The first draft of the site is at: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/improvements.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/improvements.html). Feel free to offer any suggestions or comments which I will take into account before a formal launch.

One subject I discuss is better, or at least less confusing, route signage. MA 38 for example. It was truncated to the intersection with MA 28 in Somerville in 1971. In the 1990's, however, signage appeared that implied it extended to Sullivan Square in Charlestown, though no complementary signage was installed in the other direction. Most just assumed the signage was in error. In recent years however, not only was the 1990s era signage replaced with new signs with the same information:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma38southsignsomerville919b.jpg&hash=c6e7650f9d5935c197121e291c830edec7ea3e94)

Additional guide and trailblazer signage was installed on and around MA 28:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma38signs420c.JPG&hash=2cd21d15eab578c5f481106546d6a6b92c8ab0cb)

Still no complementary signage for the other direction though, so where does it end? One of the questions I hope to answer with the new site.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on April 19, 2020, 11:13:31 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on April 19, 2020, 04:09:52 PM
One thing the coronavirus shutdown has given me is time to finish a planned critique of the current Massachusetts highway system and suggestions to fix them, something that I've promised on my Massachusetts highways website for over 5 years. The first draft of the site is at: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/improvements.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/improvements.html). Feel free to offer any suggestions or comments which I will take into account before a formal launch.

One subject I discuss is better, or at least less confusing, route signage. MA 38 for example. It was truncated to the intersection with MA 28 in Somerville in 1971. In the 1990's, however, signage appeared that implied it extended to Sullivan Square in Charlestown, though no complementary signage was installed in the other direction. Most just assumed the signage was in error. In recent years however, not only was the 1990s era signage replaced with new signs with the same information:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma38southsignsomerville919b.jpg&hash=c6e7650f9d5935c197121e291c830edec7ea3e94)

Additional guide and trailblazer signage was installed on and around MA 28:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma38signs420c.JPG&hash=2cd21d15eab578c5f481106546d6a6b92c8ab0cb)

Still no complementary signage for the other direction though, so where does it end? One of the questions I hope to answer with the new site.
I'm sure we'll get another thread going to discuss your ideas, so here are my suggestions:
* Break your site into pages. For now, have one page for renumberings, one for reroutings, etc. About 3/4 of the way down my brain started protesting.
* If you have multiple routes that depend on each other (like 25 and 28, or 2 and 3), provide a general overview map showing all the affected routes and what you would do to them, and then go through each route individually. Makes it easier to see how the changes fit together.

I look forward to having a place to discuss these!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: deathtopumpkins on April 20, 2020, 09:07:56 AM
A very interesting read! Thank you for taking the time and effort to do this! I don't personally agree with all of the decisions (e.g. eliminating 28 where parallel to 495, as it provides a useful alternate route in case of congestion or incidents), but see the logic behind them.

A few things of note though:

These are just my personal thoughts though!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJ Particle on April 22, 2020, 02:19:06 AM
Curious...since MA never did sign a "MA-44A" in Plymouth, have there been any plans to extend MA-80 to MA-3 exit 6 (15)?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 22, 2020, 11:44:39 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on April 22, 2020, 02:19:06 AM
Curious...since MA never did sign a "MA-44A" in Plymouth, have there been any plans to extend MA-80 to MA-3 exit 6 (15)?
None as I can tell, but they really need to do something about this road. It's signed east-west when it should be signed north-south.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on April 22, 2020, 01:17:46 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on April 19, 2020, 04:09:52 PM
One thing the coronavirus shutdown has given me is time to finish a planned critique of the current Massachusetts highway system and suggestions to fix them, something that I've promised on my Massachusetts highways website for over 5 years. The first draft of the site is at: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/improvements.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/improvements.html). Feel free to offer any suggestions or comments which I will take into account before a formal launch.

One subject I discuss is better, or at least less confusing, route signage. MA 38 for example. It was truncated to the intersection with MA 28 in Somerville in 1971. In the 1990's, however, signage appeared that implied it extended to Sullivan Square in Charlestown, though no complementary signage was installed in the other direction. Most just assumed the signage was in error. In recent years however, not only was the 1990s era signage replaced with new signs with the same information:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma38southsignsomerville919b.jpg&hash=c6e7650f9d5935c197121e291c830edec7ea3e94)

Additional guide and trailblazer signage was installed on and around MA 28:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma38signs420c.JPG&hash=2cd21d15eab578c5f481106546d6a6b92c8ab0cb)

Still no complementary signage for the other direction though, so where does it end? One of the questions I hope to answer with the new site.

My favorite sign here and noted on your page is the 38 south straight sign with the 0.0 MM right next to it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on April 25, 2020, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 20, 2020, 09:07:56 AM
  • Extending 203 up the Jamaicaway is a bad idea. No trucks, very narrow lanes, not exactly state highway material, which is a big part of why 1 was removed from it in the first place. If the issue is the route having a 'hanging end', and the Jamaicaway routing needs a number, resurrect the old 1 routing as 1A.
If extending the 203 along the Jamaicaway is a bad idea for the reason(s) you listed; wouldn't similar apply for 1A, which would also mean it would extend onto Storrow Drive as well for continuity?

I mentioned similar in the Fictional Section and the Task of Cleaning Up One's State Highways thread several times in the past and I'll mention this here again for reference only.  One way to address the hanging ends of MA 203 and MA 109 would be to simply extend 109 up to and have it replace 203 in its entirety  Such a routing would not include the Jamaicaway in the mix and would address the awkward hanging ends of both routes that's existed for now 30+ years.  It's also worth noting (and this is real) that MA 109 east of I-95/MA 128 now has a truck restriction on it. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.241843,-71.1984399,3a,75y,311.45h,91.63t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sql2N9yXl8VVqUzrczFK0KQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dql2N9yXl8VVqUzrczFK0KQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D83.64373%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) 

Additionally, a portion of that stretch of 109 immediately east of the interchange in Dedham was recently road-dieted (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2460932,-71.1967587,3a,75y,246.45h,69.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sw0qLGc1K53Guv1Inx8yisw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dw0qLGc1K53Guv1Inx8yisw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D197.69658%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) to further emphasize the restriction.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: deathtopumpkins on April 26, 2020, 02:55:48 PM
You're missing my point. If this "hanging end" is bad enough to warrant extending 203 on the Jamaicaway, then you might as well resurrect the old US 1 routing as MA 1A instead. It's not any lower of quality and is much more useful for actual navigational purposes.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on April 29, 2020, 06:18:19 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 26, 2020, 02:55:48 PM
You're missing my point. If this "hanging end" is bad enough to warrant extending 203 on the Jamaicaway, then you might as well resurrect the old US 1 routing as MA 1A instead. It's not any lower of quality and is much more useful for actual navigational purposes.
Au contraire.  Extending 203 along the Jamaicaway would not involve placing such along Storrow Drive (with its low clearances) that a 1A designation along the former US 1 corridor would have likely involved.  A 203 extension would likely follow the pre-1971 MA 3 alignment into Cambridge where such would meet US & present-day MA 3.

That said, and if MassDOT and/or DCR even cared about addressing the hanging ends of both MA 109 & 203; they would've likely left the Jamaicaway alone and extended 109 to and replaced MA 203 as I previously mentioned.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: deathtopumpkins on April 29, 2020, 11:07:08 PM
We'll just have to agree to disagree here. Seems a bit ridiculous to me to say that the Jamaicaway is a better quality road than Storrow Drive just because Storrow has some low clearances.

I maintain that a 1A along the old US 1 routing would be much more useful for actual navigational purposes than extending MA 203 across Boston and Cambridge.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on April 30, 2020, 06:21:13 PM
Based on the comments I've received, I've made modifications to my suggested MA Route Changes page, giving it a page of its own and putting the new route suggestions and better signage listings on separate pages, plus adding some additional material. The 'final draft' changes page is at: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/routechanges.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/routechanges.html) for any additional comments and suggestions.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on April 30, 2020, 06:46:12 PM
How about an extension of MA 169 to Worcester?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on May 01, 2020, 09:22:46 PM
Unrelated to previous post: My 2009 traffic count spreadsheet includes an entry for MA 140 Bypass in Garnder in 2001. Its only segment has the description "South of Route 101". It is much more lightly used than actual MA 140. Does anyone have any information on whether it ever actually existed?

This document also claims that MA 15 is in Sturbridge as late as 2005 (and does not recognize the extension of RI 15 as MA 15, where it is now), but it does not have any mention of the nonexistent MA 44A.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on May 02, 2020, 06:12:28 AM
Quote from: 1 on May 01, 2020, 09:22:46 PM
Unrelated to previous post: My 2009 traffic count spreadsheet includes an entry for MA 140 Bypass in Garnder in 2001. Its only segment has the description "South of Route 101". It is much more lightly used than actual MA 140. Does anyone have any information on whether it ever actually existed?

This document also claims that MA 15 is in Sturbridge as late as 2005 (and does not recognize the extension of RI 15 as MA 15, where it is now), but it does not have any mention of the nonexistent MA 44A.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5565405,-71.9789777,3a,55.1y,342h,92.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJfB3IhWgyRceYi0vvIoI9g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I wonder if that finally explains the foolishness of this random sign. I want to say the sign itself was put up in the late 2000's/early 2010's. This sign would have been accurate before 140 was built to swing around Gardner.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: KEVIN_224 on May 05, 2020, 08:01:34 PM
Saw this on The Sopranos. The guy was supposedly driving on I-90/Massachusetts Turnpike! :-D
(https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/2f/76/1phYWgNj_t.jpg)[/URL]
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on May 05, 2020, 11:31:54 PM
Wow.... they got the Mass-style exit tab right, but it was never used on the Mass Pike.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on May 06, 2020, 01:31:21 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 05, 2020, 11:31:54 PM
Wow.... they got the Mass-style exit tab right, but it was never used on the Mass Pike.
Close, but not quite.  In the old MassDPW 'integral exit tab' design, 'EXIT' and the numeral were top justified, and the bottom of the numeral noticeably overlapped onto the main sign panel.  On the Sopranos sign, the numeral 14 is centered on the exit tab, and does not overlap onto the main sign panel, but ends just above where the border of the main sign panel would be if there weren't an exit tab.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jmacswimmer on May 06, 2020, 08:22:05 AM
Quote from: roadman on May 06, 2020, 01:31:21 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 05, 2020, 11:31:54 PM
Wow.... they got the Mass-style exit tab right, but it was never used on the Mass Pike.
Close, but not quite.  In the old MassDPW 'integral exit tab' design, 'EXIT' and the numeral were top justified, and the bottom of the numeral noticeably overlapped onto the main sign panel.  On the Sopranos sign, the numeral 14 is centered on the exit tab, and does not overlap onto the main sign panel, but ends just above where the border of the main sign panel would be if there weren't an exit tab.

My guess was that they filmed one of these (since-replaced) signs on I-91 approaching the Mass Pike, the dimensions look about the same IMHO https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1536916,-72.6479525,3a,41.2y,354.05h,94.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBvavBAmiWVfUS62g9uFnLg!2e0!5s20110901T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1536916,-72.6479525,3a,41.2y,354.05h,94.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBvavBAmiWVfUS62g9uFnLg!2e0!5s20110901T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en)
and then just edited to show I-95 instead.  Which is more effort than most tv shows give to road signage, so props to them! :clap:

Great show by the way, I binged the whole thing over the summer before my senior year at college.  When I was a kid, my parents would let me watch the intro sequence of Tony coming out of the Lincoln Tunnel, getting on the NJ Turnpike, etc.  And then quickly send me off to bed before the real action started :sleep:
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on May 13, 2020, 11:08:59 PM
Today, I took advantage of a nice spring day and abbreviated traffic volumes and travelled a large portion of I-495.  I really dread this road in normal conditions.  It has high traffic volumes.... is long and boring.... have been stuck in traffic on it many times.... and it was that stretch on family vacations between "are we there yet" and "almost home".  Nevertheless, today it was a joy to drive.  I did notice a few things today as I travelled NB from Marlboro to Salisbury, and SB from Salisbury to Mansfield/Foxboro:

*  All of those god-awful MassHighway oversized I-495 signs are gone.  The replacement is much smaller, and in many locations, on a single girder post, similar to those on the Mass Pike. 

*  Between Hudson & Foxboro, the signs are mostly new, but there are numerous 1990s-vintage signs still up, on old gantries, including several button copy interstate numeral shields.  I thought this project was completed, but I observed at least 4 or 5 guide signs SB not replaced.   There were no mini orange tags observed, so I don't know if they were left out of project plans or what.  One is the 1/2 mile advance for Exit 14B southbound, which lists two control points for US 1 South.  Strangely, one of them is the solo Exit 14A destination.  And in another instance, there is a new Hartford CT/New York City-use I-90 West ground-mount sign, with the older overhead sign just before it.

*  Between Hudson & Lowell, a sign replacement project is in its infant stages.  No new guide signs observed, but plenty of orange tags.  Some new ground-mount regulatory signs are up.

*  Signs from Exit 38 in Tewksbury to Haverhill feature newish signs with single-side signs mounted on 4-chord style cantilevers, while those north from Haverhill to the end of I-495 use the older style cantilevers.  There are still some old signs on the bridge in Lawrence.  It seems like each sign replacement contract uses a different support structure style.  Signs from Mansfield up to Hudson are mounted on the single-post style. 

*  I was surprised to see I-495 Exit 40B use "Salem NH" over "Concord NH". 

*  North of Exit 53 in Merrimac, there is a new speed limit sign that has "speed" and "limit" text reversed, so it reads "LIMIT/SPEED/55".  I couldn't get a shot of it.

Link to I-495 sign photos is here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/sets/72157684290796051/

In the past several weeks, I have also driven large portions of other roads in Mass, including:
All of 128, Canton to Gloucester, as well as all of I-195, I-295, MA 25, I-395/I-290, and I-90 east of Sturbridge.


Link to all photos is here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/collections/72157657234163953/

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on May 14, 2020, 04:02:54 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 29, 2020, 11:07:08 PM
We'll just have to agree to disagree here. Seems a bit ridiculous to me to say that the Jamaicaway is a better quality road than Storrow Drive just because Storrow has some low clearances.

I maintain that a 1A along the old US 1 routing would be much more useful for actual navigational purposes than extending MA 203 across Boston and Cambridge.
Okay, some explanation & history is in order here; some of which you probably know & some you may not be fully aware of. 

During the Portsmouth, NH meet that took place several years ago; I asked a meet attendee who works at MassDOT & its predecessors about the 1989 reroute of US 1 off of Storrow Drive (& the Jamaicaway).  His replied the reasoning for such was indeed to reduce the frequency of trucks getting stuck on Storrow Drive's low overpasses (a term commonly known as Storrowing).

However, I did not ask him why MA 1A could not have been used for the old routing per your suggestion (in hindsight, I should've of).  My guess is that in order for a road to receive a route number... any number; it needs to be able to accommodate truck traffic.  If a short stretch can not accommodate trucks due to either low clearances and/or weight restrictions; a truck route to bypass such has to be signed (whether as a bannered truck route of said-number or just as a simple truck route/detour).  Apparently when the then-MassDPW made its decision to reroute US 1 onto I-93 (& I-95); they saw no feasible alternative to have US 1 bypass Storrow Drive and keep it along the Jamaicaway. 

I guess having US 1 exit off I-93 at either Mass Ave., using Melnea Cass Blvd. or having it exit at Granite Ave. and replace MA 203 as a means of maintaining more of the pre-1989 alignment of US 1 south of MA 203 was either rejected or never pondered.

As for the reasoning why Storrow Drive was assigned route numbers in the first place; it is worth noting that, based on reviewing older maps, there were two concurrent routings of MA C1 & C9 (such was an oddball IMHO) when Storrow Drive was opened to traffic during the early 50s... the routing along Storrow Drive and the pre-Storrow alignment along Commonwealth Ave.  The older Commonwealth Ave. routing was maintained, although not fully signed as such from what I can tell, as an alternative truck route for C1/C9.  Both routings were shown on maps well into 1960s.

As most here know, the phaseout of Boston's C-route system coincided with the 1971 reroutes of US 1 & US/MA 3... with the latter reroute resulting in the creation of MA 203 & the former being placed along Storrow Drive (old non-truck C1/C9).  However, the decision for those reroutes of US 1 & US/MA 3 clearly did not take into consideration that the future of the Inner Belt (I-695) & the Southwest Expressway (original I-95) was in doubt if not already dead at the time.  Had those highways been built; truck traffic would've been signed & directed to use those roads instead of then-US 1 along Storrow Drive.  How such (the truck route for US 1) would've been signed is not known.

The absence of those two proposed highways obviously left truckers without a realistic route to travel in the immediate southwestern part of the city.

In retrospect & hindsight, the 1971 reroutes of US 1, US/MA 3 along with the phaseout of the C-route system should've taken into consideration that the two originally planned highways were going to be cancelled and that the Southeast Expressway (then mostly-unnumbered) was going to become a de-facto Interstate (I-95 initially then ultimately I-93).  That coordination alone would've probably eliminated the need to reroute US/MA 3 (and the creation of MA 203) to its current routing southeast of Cambridge.  As far as US 1 is/was concerned; such would've probably been rerouted onto the Central Artery (then I-95) from the Sumner/Callahan Tunnel to as least as far as the Mass Ave. interchange with the building of Melnea Cass Blvd., that followed a partial path of the dead-Inner Belt/Southwest Expressway, as far as the Fens.  Or it would've followed its current routing.

Quote from: shadyjay on May 13, 2020, 11:08:59 PM
*  I was surprised to see I-495 Exit 40B use "Salem NH" over "Concord NH".
It's worth noting that the 1977-era signage listed Methuen for that I-93 northbound exit.  Many signs along that stretch of I-93 prior to the 1990s used to list Salem, NH as a northbound I-93 control city.  Maybe whoever decided to sign that interchange for Salem, NH must have had a little bit of a nostalgia bug.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 30, 2020, 12:16:03 AM
I-290 east of I-495- what route was it supposed to take and why was it cancelled?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on May 30, 2020, 02:58:52 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 30, 2020, 12:16:03 AM
I-290 east of I-495- what route was it supposed to take and why was it cancelled?
Basically roughly parallel to US 20 on in to Route 128. I don't know that they had a final route determined, but they were down to a few choices north and south. Just ran into environment/communities, the usual.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on May 30, 2020, 09:39:15 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 30, 2020, 12:16:03 AM
I-290 east of I-495- what route was it supposed to take and why was it cancelled?

Some of Technology Dr, on the opposite side of MA-85 in Hudson, was right-of-way bought to make it, then sold off to what I think was Digital or one of the defunct Massachusetts tech companies.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on May 30, 2020, 11:07:07 AM
I always envisioned it as part of an extended I-84 that would follow the MA 49 corridor then bend around and take over the east/west portion of I-290 and extend to I-95/MA 128 near Hanscom Field in Lexington.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 30, 2020, 11:49:23 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 30, 2020, 11:07:07 AM
I always envisioned it as part of an extended I-84 that would follow the MA 49 corridor then bend around and take over the east/west portion of I-290 and extend to I-95/MA 128 near Hanscom Field in Lexington.
There was a weak plan to extend then-MA 15 Northeast through Worcester County.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJStephens on May 31, 2020, 01:43:27 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 30, 2020, 02:58:52 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 30, 2020, 12:16:03 AM
I-290 east of I-495- what route was it supposed to take and why was it cancelled?
Basically roughly parallel to US 20 on in to Route 128. I don't know that they had a final route determined, but they were down to a few choices north and south. Just ran into environment/communities, the usual.

Grew up in that region, but never viewed 290 as being "realistic" E of 495.   Today the US 20 corridor between 128 and 495 is some of the most expensive suburban real estate in the country.  Was kind of amazing they were able to build so much then (sixties/seventies) in the outer suburbs at that time - 52, 146, 190, 290, and 495.  Am of opinion that if they had started on the urban Boston sections earlier (inner belt, unfinished radials) and if the designs were sound (depression, cut & cover, some tunnels)  that would have been better in the long run.   
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on May 31, 2020, 07:42:24 PM
Quoteshadyjay wrote:  Between Hudson & Foxboro, the signs are mostly new, but there are numerous 1990s-vintage signs still up, on old gantries, including several button copy interstate numeral shields.  I thought this project was completed, but I observed at least 4 or 5 guide signs SB not replaced.   There were no mini orange tags observed, so I don't know if they were left out of project plans or what.

The little orange tags to mark future gantry foundations are actually not a MassDOT requirement, but simply the way that one contractor (Liddell Brothers) marks their foundation locations.  RoadSafe Traffic Systems, the contractor on the I-495 Raynham to Bolton, marks their foundations in a more subtle manner.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on May 31, 2020, 08:40:04 PM
Gotcha... thanks.  So that means the project (Raynham to Bolton) is still going on? 
I can see a sign or so getting missed in an entire project ("there's always one" in CT projects it seems), but the amount I saw not replaced was a little high.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ben114 on May 31, 2020, 11:40:42 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 31, 2020, 08:40:04 PM
Gotcha... thanks.  So that means the project (Raynham to Bolton) is still going on? 
I can see a sign or so getting missed in an entire project ("there's always one" in CT projects it seems), but the amount I saw not replaced was a little high.

I think it's still going on, just at a slow pace. If it is "done", I wonder what they'll do when adding the new exit numbers later this year.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on June 04, 2020, 10:26:43 AM
Quote from: Ben114 on May 31, 2020, 11:40:42 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 31, 2020, 08:40:04 PM
Gotcha... thanks.  So that means the project (Raynham to Bolton) is still going on? 
I can see a sign or so getting missed in an entire project ("there's always one" in CT projects it seems), but the amount I saw not replaced was a little high.

I think it's still going on, just at a slow pace. If it is "done", I wonder what they'll do when adding the new exit numbers later this year.

Exit tabs on the I-495 project are designed to accommodate the longer of either the current sequential or the new milepost-based number.  The exit renumbering contracts will call for the contractor to coordinate with other ongoing sign work.  If signs in those projects have already been fabricated and installed, the exit renumbering contractor will overlay a new number on the sign.  If signs haven't yet been fabricated or installed, the sign project contractor will use the new number on the sign.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on June 04, 2020, 04:07:54 PM
So it looks like we had a rarity in Massachusetts recently, a small realignment of a state route. 62 in Clinton was moved for a small stretch. Google maps still has the old routing here, but it's now signed to run on Sterling St parallel south of the routing on Brook St, https://goo.gl/maps/1EVXRuRhpgxzHxZb9

Per GSV from 10/19, it was changed by that point on the eastern end
https://goo.gl/maps/bGrX7V3CTRwQreRn7
https://goo.gl/maps/63qyk8T1zFDD6yvV7
With the old left turn sign for 62 removed
https://goo.gl/maps/rQ4o6D4mnXtozH3GA

But not on the western end
https://goo.gl/maps/x9NEUazXWbWJBHDF6
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: deathtopumpkins on June 05, 2020, 07:41:50 AM
Any idea what the reason for the reroute was? I can't see much of a difference between Brook and Sterling.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on June 05, 2020, 08:52:14 AM
Can someone list every single change in the Massachusetts route system since ~1980? I don't think there are that many. The ones I know of:

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on June 05, 2020, 09:51:45 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 05, 2020, 07:41:50 AM
Any idea what the reason for the reroute was? I can't see much of a difference between Brook and Sterling.

I can't find anything about it, either news story or press release. It is more direct as it removes the turn at the west end of the change.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on June 05, 2020, 09:58:17 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 05, 2020, 08:52:14 AM
Can someone list every single change in the Massachusetts route system since ~1980? I don't think there are that many. The ones I know of:


  • US 1 no longer goes through Boston city streets
  • US 44 rerouted onto freeway
  • The MA 62 change just mentioned
  • MA 127 no longer ends at itself
  • MA 140 in Gardner rerouted into bypass


Probably a few others out there I've missed too, since these are just off the top of my head. Compared to other states, changes are pretty few and far between.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ben114 on June 05, 2020, 10:08:21 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 05, 2020, 09:58:17 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 05, 2020, 08:52:14 AM
Can someone list every single change in the Massachusetts route system since ~1980? I don't think there are that many. The ones I know of:


  • US 1 no longer goes through Boston city streets
  • US 44 rerouted onto freeway
  • The MA 62 change just mentioned
  • MA 127 no longer ends at itself
  • MA 140 in Gardner rerouted into bypass

  • 129 being moved into downtown Lynn + creation of 129A on the old 129, mid 90's
  • 107 extended north in Salem on new bypass route of 1A, late 00's
  • 52 becoming I-395, early 80's
  • I-190 opened, early 80's
  • I-90 extended thru TWT, early 00's

Probably a few others out there I've missed too, since these are just off the top of my head. Compared to other states, changes are pretty few and far between.

146 rerouted onto a freeway, '07
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on June 05, 2020, 10:56:50 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 05, 2020, 09:58:17 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 05, 2020, 08:52:14 AM
Can someone list every single change in the Massachusetts route system since ~1980? I don't think there are that many. The ones I know of:


  • US 1 no longer goes through Boston city streets
  • US 44 rerouted onto freeway
  • The MA 62 change just mentioned
  • MA 127 no longer ends at itself
  • MA 140 in Gardner rerouted into bypass

  • 129 being moved into downtown Lynn + creation of 129A on the old 129, mid 90's
  • 107 extended north in Salem on new bypass route of 1A, late 00's
  • 52 becoming I-395, early 80's
  • I-190 opened, early 80's
  • I-90 extended thru TWT, early 00's

Probably a few others out there I've missed too, since these are just off the top of my head. Compared to other states, changes are pretty few and far between.
When was MA 135 cut back to I-95?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on June 05, 2020, 11:26:33 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 05, 2020, 10:56:50 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 05, 2020, 09:58:17 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 05, 2020, 08:52:14 AM
Can someone list every single change in the Massachusetts route system since ~1980? I don't think there are that many. The ones I know of:


  • US 1 no longer goes through Boston city streets
  • US 44 rerouted onto freeway
  • The MA 62 change just mentioned
  • MA 127 no longer ends at itself
  • MA 140 in Gardner rerouted into bypass

  • 129 being moved into downtown Lynn + creation of 129A on the old 129, mid 90's
  • 107 extended north in Salem on new bypass route of 1A, late 00's
  • 52 becoming I-395, early 80's
  • I-190 opened, early 80's
  • I-90 extended thru TWT, early 00's

Probably a few others out there I've missed too, since these are just off the top of my head. Compared to other states, changes are pretty few and far between.
When was MA 135 cut back to I-95?

I found a map from 1970 showing it end at what was then 128, so appears it's been that way for a long while.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on June 05, 2020, 12:40:37 PM
What's the official word on 1A in Boston? Is that rerouted?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 05, 2020, 07:38:57 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 05, 2020, 09:58:17 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 05, 2020, 08:52:14 AM
Can someone list every single change in the Massachusetts route system since ~1980? I don't think there are that many. The ones I know of:


  • US 1 no longer goes through Boston city streets
  • US 44 rerouted onto freeway
  • The MA 62 change just mentioned
  • MA 127 no longer ends at itself
  • MA 140 in Gardner rerouted into bypass

  • 129 being moved into downtown Lynn + creation of 129A on the old 129, mid 90's
  • 107 extended north in Salem on new bypass route of 1A, late 00's
  • 52 becoming I-395, early 80's
  • I-190 opened, early 80's
  • I-90 extended thru TWT, early 00's

Probably a few others out there I've missed too, since these are just off the top of my head. Compared to other states, changes are pretty few and far between.
MA 25 is completed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on June 05, 2020, 09:40:40 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 05, 2020, 12:40:37 PM
What's the official word on 1A in Boston? Is that rerouted?
Officially, since the Ted Williams Tunnel was opened, MA 1A North runs concurrently with I-90 East from I-93 North. There is one trailblazer prior to the I-90 Exit on I-93 but no signage along I-90 itself. The route of MA 1A South was not changed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJ Particle on June 08, 2020, 03:46:30 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 05, 2020, 07:38:57 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 05, 2020, 09:58:17 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 05, 2020, 08:52:14 AM
Can someone list every single change in the Massachusetts route system since ~1980? I don't think there are that many. The ones I know of:


  • US 1 no longer goes through Boston city streets
  • US 44 rerouted onto freeway
  • The MA 62 change just mentioned
  • MA 127 no longer ends at itself
  • MA 140 in Gardner rerouted into bypass

  • 129 being moved into downtown Lynn + creation of 129A on the old 129, mid 90's
  • 107 extended north in Salem on new bypass route of 1A, late 00's
  • 52 becoming I-395, early 80's
  • I-190 opened, early 80's
  • I-90 extended thru TWT, early 00's

Probably a few others out there I've missed too, since these are just off the top of my head. Compared to other states, changes are pretty few and far between.
MA 25 is completed.
MA 128's southern terminus changed from MA-3 to I-93
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on June 12, 2020, 09:25:38 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 05, 2020, 11:26:33 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 05, 2020, 10:56:50 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 05, 2020, 09:58:17 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 05, 2020, 08:52:14 AM
Can someone list every single change in the Massachusetts route system since ~1980? I don't think there are that many. The ones I know of:


  • US 1 no longer goes through Boston city streets
  • US 44 rerouted onto freeway
  • The MA 62 change just mentioned
  • MA 127 no longer ends at itself
  • MA 140 in Gardner rerouted into bypass

  • 129 being moved into downtown Lynn + creation of 129A on the old 129, mid 90's
  • 107 extended north in Salem on new bypass route of 1A, late 00's
  • 52 becoming I-395, early 80's
  • I-190 opened, early 80's
  • I-90 extended thru TWT, early 00's

Probably a few others out there I've missed too, since these are just off the top of my head. Compared to other states, changes are pretty few and far between.
When was MA 135 cut back to I-95?

I found a map from 1970 showing it end at what was then 128, so appears it's been that way for a long while.
135 was truncated when the Yankee Division Highway (then just-128) was first built in the 1950s.

Other changes since 1980:

I-495 was extended east of I-95 in Mansfield and took over most of MA 25 (up to I-195).

MA 2A was rerouted away from downtown Concord onto its parent MA 2.

I-391 was completed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on June 12, 2020, 09:46:54 AM
With the completion of the Task 'A' interchange in 1989, I-95 was rerouted from its short overlap with US 1 in Peabody onto its own roadway.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on June 12, 2020, 10:05:22 AM
Quote from: roadman on June 12, 2020, 09:46:54 AM
With the completion of the Task 'A' interchange in 1989, I-95 was rerouted from its short overlap with US 1 in Peabody onto its own roadway.
You beat me to the punch regarding I-95; but, to add, the related realignment of MA 128 between I-95 and Lowell St.

Two more recent changes:

MA 2/2A intersection converted to an interchange east of Concord (current Exit 50).

Realignment of I-93 through downtown Boston via the Big Dig
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on July 09, 2020, 06:43:03 PM
At the I-90/I-84 interchange, does more traffic stay on I-90 or exit to I-84?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on July 09, 2020, 11:04:08 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 09, 2020, 06:43:03 PM
At the I-90/I-84 interchange, does more traffic stay on I-90 or exit to I-84?
Without looking it up, my guess is 90 by a little bit.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: webny99 on July 09, 2020, 11:11:14 PM
I'm not even sure where to find the data for Mass., but I'd have guessed I-84 by a little bit. It's got to be a roughly even split though.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on July 09, 2020, 11:59:05 PM
Quote from: webny99 on July 09, 2020, 11:11:14 PM
I'm not even sure where to find the data for Mass., but I'd have guessed I-84 by a little bit. It's got to be a roughly even split though.
https://www.mass.gov/traffic-volume-and-classification

Seeing 30,188 on the WB ramp. Seeing 106,021 east of there as an AADT, so figure... you're right, more than half are exiting.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 10, 2020, 12:22:33 AM
You know I just thought of this song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_SVoOwW4Yc
And it makes me think of how much better things would've been if the Boston Metro Area was moving towards this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110708095852/http://www.brorson.com/maps/BostonHighwayPlan_1965_Detail/BostonHPDetailLevel1.jpg

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1Kchb2rtgwdPEbSQegMfTquLIPG4&ll=42.36681939459386%2C-71.097292&z=11

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 10, 2020, 12:09:36 PM
MassDOT has reached a memorandum of understanding with the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the replacement of the Cape Cod bridges, from MassDOT's blog:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/memorandum-of-understanding-reached-between-massdot-and-the-u-s-army-corps-of-engineers-regarding-bourne-and-sagamore-bridges/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/memorandum-of-understanding-reached-between-massdot-and-the-u-s-army-corps-of-engineers-regarding-bourne-and-sagamore-bridges/)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on July 10, 2020, 01:29:28 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 10, 2020, 12:09:36 PM
MassDOT has reached a memorandum of understanding with the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the replacement of the Cape Cod bridges, from MassDOT's blog:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/memorandum-of-understanding-reached-between-massdot-and-the-u-s-army-corps-of-engineers-regarding-bourne-and-sagamore-bridges/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/memorandum-of-understanding-reached-between-massdot-and-the-u-s-army-corps-of-engineers-regarding-bourne-and-sagamore-bridges/)
So the new bridges will be MassDOT bridges.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 10, 2020, 09:13:39 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 10, 2020, 12:22:33 AM
You know I just thought of this song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_SVoOwW4Yc
And it makes me think of how much better things would've been if the Boston Metro Area was moving towards this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110708095852/http://www.brorson.com/maps/BostonHighwayPlan_1965_Detail/BostonHPDetailLevel1.jpg

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1Kchb2rtgwdPEbSQegMfTquLIPG4&ll=42.36681939459386%2C-71.097292&z=11

Good god, no. More parking lots for 12 hours a day.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 18, 2020, 06:27:24 PM
What's this? I saw a guy abruptly pull off Route 6 here, then looked it up to find this unsigned, unlabeled loop. Several vehicles were parked on it.

https://goo.gl/maps/dNhf56nDr2qpCyyW8

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200718/596b11de4e085242713c7c0400644b10.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 18, 2020, 06:59:35 PM
It was an old rest stop, replaced by the current one between exits 6 and 7.

The cars are there for fishing.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 19, 2020, 10:28:08 PM
Spent the day with family down in Naragansett (RI).  On the way down and back, I noted that some of the MassDOT SES retrofit VMS boards are now active.  Personally, I'm not terribly impressed with the displays, which are a color that appears to be a cross between fluorescent yellow-green and chartreuse.  IMO, they are fairly weak compared to other boards.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 20, 2020, 12:47:28 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 18, 2020, 06:59:35 PM
It was an old rest stop, replaced by the current one between exits 6 and 7.

The cars are there for fishing.

Ah, ok. Thanks. I figured the people were there either to fish or for the rail trail.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 20, 2020, 05:37:08 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 10, 2020, 12:22:33 AM
You know I just thought of this song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_SVoOwW4Yc
Nice little montage.  Although there are some newer footage of the Central Artery (the cars & overhead signs being the dead give-aways) mixed in with the vintage ones; that include the Central Artery with the older signs.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DrSmith on July 26, 2020, 05:30:57 PM
Came across this yesterday by Wachusett Dam.
It looks like an old lantern hanging over the intersection.
Any idea what it might actually be?

https://goo.gl/maps/PcJW8nGKEaG3DGSp7
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on July 26, 2020, 08:27:51 PM
A very old intersection flashing light (yellow for thru traffic, red for intersecting traffic) or a 3-way flashing red light (stop) perhaps? 

Damn, it looks really old!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 26, 2020, 09:42:00 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 26, 2020, 08:27:51 PM
A very old intersection flashing light (yellow for thru traffic, red for intersecting traffic) or a 3-way flashing red light (stop) perhaps? 

Damn, it looks really old!
That's what it is. If you toggle Street View around you can get a shot of it illuminated.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on July 29, 2020, 05:22:10 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 05, 2020, 08:52:14 AM
Can someone list every single change in the Massachusetts route system since ~1980? I don't think there are that many. The ones I know of:


  • US 1 no longer goes through Boston city streets
  • US 44 rerouted onto freeway
  • The MA 62 change just mentioned
  • MA 127 no longer ends at itself
  • MA 140 in Gardner rerouted into bypass

A little late to the party, but I'll add MA 140 being rerouted in Mansfield in 1982 onto a "freeway with traffic lights" when I-495 opened in that area.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ben114 on August 21, 2020, 11:24:36 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on May 31, 2020, 11:40:42 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 31, 2020, 08:40:04 PM
Gotcha... thanks.  So that means the project (Raynham to Bolton) is still going on? 
I can see a sign or so getting missed in an entire project ("there's always one" in CT projects it seems), but the amount I saw not replaced was a little high.

I think it's still going on, just at a slow pace. If it is "done", I wonder what they'll do when adding the new exit numbers later this year.

I have an update on this project (I-495 Raynham to Bolton). I believe every sign is in, definitely 100% south of MA 9.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on August 25, 2020, 02:19:59 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on August 21, 2020, 11:24:36 PM
I have an update on this project (I-495 Raynham to Bolton). I believe every sign is in, definitely 100% south of MA 9.

I was just on this stretch of I-495 recently.  In both directions, the only overheads that have not yet been replaced are those on the service roads for the exits 11/12 ramps, as well as Exit 24B northbound and Exit 24A southbound (the "loop ramp" exits to US 20).  Also, for some reason the "at-exit" overhead for Exit 23C going north hasn't been replaced yet, even though its southbound counterpart has.

It could be a matter of the sign being "missed".  I've noticed it with other highways in the state.  If you travel I-95/Rte 128 north through Dedham, the 1/4 mile sign for Exit 15B (US 1 South) and the 1 mile sign for Exits 16 A-B (MA 109) are still the old 1990s-era signs.  Perhaps they'll get replaced when the exit numbers get changed?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on August 25, 2020, 06:20:40 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on August 25, 2020, 02:19:59 PMI was just on this stretch of I-495 recently.  In both directions, the only overheads that have not yet been replaced are those on the service roads for the exits 11/12 ramps, as well as Exit 24B northbound and Exit 24A southbound (the "loop ramp" exits to US 20).  Also, for some reason the "at-exit" overhead for Exit 23C going north hasn't been replaced yet, even though its southbound counterpart has.

It could be a matter of the sign being "missed".  I've noticed it with other highways in the state.  If you travel I-95/Rte 128 north through Dedham, the 1/4 mile sign for Exit 15B (US 1 South) and the 1 mile sign for Exits 16 A-B (MA 109) are still the old 1990s-era signs.  Perhaps they'll get replaced when the exit numbers get changed?
Similar holds true for these overhead signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8427117,-70.9042321,3a,75y,32.7h,82.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRnKEpkapBUQlEruj6YROzQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) along I-95 northbound at the MA 110 interchange.  Such were still there as of last October during the Newburyport Meet.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on September 03, 2020, 05:42:08 PM
I don't think the new cape bridges are enough. The Army Corps of Engineers should fix the mistake it made 80 years ago and narrow the canal back to 100 feet. You could then build as many bridges as you wanted. Why should the state pay for the federal government's errors?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJ Particle on September 04, 2020, 02:02:23 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 03, 2020, 05:42:08 PM
I don't think the new cape bridges are enough. The Army Corps of Engineers should fix the mistake it made 80 years ago and narrow the canal back to 100 feet. You could then build as many bridges as you wanted. Why should the state pay for the federal government's errors?

The main problems with the existing setup are:

Sagamore:
1 - Lane drop at MA-3 South.
2 - No acceleration lane for traffic coming in from Exit 55 Westbound.
3 - Incredibly narrow lanes with no barrier separating directions of traffic, resulting in a speed limit drop to 40.

Bourne:
1 - Lane drop at the end of MA-25 East.
2 - No acceleration lane for traffic coming in from Exit 10 Eastbound.
3 - Rotary on MA-28 at south end of bridge (AFAIK this will remain even with the new bridges)
4 - Incredibly narrow lanes with no barrier separating directions of traffic, resulting in a speed limit drop to 40.

The new bridges will address all of these issues save for the rotary and the MA-25 lane drop.  That and the proposed direct ramp from US-6 West to MA-25 West should alleviate most traffic woes, or at least reduce them significantly.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 04, 2020, 07:15:31 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on September 04, 2020, 02:02:23 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 03, 2020, 05:42:08 PM
I don't think the new cape bridges are enough. The Army Corps of Engineers should fix the mistake it made 80 years ago and narrow the canal back to 100 feet. You could then build as many bridges as you wanted. Why should the state pay for the federal government's errors?

The main problems with the existing setup are:

Sagamore:
1 - Lane drop at MA-3 South.
2 - No acceleration lane for traffic coming in from Exit 55 Westbound.
3 - Incredibly narrow lanes with no barrier separating directions of traffic, resulting in a speed limit drop to 40.

Bourne:
1 - Lane drop at the end of MA-25 East.
2 - No acceleration lane for traffic coming in from Exit 10 Eastbound.
3 - Rotary on MA-28 at south end of bridge (AFAIK this will remain even with the new bridges)
4 - Incredibly narrow lanes with no barrier separating directions of traffic, resulting in a speed limit drop to 40.

The new bridges will address all of these issues save for the rotary and the MA-25 lane drop.  That and the proposed direct ramp from US-6 West to MA-25 West should alleviate most traffic woes, or at least reduce them significantly.
5- Neither bridge is conducive to non-motorize traffic. The sidewalks are too narrow for bicycles to safely pass each other, there's a very high curb and there's no shoulder to buffer it from traffic.
I would definitely consider adding a multi-use path into the design.
Are they considering tolling the new bridges?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJStephens on September 04, 2020, 07:17:53 AM
The existing bridges were designed for flivvers.  ('08 - '27 Model T)  That is the type of car, that was common on roads when those bridges were designed.   The dates of construction used to be visible on plaques on the truss superstructure, along with the state seal.  Early Depression 1931-33 timeframe. 

So yes, they do need to be replaced.   
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJ Particle on September 04, 2020, 08:10:21 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on September 04, 2020, 07:17:53 AM
The existing bridges were designed for flivvers.  ('08 - '27 Model T)  That is the type of car, that was common on roads when those bridges were designed.   The dates of construction used to be visible on plaques on the truss superstructure, along with the state seal.  Early Depression 1931-33 timeframe. 

So yes, they do need to be replaced.

Originally the bridges were striped one lane each direction with shoulders.  That didn't last long as the Cape quickly became an even larger vacation destination soon after.  By the late 1940s, they were striped 4 lanes, their current configuration.

I've actually seen home video of people in the late 1940s actually being able to cross the street on the bridge in daylight, an unfathomable feat today.

Also, AFAIK, they are *considering* tolling the bridges, as after the new bridges are constructed, the Canal is being transferre to state ownership.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on September 04, 2020, 09:04:25 AM
Makes me wonder how they finagled the State getting ownership of the canal.  Quite a while ago -- over a decade -- I saw a presentation about the Corps and they were really asserting their jurisdiction over navigable waters.  Wonder what changed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 04, 2020, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 04, 2020, 09:04:25 AM
Makes me wonder how they finagled the State getting ownership of the canal.  Quite a while ago -- over a decade -- I saw a presentation about the Corps and they were really asserting their jurisdiction over navigable waters.  Wonder what changed.
They're getting just the bridges, not the canal AFIAK.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on September 04, 2020, 03:59:26 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 04, 2020, 07:15:31 AM
5- Neither bridge is conducive to non-motorize traffic. The sidewalks are too narrow for bicycles to safely pass each other, there's a very high curb and there's no shoulder to buffer it from traffic.
I would definitely consider adding a multi-use path into the design.
Are they considering tolling the new bridges?

I think the ridiculously high curb IS the buffer.

Each bridge is terrifying to ride a bicycle on. Done them each just once in a single ride. Thankfully I was the only one on them each time.

I believe an MUP is being engineered into each bridge, with a 10-foot wide one on one side of each bridge, with a barrier and 10-foot shoulder between it and auto traffic.

A few years ago, I watched what appeared to be a DWI cyclist* enter the Sagamore from the US 6 E/B ramp onto the west side of the bridge, up the right lane, doing about 5 MPH with a line of traffic behind him. Talk about a potential head-on collision waiting to happen...

*DWI cyclist refers to either a person riding a bicycle due to not having a license due to a DWI, or, an actively drunk cyclist
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 04, 2020, 07:21:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 04, 2020, 07:15:31 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on September 04, 2020, 02:02:23 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 03, 2020, 05:42:08 PM
I don't think the new cape bridges are enough. The Army Corps of Engineers should fix the mistake it made 80 years ago and narrow the canal back to 100 feet. You could then build as many bridges as you wanted. Why should the state pay for the federal government's errors?

The main problems with the existing setup are:

Sagamore:
1 - Lane drop at MA-3 South.
2 - No acceleration lane for traffic coming in from Exit 55 Westbound.
3 - Incredibly narrow lanes with no barrier separating directions of traffic, resulting in a speed limit drop to 40.

Bourne:
1 - Lane drop at the end of MA-25 East.
2 - No acceleration lane for traffic coming in from Exit 10 Eastbound.
3 - Rotary on MA-28 at south end of bridge (AFAIK this will remain even with the new bridges)
4 - Incredibly narrow lanes with no barrier separating directions of traffic, resulting in a speed limit drop to 40.

The new bridges will address all of these issues save for the rotary and the MA-25 lane drop.  That and the proposed direct ramp from US-6 West to MA-25 West should alleviate most traffic woes, or at least reduce them significantly.
5- Neither bridge is conducive to non-motorize traffic. The sidewalks are too narrow for bicycles to safely pass each other, there's a very high curb and there's no shoulder to buffer it from traffic.
I would definitely consider adding a multi-use path into the design.
Are they considering tolling the new bridges?

Absolutely this. I know that people in road discussions aren't always that bicycle friendly, but these bridges tie into some pretty heavily used long-distance bike corridors that bring a lot of tourists. Plus, how cool would it be to just stand there and look off those bridges (while, you know, not risking one's life)?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 18, 2020, 10:05:14 AM
This week MassDOT received a $21 million BUILD grant toward the I-90/I-495 Interchange project [PDF] (https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-09/BUILD%202020%20Fact%20Sheets-.pdf#page=35&zoom=100,0,0).

The grant covers but a fraction of the estimated total project cost, but is a step forward. The project is currently at 25% design, with construction projected for 2022-2027.

For those unfamiliar with the project, it involves building direct ramps from I-90 westbound to I-495 northbound and from I-495 northbound to I-90 eastbound, eliminating weaving between the other movements at the old toll plaza location, and replacing the trumpets with 40-45 mph flyovers. Plans and renderings can be found in the presentation from the July design public hearing [PDF] (https://www.mass.gov/doc/25-design-public-hearing-presentation-july-9-2020/download).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on September 23, 2020, 05:43:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 04, 2020, 09:04:25 AM
Makes me wonder how they finagled the State getting ownership of the canal.  Quite a while ago -- over a decade -- I saw a presentation about the Corps and they were really asserting their jurisdiction over navigable waters.  Wonder what changed.

Makes me wonder, too. Such a deal. If you doubt there was major horsetrading over that, I have a couple of old bridges to sell you in Massachusetts.

As to the jurisdiction, perhaps they just deemed the canal not to be a navigable waterway. Meanwhile, the damp spot out back of my house is.

I still think they should do a third bridge in the middle. I'll bet a majority of Cape traffic comes from MA-25 and I-195, since it "drains" such a large area, and most of it goes down US-6, to the bulk of the Cape.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on September 23, 2020, 11:04:46 PM
The canal itself is NOT being transferred to the state, it will still be owned and managed by the Feds.  Only the new bridges will be owned by MassDOT.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJStephens on September 27, 2020, 12:51:35 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 18, 2020, 10:05:14 AM
This week MassDOT received a $21 million BUILD grant toward the I-90/I-495 Interchange project [PDF] (https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-09/BUILD%202020%20Fact%20Sheets-.pdf#page=35&zoom=100,0,0).

The grant covers but a fraction of the estimated total project cost, but is a step forward. The project is currently at 25% design, with construction projected for 2022-2027.

For those unfamiliar with the project, it involves building direct ramps from I-90 westbound to I-495 northbound and from I-495 northbound to I-90 eastbound, eliminating weaving between the other movements at the old toll plaza location, and replacing the trumpets with 40-45 mph flyovers. Plans and renderings can be found in the presentation from the July design public hearing [PDF] (https://www.mass.gov/doc/25-design-public-hearing-presentation-july-9-2020/download).

Vaguely remember the Turnpike and I-495 interchange as "11A" the A being used due to the fact the Turnpike is considerably older, and there had been no interchange number reserved for the later 495.   Yes the trumpets were likely outdated by the seventies.   
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: dkblake on September 28, 2020, 11:16:14 PM
Quote from: pderocco on September 23, 2020, 05:43:30 PM
I still think they should do a third bridge in the middle. I'll bet a majority of Cape traffic comes from MA-25 and I-195, since it "drains" such a large area, and most of it goes down US-6, to the bulk of the Cape.

Nah- plenty of US 6 <-> Boston traffic- the US 6 control city is Boston, after all. I grew up on Cape and knew a few people who made that commute. I know the "third bridge" comes up, but the two bridges as is are a whole 4 miles apart, and any bridge in the middle would connect, what, a fishing parking lot to another fishing parking lot? Just add another lane both ways on both bridges and make the lanes wide enough to accommodate cars built after 1940 and you're good.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on September 28, 2020, 11:40:52 PM
Quote from: dkblake on September 28, 2020, 11:16:14 PM
Quote from: pderocco on September 23, 2020, 05:43:30 PM
I still think they should do a third bridge in the middle. I'll bet a majority of Cape traffic comes from MA-25 and I-195, since it "drains" such a large area, and most of it goes down US-6, to the bulk of the Cape.

Nah- plenty of US 6 <-> Boston traffic- the US 6 control city is Boston, after all. I grew up on Cape and knew a few people who made that commute. I know the "third bridge" comes up, but the two bridges as is are a whole 4 miles apart, and any bridge in the middle would connect, what, a fishing parking lot to another fishing parking lot? Just add another lane both ways on both bridges and make the lanes wide enough to accommodate cars built after 1940 and you're good.
Concur. Each bridge should be 5 lanes with a reversible center lane, or 6 lanes without. Depends what they feel like operating on a weekly basis - more expensive span vs. more expensive operations. I kinda like the idea of going 4/1 northbound on Sundays, as long as it can feed into the right number of lanes after that.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJ Particle on September 29, 2020, 12:22:36 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 28, 2020, 11:40:52 PM
Quote from: dkblake on September 28, 2020, 11:16:14 PM
Quote from: pderocco on September 23, 2020, 05:43:30 PM
I still think they should do a third bridge in the middle. I'll bet a majority of Cape traffic comes from MA-25 and I-195, since it "drains" such a large area, and most of it goes down US-6, to the bulk of the Cape.

Nah- plenty of US 6 <-> Boston traffic- the US 6 control city is Boston, after all. I grew up on Cape and knew a few people who made that commute. I know the "third bridge" comes up, but the two bridges as is are a whole 4 miles apart, and any bridge in the middle would connect, what, a fishing parking lot to another fishing parking lot? Just add another lane both ways on both bridges and make the lanes wide enough to accommodate cars built after 1940 and you're good.
Concur. Each bridge should be 5 lanes with a reversible center lane, or 6 lanes without. Depends what they feel like operating on a weekly basis - more expensive span vs. more expensive operations. I kinda like the idea of going 4/1 northbound on Sundays, as long as it can feed into the right number of lanes after that.

Last I was aware, the new spans will be freeway-standard twin-spans with two traffic lanes and one aux lane, and a barrier-separated bike/ped lane... per span.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: froggie on September 30, 2020, 08:34:05 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on September 04, 2020, 02:02:23 AM
Bourne:
3 - Rotary on MA-28 at south end of bridge (AFAIK this will remain even with the new bridges)

Replying late here but the plan did consider an interchange and has not ruled it out.  Per the draft MassDOT study, much of the selected rotary alternative could be incorporated into the interchange concept.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: noelbotevera on September 30, 2020, 01:25:06 PM
A week long trip last month took me to Bennington, Vermont by way of Massachusetts; I passed by this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7133879,-73.2093565,3a,16.2y,348.73h,93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN2lmwZYeTm9xTzoYImw7VA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) in Williamstown.

As far as I know this is the only mention of a Canadian city in the entire state, but it strikes me as odd that they chose to use Montreal as a control city here. I don't know if Vermont uses it. Considering most destinations used are local, MA should sign Bennington (oddly enough Bennington is never signed as a control city, preferring Pownal until you enter Vermont).  Or, at the very least, sign MA 2 East for Boston.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ben114 on September 30, 2020, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 30, 2020, 01:25:06 PM
Considering most destinations used are local

Quote
at the very least, sign MA 2 East for Boston.

The irony. (Location: Williamstown, 137 miles from Boston via MA 2)

In Vermont, Bennington and Rutland seem to be preferred on US 7.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: noelbotevera on September 30, 2020, 03:49:54 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on September 30, 2020, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 30, 2020, 01:25:06 PM
Considering most destinations used are local

Quote
at the very least, sign MA 2 East for Boston.

The irony. (Location: Williamstown, 137 miles from Boston via MA 2)

In Vermont, Bennington and Rutland seem to be preferred on US 7.
Blargh, English. I meant that if US 7 is using Montreal, MA 2 should use both North Adams and Boston. After all, MA 2 is the best route to Boston from here.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Jim on September 30, 2020, 03:59:34 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 30, 2020, 01:25:06 PM
A week long trip last month took me to Bennington, Vermont by way of Massachusetts; I passed by this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7133879,-73.2093565,3a,16.2y,348.73h,93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN2lmwZYeTm9xTzoYImw7VA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) in Williamstown.

As far as I know this is the only mention of a Canadian city in the entire state, but it strikes me as odd that they chose to use Montreal as a control city here. I don't know if Vermont uses it. Considering most destinations used are local, MA should sign Bennington (oddly enough Bennington is never signed as a control city, preferring Pownal until you enter Vermont).  Or, at the very least, sign MA 2 East for Boston.

I doubt it's the intent with the sign, but if I'm in Williamstown, headed to Montreal, I probably do start out on US 7 north, but I cut over to I-87 somewhere (my preferred route when living there was US 7->VT/NY 346->NY 22->NY 7->along the Tomhannock Reservoir->NY 67->I-87).

I don't recall that sign when I lived there ('00-'07) so maybe it's a relatively recent change?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: noelbotevera on September 30, 2020, 04:12:15 PM
Quote from: Jim on September 30, 2020, 03:59:34 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 30, 2020, 01:25:06 PM
A week long trip last month took me to Bennington, Vermont by way of Massachusetts; I passed by this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7133879,-73.2093565,3a,16.2y,348.73h,93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN2lmwZYeTm9xTzoYImw7VA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) in Williamstown.

As far as I know this is the only mention of a Canadian city in the entire state, but it strikes me as odd that they chose to use Montreal as a control city here. I don't know if Vermont uses it. Considering most destinations used are local, MA should sign Bennington (oddly enough Bennington is never signed as a control city, preferring Pownal until you enter Vermont).  Or, at the very least, sign MA 2 East for Boston.

I doubt it's the intent with the sign, but if I'm in Williamstown, headed to Montreal, I probably do start out on US 7 north, but I cut over to I-87 somewhere (my preferred route when living there was US 7->VT/NY 346->NY 22->NY 7->along the Tomhannock Reservoir->NY 67->I-87).

I don't recall that sign when I lived there ('00-'07) so maybe it's a relatively recent change?
I could buy that, since Google recommends that exact route from there to Montreal. It also recommends US 7 -> I-89. Either way, you still start on US 7; wouldn't make much sense to take anything else.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 30, 2020, 04:29:03 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 30, 2020, 01:25:06 PM
A week long trip last month took me to Bennington, Vermont by way of Massachusetts; I passed by this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7133879,-73.2093565,3a,16.2y,348.73h,93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN2lmwZYeTm9xTzoYImw7VA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) in Williamstown.

As far as I know this is the only mention of a Canadian city in the entire state, but it strikes me as odd that they chose to use Montreal as a control city here. I don't know if Vermont uses it. Considering most destinations used are local, MA should sign Bennington (oddly enough Bennington is never signed as a control city, preferring Pownal until you enter Vermont).  Or, at the very least, sign MA 2 East for Boston.


That install is likely from the mid-1990s, shortly after MassHighway changed the specs for 'paddle' signs to require route shields on all signs.  The giveaway in this case is the 24 inch shield, which was briefly specified for the top-mounted signs.  As for the Montreal Que destination, a common practice at the time when replacing these signs under routine maintenance was to update the sign to the new standards, but replicate the existing destinations on the new panel.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on October 03, 2020, 04:43:33 PM
Have posted my latest collection of photos documenting the MA 18 widening project in Weymouth and Abington, some progress has been made this past summer, the widened highway has been paved in many places, such as near the Abington and Weymouth border:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmalmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma18const920s.JPG&hash=5d52f21134521fcf17a9f7f7506f5e45959b5073)

The remainder of the photos are at: http://malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html#southshore (http://malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html#southshore)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 27, 2020, 09:19:29 PM
They paved over the awful concrete leading down into the Big Dig in the southbound direction; does anyone know if there's any plan to do this coming north into the tunnel? The pavement is horrible.There's almost as much patch as there is concrete.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on October 27, 2020, 10:06:38 PM
Quote from: dkblake on September 28, 2020, 11:16:14 PM
Quote from: pderocco on September 23, 2020, 05:43:30 PM
I still think they should do a third bridge in the middle. I'll bet a majority of Cape traffic comes from MA-25 and I-195, since it "drains" such a large area, and most of it goes down US-6, to the bulk of the Cape.

Nah- plenty of US 6 <-> Boston traffic- the US 6 control city is Boston, after all. I grew up on Cape and knew a few people who made that commute. I know the "third bridge" comes up, but the two bridges as is are a whole 4 miles apart, and any bridge in the middle would connect, what, a fishing parking lot to another fishing parking lot? Just add another lane both ways on both bridges and make the lanes wide enough to accommodate cars built after 1940 and you're good.

This is a late answer, but: It would provide a direct connection from MA-25 to US-6, high over the canal and the roads that parallel it. As someone who used to have houses in Bridgewater and Provincetown, getting between the Bourne and Sagamore bridges added 15-30 minutes to the drive in the summer, compared to sailing over the canal with no surface roads. I'll bet even a lot of people from within 128 would choose MA-24 to I-495 to MA-25 as an alternative.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 29, 2020, 09:54:41 AM
Quote from: pderocco on October 27, 2020, 10:06:38 PM
Quote from: dkblake on September 28, 2020, 11:16:14 PM
Quote from: pderocco on September 23, 2020, 05:43:30 PM
I still think they should do a third bridge in the middle. I'll bet a majority of Cape traffic comes from MA-25 and I-195, since it "drains" such a large area, and most of it goes down US-6, to the bulk of the Cape.

Nah- plenty of US 6 <-> Boston traffic- the US 6 control city is Boston, after all. I grew up on Cape and knew a few people who made that commute. I know the "third bridge" comes up, but the two bridges as is are a whole 4 miles apart, and any bridge in the middle would connect, what, a fishing parking lot to another fishing parking lot? Just add another lane both ways on both bridges and make the lanes wide enough to accommodate cars built after 1940 and you're good.

This is a late answer, but: It would provide a direct connection from MA-25 to US-6, high over the canal and the roads that parallel it. As someone who used to have houses in Bridgewater and Provincetown, getting between the Bourne and Sagamore bridges added 15-30 minutes to the drive in the summer, compared to sailing over the canal with no surface roads. I'll bet even a lot of people from within 128 would choose MA-24 to I-495 to MA-25 as an alternative.

I feel like whatever agony and headache would be required to connect 25 and 3 would be more likely than any third bridge.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJ Particle on October 30, 2020, 12:59:14 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 29, 2020, 09:54:41 AM
I feel like whatever agony and headache would be required to connect 25 and 3 would be more likely than any third bridge.

Connect I-195 to the PPH?

Construct a tight half-interior jughandle interchange at Bournedale (similar to the intersection of MN-13 and Hennepin CSAH-101?)

Flyover/under ramp from MA-25 East/MA-28 South to US-6 East (to go with the proposed direct ramp from US-6 West to MA-25 West)?

MA-25 Exit 11 just south of the Bourne Bridge to replace the rotary, along with an upgrade of Sandwich Rd. to 4 lanes?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: froggie on November 02, 2020, 09:07:52 AM
Optimally, start a route on 28 south of the Bourne Rotary, and cut across Otis to 6.

Meanwhile, I missed this from a month ago:

Quote from: noelboteveraAs far as I know this is the only mention of a Canadian city in the entire state, but it strikes me as odd that they chose to use Montreal as a control city here. I don't know if Vermont uses it.

Vermont does use Montreal along US 7 but not as a direct control city for 7.  Instead, it signs Montreal at turnoffs from 7 towards I-89, namely the Georgia exit and at VT 207.  89 itself doesn't have Montreal as a control city until north of Exit 19 (the main St. Albans exit).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on November 26, 2020, 10:53:36 PM
Surprised no one mentioned it, but exit 2A on the Mass Pike (the proposed one in Blandford) is D-E-D dead after locals voted against it back in July. It lost by a 63 yes-79 no vote. The thirty mile gap will remain.

https://www.berkshireeagle.com/archives/lawmakers-agree-if-blandford-doesnt-want-new-pike-exit-case-closed/article_17856f5a-6a43-5b38-9be1-e20f4241e746.html
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 27, 2020, 05:05:33 AM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on November 26, 2020, 10:53:36 PM
Surprised no one mentioned it, but exit 2A on the Mass Pike (the proposed one in Blandford) is D-E-D dead after locals voted against it back in July. It lost by a 63 yes-79 no vote. The thirty mile gap will remain.

https://www.berkshireeagle.com/archives/lawmakers-agree-if-blandford-doesnt-want-new-pike-exit-case-closed/article_17856f5a-6a43-5b38-9be1-e20f4241e746.html

142 people voted in a town with ~800 people of voting age. And seemingly everyone quoted is past retirement age, implying most of the people who are going to live longest with this decision declined to participate. This is why you get off your butt and vote in local elections.

That said, in my experience in local issues, it is said over and over that you schedule votes/hearings in the middle of the summer if you want the least participation possible.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on November 27, 2020, 08:01:06 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 27, 2020, 05:05:33 AM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on November 26, 2020, 10:53:36 PM
Surprised no one mentioned it, but exit 2A on the Mass Pike (the proposed one in Blandford) is D-E-D dead after locals voted against it back in July. It lost by a 63 yes-79 no vote. The thirty mile gap will remain.

https://www.berkshireeagle.com/archives/lawmakers-agree-if-blandford-doesnt-want-new-pike-exit-case-closed/article_17856f5a-6a43-5b38-9be1-e20f4241e746.html

142 people voted in a town with ~800 people of voting age. And seemingly everyone quoted is past retirement age, implying most of the people who are going to live longest with this decision declined to participate. This is why you get off your butt and vote in local elections.

That said, in my experience in local issues, it is said over and over that you schedule votes/hearings in the middle of the summer if you want the least participation possible.

And per the story, the town could have waited to put it on the November ballot. 781 people voted out of of 976 registered voters that day.

I would rather see an exit at MA 8 instead anyways but apparently that's DOA.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on November 27, 2020, 06:11:07 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 27, 2020, 05:05:33 AM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on November 26, 2020, 10:53:36 PM
Surprised no one mentioned it, but exit 2A on the Mass Pike (the proposed one in Blandford) is D-E-D dead after locals voted against it back in July. It lost by a 63 yes-79 no vote. The thirty mile gap will remain.

https://www.berkshireeagle.com/archives/lawmakers-agree-if-blandford-doesnt-want-new-pike-exit-case-closed/article_17856f5a-6a43-5b38-9be1-e20f4241e746.html

142 people voted in a town with ~800 people of voting age. And seemingly everyone quoted is past retirement age, implying most of the people who are going to live longest with this decision declined to participate. This is why you get off your butt and vote in local elections.

That said, in my experience in local issues, it is said over and over that you schedule votes/hearings in the middle of the summer if you want the least participation possible.
Voter turnout is such an issue in America.
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 02, 2020, 11:37:16 AM
These are being put up this morning at the intersection of Route 16 and 38 (Mystic Valley Parkway and Winthrop Street) in Medford. I have to wonder, does the DCR just have a whole bunch of Helvetica-numeraled signs on hand, or are they actually making them anew?

In fairness, I don't know if this is DCR or their contractor, but the DCR bug is down there in the lower righthand corner.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201202/b7313a930ac716fa2f0850cc88daa80b.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on December 02, 2020, 01:31:06 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 02, 2020, 11:37:16 AM
These are being put up this morning at the intersection of Route 16 and 38 (Mystic Valley Parkway and Winthrop Street) in Medford. I have to wonder, does the DCR just have a whole bunch of Helvetica-numeraled signs on hand, or are they actually making them anew?

In fairness, I don't know if this is DCR or their contractor, but the DCR bug is down there in the lower righthand corner.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201202/b7313a930ac716fa2f0850cc88daa80b.jpg)
DCR does have their own sign shop so they may be making them new. Doesn't mean they should be making their own signs though, they clearly have no idea what they are doing and standards be damned.

In my personal opinion, DCR should hand over all their road maintenance functions (signs, pavement markings,  and traffic signals) to MassDOT and focus on maintaining the parks. They are not a transportation agency and it shows.

SM-A515U

Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 03, 2020, 12:40:27 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on December 02, 2020, 01:31:06 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 02, 2020, 11:37:16 AM
These are being put up this morning at the intersection of Route 16 and 38 (Mystic Valley Parkway and Winthrop Street) in Medford. I have to wonder, does the DCR just have a whole bunch of Helvetica-numeraled signs on hand, or are they actually making them anew?

In fairness, I don't know if this is DCR or their contractor, but the DCR bug is down there in the lower righthand corner.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201202/b7313a930ac716fa2f0850cc88daa80b.jpg)
DCR does have their own sign shop so they may be making them new. Doesn't mean they should be making their own signs though, they clearly have no idea what they are doing and standards be damned.

In my personal opinion, DCR should hand over all their road maintenance functions (signs, pavement markings,  and traffic signals) to MassDOT and focus on maintaining the parks. They are not a transportation agency and it shows.

SM-A515U

It's tricky because a lot of those roads are secondary to the parks they are in, but for the most part I agree with you.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on December 03, 2020, 05:02:43 PM
With the exits being renumbered and MA 25 being recently completed, this leads me to ask:

If you were to travel from say, Franklin, down to the cape, why do you have 495 south ending and suddenly becoming 25 east in Wareham?  Wouldn't it make more sense to have MA 25 be a part of I-495 or I-195?  Then you would have exit numbers measuring either the distance to/from the Bourne Bridge (I-495) or to/from the RI border (I-195).  Now, you have exit numbers decreasing to zero, then increasing to 10.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on December 03, 2020, 06:09:22 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on December 03, 2020, 05:02:43 PM
With the exits being renumbered and MA 25 being recently completed, this leads me to ask:

If you were to travel from say, Franklin, down to the cape, why do you have 495 south ending and suddenly becoming 25 east in Wareham?  Wouldn't it make more sense to have MA 25 be a part of I-495 or I-195?  Then you would have exit numbers measuring either the distance to/from the Bourne Bridge (I-495) or to/from the RI border (I-195).  Now, you have exit numbers decreasing to zero, then increasing to 10.
Interstate highways need Federal approval to exist, so MA didn't bother looking for that section. If it's up to standards they could look into it - it would make sense for it to be I-195 so that you're not re-mileposting all of I-495.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 05, 2020, 01:51:33 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 03, 2020, 06:09:22 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on December 03, 2020, 05:02:43 PM
With the exits being renumbered and MA 25 being recently completed, this leads me to ask:

If you were to travel from say, Franklin, down to the cape, why do you have 495 south ending and suddenly becoming 25 east in Wareham?  Wouldn't it make more sense to have MA 25 be a part of I-495 or I-195?  Then you would have exit numbers measuring either the distance to/from the Bourne Bridge (I-495) or to/from the RI border (I-195).  Now, you have exit numbers decreasing to zero, then increasing to 10.
Interstate highways need Federal approval to exist, so MA didn't bother looking for that section. If it's up to standards they could look into it - it would make sense for it to be I-195 so that you're not re-mileposting all of I-495.

I follow your logic, but having an Interstate number take a turn rather than keeping the intuitive, straight one is the most Massachusetts solution of them all.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on December 05, 2020, 09:45:37 PM
Let's not forget the fact that originally there was no freeway between I-95 in Mansfield and MA 24.  MA 25 existed from MA 24, east towards Buzzards Bay.  It was only later that I-495 was built between I-95 and MA 24, then extended later replacing MA 25 only to I-195, then keeping MA 25 beyond.  IIRC, the reasoning behind it was so that the interstates could end at each other (I-195 and I-495).  Some of the same logic was used for the renumbering of CT 52 to become I-395, so that I-84 had a place to end, when it was discovered Providence would not be reachable.

But, yes, I agree, something should replace that short MA 25 section.  I'd like to see a straight shot east to MA 3 and I-195/MA 25 all become I-82, west to Hartford and I-93 replacing MA 3 down to the canal... but that's a topic for another forum subcategory.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 07, 2020, 12:52:42 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 05, 2020, 09:45:37 PM
Let's not forget the fact that originally there was no freeway between I-95 in Mansfield and MA 24.  MA 25 existed from MA 24, east towards Buzzards Bay.  It was only later that I-495 was built between I-95 and MA 24, then extended later replacing MA 25 only to I-195, then keeping MA 25 beyond.  IIRC, the reasoning behind it was so that the interstates could end at each other (I-195 and I-495).  Some of the same logic was used for the renumbering of CT 52 to become I-395, so that I-84 had a place to end, when it was discovered Providence would not be reachable.

But, yes, I agree, something should replace that short MA 25 section.  I'd like to see a straight shot east to MA 3 and I-195/MA 25 all become I-82, west to Hartford and I-93 replacing MA 3 down to the canal... but that's a topic for another forum subcategory.
If the new canal crossing(s) are built to Interstate standards, then I see no reason why either I-195 or 495 couldn't follow the Bourne Bridge to the other side.

@Alps, IIRC that was the intent, to build MA 25 to Interstate standards in the off chance an Interstate was ever built on-Cape.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: dkblake on December 07, 2020, 03:58:53 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 07, 2020, 12:52:42 PM
If the new canal crossing(s) are built to Interstate standards, then I see no reason why either I-195 or 495 couldn't follow the Bourne Bridge to the other side.

And then immediately end at the Bourne Rotary :)

I had always thought that the reason for MA 25 there was because of a land dispute along the present route, so 25 was continued on to somewhere past the 195/495 junction and then the interstate designations ended at a "logical" place. I've long thought that there's no reason 25 couldn't be flipped to one or the other, and the interstate designation could easily end at the exit just before the Bourne Bridge with MA 28 then the official route going over the bridge. I-195 makes the most sense to me since 25 is already east-west and changing the designation wouldn't require redoing all the 495 mile markers, but either makes sense.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ben114 on December 07, 2020, 04:22:03 PM
Quote from: dkblake on December 07, 2020, 03:58:53 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 07, 2020, 12:52:42 PM
If the new canal crossing(s) are built to Interstate standards, then I see no reason why either I-195 or 495 couldn't follow the Bourne Bridge to the other side.

And then immediately end at the Bourne Rotary :)

I had always thought that the reason for MA 25 there was because of a land dispute along the present route, so 25 was continued on to somewhere past the 195/495 junction and then the interstate designations ended at a "logical" place. I've long thought that there's no reason 25 couldn't be flipped to one or the other, and the interstate designation could easily end at the exit just before the Bourne Bridge with MA 28 then the official route going over the bridge. I-195 makes the most sense to me since 25 is already east-west and changing the designation wouldn't require redoing all the 495 mile markers, but either makes sense.

I believe that there was a land dispute for the routing of MA 25, which is why it takes that long curve through Bourne.

However, the MA 25 designation was originally from MA 24 to the Bourne Rotary (same reason why one lane of I-495 goes over MA 24 and the other goes under). When the highway was constructed south from I-95 to MA 24, the I-495 designation was extended south to I-195, most likely to end the interstate highways at each other.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on December 08, 2020, 09:23:04 AM
It just occurred to me that if Massachusetts did the following:

1. Re-designate MA 25 as I-195
2. Re-milepost I-195 so that it continues Rhode Island's mile markers (measuring distance from the I-95/I-195 interchange in Providence)
3. Re-number I-195's (and former MA 25's) exit numbers to reflect the "new" mile markers.

This would result in the exit for US 6 before the Bourne Bridge becoming Exit 53.  Exit 1 on US 6 after the Sagamore bridge is being renumbered to Exit 55.  This would then provide some sort of (albeit unofficial) "exit number continuity", and could have helped alleviate the confusion and uproar about renumbering US 6 along the Cape.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 08, 2020, 01:24:35 PM
The utility of an Interstate ending at an Interstate is overstated, IMHO.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 08, 2020, 03:33:43 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on December 07, 2020, 04:22:03 PM
Quote from: dkblake on December 07, 2020, 03:58:53 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 07, 2020, 12:52:42 PM
If the new canal crossing(s) are built to Interstate standards, then I see no reason why either I-195 or 495 couldn't follow the Bourne Bridge to the other side.

And then immediately end at the Bourne Rotary :)

I had always thought that the reason for MA 25 there was because of a land dispute along the present route, so 25 was continued on to somewhere past the 195/495 junction and then the interstate designations ended at a "logical" place. I've long thought that there's no reason 25 couldn't be flipped to one or the other, and the interstate designation could easily end at the exit just before the Bourne Bridge with MA 28 then the official route going over the bridge. I-195 makes the most sense to me since 25 is already east-west and changing the designation wouldn't require redoing all the 495 mile markers, but either makes sense.

I believe that there was a land dispute for the routing of MA 25, which is why it takes that long curve through Bourne.

However, the MA 25 designation was originally from MA 24 to the Bourne Rotary (same reason why one lane of I-495 goes over MA 24 and the other goes under). When the highway was constructed south from I-95 to MA 24, the I-495 designation was extended south to I-195, most likely to end the interstate highways at each other.
The dispute was over the cranberry bog that MA 25 now circles around. MassHighway wanted to cut right through it but the owner through a fit. So they just went around it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 08, 2020, 03:34:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 08, 2020, 01:24:35 PM
The utility of an Interstate ending at an Interstate is overstated, IMHO.
If I-587 (NY) can end at non-Interstates in both directions, then I-195 can end at one on one end.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on December 08, 2020, 04:01:41 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on December 08, 2020, 09:23:04 AM
It just occurred to me that if Massachusetts did the following:

1. Re-designate MA 25 as I-195
2. Re-milepost I-195 so that it continues Rhode Island's mile markers (measuring distance from the I-95/I-195 interchange in Providence)
3. Re-number I-195's (and former MA 25's) exit numbers to reflect the "new" mile markers.

This would result in the exit for US 6 before the Bourne Bridge becoming Exit 53.  Exit 1 on US 6 after the Sagamore bridge is being renumbered to Exit 55.  This would then provide some sort of (albeit unofficial) "exit number continuity", and could have helped alleviate the confusion and uproar about renumbering US 6 along the Cape.
If there was a freeway connecting the two bridges, I might buy it, but this is radically stretching the idea to get things to "work out" with numbering. I don't think it'll quiet the uproar. People hate change.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on December 08, 2020, 04:04:34 PM
What if the numbers began at 0 or 1 but were still mile-based? Knowing the distance to the canal is actually useful.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on December 08, 2020, 11:38:51 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on December 08, 2020, 03:34:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 08, 2020, 01:24:35 PM
The utility of an Interstate ending at an Interstate is overstated, IMHO.
If I-587 (NY) can end at non-Interstates in both directions, then I-195 can end at one on one end.
That's not how it works.  FHWA -- especially the NY Division -- has ramped up following the "rules" over the past 15 years.  This includes that segments of new interstate must connect to existing interstates before installing shields.  I-587 is simply grandfathered in (and I-180 in WY, for that matter).

FHWA needed something to do when the interstate system was essentially built out...they've found their calling.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on December 12, 2020, 10:54:58 AM
MassDOT placed an advertisement today (12/12) for bids on the US 3 Sign Replacement contract (Project Number 608574), Burlington to Tyngsborough. The winning bidder to be announced on Jan. 26, 2021. The CommBuys webpage for the project is available (though nothing but the Notice to contractors is posted at this time) at:
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-21-1030-0H100-0H002-57063&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-21-1030-0H100-0H002-57063&external=true&parentUrl=bid)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: TheGrassGuy on December 12, 2020, 03:09:40 PM
Anyone familiar with the Greenfield area know what this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5984528,-72.4983185,3a,72y,21.75h,94.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZGaLWiW0Cye27Kb7lE-viw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) trail system is? Google Maps, and even AllTrails, are not very helpful.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on December 12, 2020, 04:44:51 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 12, 2020, 03:09:40 PM
Anyone familiar with the Greenfield area know what this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5984528,-72.4983185,3a,72y,21.75h,94.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZGaLWiW0Cye27Kb7lE-viw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) trail system is? Google Maps, and even AllTrails, are not very helpful.

I don't believe there is a trail system there. You can't even park in that lot (though everyone does to go on the bridge).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on December 12, 2020, 04:57:38 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 12, 2020, 03:09:40 PM
Anyone familiar with the Greenfield area know what this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5984528,-72.4983185,3a,72y,21.75h,94.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZGaLWiW0Cye27Kb7lE-viw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) trail system is? Google Maps, and even AllTrails, are not very helpful.
Mohawk Trail refers to the road.  Like someone else says, people park here to have fun on the much-beloved French King Bridge (if a semi crosses, you can get bucked off).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on December 12, 2020, 06:06:10 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 12, 2020, 04:44:51 PM
I don't believe there is a trail system there. You can't even park in that lot (though everyone does to go on the bridge).

According to AllTrails, there is.  It goes up to French King Rock.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: empirestate on December 12, 2020, 07:56:44 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 12, 2020, 06:06:10 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 12, 2020, 04:44:51 PM
I don't believe there is a trail system there. You can't even park in that lot (though everyone does to go on the bridge).

According to AllTrails, there is.  It goes up to French King Rock.

Looks to be a section of the Connecticut River Greenway State Park.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on December 13, 2020, 10:10:56 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 08, 2020, 04:04:34 PM
What if the numbers began at 0 or 1 but were still mile-based? Knowing the distance to the canal is actually useful.

Then you'd have to slap a (silent) state route designation on it, unless an exemption is made for secondary mile markers.  This is the same thing that NYSDOT will try to maintain with the Northway when it converts I-87.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on December 13, 2020, 12:27:02 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 13, 2020, 10:10:56 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 08, 2020, 04:04:34 PM
What if the numbers began at 0 or 1 but were still mile-based? Knowing the distance to the canal is actually useful.

Then you'd have to slap a (silent) state route designation on it, unless an exemption is made for secondary mile markers.  This is the same thing that NYSDOT will try to maintain with the Northway when it converts I-87.
If I were the FHWA, my response would be "they can learn the new mile markers".
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on December 13, 2020, 09:28:18 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 13, 2020, 12:27:02 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 13, 2020, 10:10:56 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 08, 2020, 04:04:34 PM
What if the numbers began at 0 or 1 but were still mile-based? Knowing the distance to the canal is actually useful.
Then you'd have to slap a (silent) state route designation on it, unless an exemption is made for secondary mile markers.  This is the same thing that NYSDOT will try to maintain with the Northway when it converts I-87.
If I were the FHWA, my response would be "they can learn the new mile markers".
I sent an comment to MassDOT about the possibility of using Mid-Cape Highway mile markers when the exit renumbering project was announced in the fall of 2019, here's my question and their answer:
Has anyone thought of a compromise of assigning milepost based numbers, but using the Mid-Cape Highway miles instead of US 6? If the assigning of mileposts to a named highway would be difficult, perhaps you could create a new route to run concurrently with US 6 from Route 3 in Bourne to Route 28 in Orleans and use that highway's mileage for the exit numbers.
The MassDOT Response:
"MassDOT is considering these possible alternatives to using the US 6 mile marker numbers for the Mid-Cape Highway exits.  If either alternative were considered acceptable to Cape Cod officials, AASHTO and/or FHWA approval would be required before any changes could be made.  We also note that, if the Mid-Cape Highway were designated as a different route from US 6, it would likely begin at the Sagamore Bridge, and not run concurrently with the section of US 6 Scenic Highway between Route 25 and the bridge."
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on December 13, 2020, 11:34:58 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on December 12, 2020, 10:54:58 AM
MassDOT placed an advertisement today (12/12) for bids on the US 3 Sign Replacement contract (Project Number 608574), Burlington to Westford. The winning bidder to be announced on Jan. 26, 2021. The CommBuys webpage for the project has not been up as of this morning.

Minor correction Bob.  The project limits for 608574 are actually Burlington to Tyngsborough.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on December 14, 2020, 12:30:57 AM
Quote from: roadman on December 13, 2020, 11:34:58 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on December 12, 2020, 10:54:58 AM
MassDOT placed an advertisement today (12/12) for bids on the US 3 Sign Replacement contract (Project Number 608574), Burlington to Westford. The winning bidder to be announced on Jan. 26, 2021. The CommBuys webpage for the project has not been up as of this morning.

Minor correction Bob.  The project limits for 608574 are actually Burlington to Tyngsborough.

And are these signs going to include the renumbered exits like they are doing everywhere else in the state?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on December 14, 2020, 05:20:50 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 14, 2020, 12:30:57 AM
And are these signs going to include the renumbered exits like they are doing everywhere else in the state?

Given its still going to be at least a year (if not more) before new signs go up on US 3, and given the fact that the exit renumbering project is planning on being completed sometime late summer/fall 2021, then I'm guessing the old signs will get new numbers.  And most definitely the new signs, when fabricated for the US 3 sign replacement project, will have the new numbers. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on December 19, 2020, 10:43:39 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 14, 2020, 05:20:50 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 14, 2020, 12:30:57 AM
And are these signs going to include the renumbered exits like they are doing everywhere else in the state?

Given its still going to be at least a year (if not more) before new signs go up on US 3, and given the fact that the exit renumbering project is planning on being completed sometime late summer/fall 2021, then I'm guessing the old signs will get new numbers.  And most definitely the new signs, when fabricated for the US 3 sign replacement project, will have the new numbers. 

You are correct on both counts.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on December 19, 2020, 01:34:45 PM
they really need to add in advanced signs for Spit Brook Road, like that exit shows up really quickly after the state line and there's no advanced warning its coming up.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on December 19, 2020, 08:41:14 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on December 19, 2020, 01:34:45 PM
they really need to add in advanced signs for Spit Brook Road, like that exit shows up really quickly after the state line and there's no advanced warning its coming up.

No, there's not much warning....
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7004554,-71.4492163,3a,75y,353.92h,86.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIrR8p5PudSKN9Cyu6D6Uuw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Seems like there would be room to do such either on the gantry (whether the gantry is replaced or not remains to be seen) for the last Mass exit (replacing the pull-thru), or a new gantry just past that exit.  It's not like Mass. hasn't helped out NH with signing out of state exits before... On I-95, both the NH welcome center and NH Exit 1 get a gantry still well within Mass borders. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 22, 2020, 02:34:11 PM
Maybe my experience is limited, but in many times through the "old"  Kelly Square I never sat in a line of 20 cars backed up at it.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201222/916ea9cc7094d32fe6bd7199e661736a.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on December 22, 2020, 03:41:32 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 22, 2020, 02:34:11 PM
Maybe my experience is limited, but in many times through the "old"  Kelly Square I never sat in a line of 20 cars backed up at it.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201222/916ea9cc7094d32fe6bd7199e661736a.jpg)
Maybe they need to put back that stop sign in the middle of it that everyone ignored anyway.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 26, 2020, 07:13:52 PM
Maybe they are still looking for the Merit station to guide them.....
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 28, 2020, 04:31:43 PM
Maybe now that US 6 has mileage-based exit numbers on the Mid-Cape Highway, the two non-freeway interchanges on US 6 in Truro and North Truro could also get numbers. The jug-handle interchange at S. Pamet Rd./Truro Center Rd. could become Exit 106, and the Highland Rd. interchange could become Exit 110.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJ Particle on December 28, 2020, 07:42:39 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 28, 2020, 04:31:43 PM
Maybe now that US 6 has mileage-based exit numbers on the Mid-Cape Highway, the two non-freeway interchanges on US 6 in Truro and North Truro could also get numbers. The jug-handle interchange at S. Pamet Rd./Truro Center Rd. could become Exit 106, and the Highland Rd. interchange could become Exit 110.

Highland Road would likely be Exit 109.  Mile 110 doesn't come up until some point past the north end of the bridge.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on December 29, 2020, 02:49:24 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 28, 2020, 04:31:43 PM
Maybe now that US 6 has mileage-based exit numbers on the Mid-Cape Highway, the two non-freeway interchanges on US 6 in Truro and North Truro could also get numbers. The jug-handle interchange at S. Pamet Rd./Truro Center Rd. could become Exit 106, and the Highland Rd. interchange could become Exit 110.

The state has said that anything that didn't have an exit number already will not get one. So, things like 28 in Falmouth, US 6 on the outer Cape, US 1 north of Boston, and MA 57 will remain numberless.

Not that I disagree with your wishes, I'm all for it!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ben114 on December 29, 2020, 04:56:05 PM
Took a trip on I-290 today to check out the current sign replacement project between Auburn and Worcester (current exits 7-20). A lot of the auxiliary signs are in, as well as the paddle signs at the end of the ramp, which now utilize the new design with two posts. None of the main exit signs have been placed between exits 20 and 13 westbound. Two signs at the exit for exit 12 have been placed, and  were caught on GSV last November (https://goo.gl/maps/2CQeArRnAhdS9V1R7).

I did notice two changes to destinations which could be happening. At exit 14 WB (Route 122), this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/FcVhHSxnPo1HYQsr5) has had its destinations changed from Barre / Uxbridge to Grafton / Paxton, which may change the westbound control cities at the exit. At exit 19 WB, an auxiliary sign has been placed stating "Route 12 / use exit 19". Route 12 may be removed from the main BGS for exit 19, which is currently "I-190 to Route 12".
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: yakra on December 29, 2020, 08:13:32 PM
They're replacing the signs, yet not converting the exit numbers? :pan:
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on December 29, 2020, 10:05:54 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on December 29, 2020, 04:56:05 PM
Took a trip on I-290 today to check out the current sign replacement project between Auburn and Worcester (current exits 7-20). A lot of the auxiliary signs are in, as well as the paddle signs at the end of the ramp, which now utilize the new design with two posts. None of the main exit signs have been placed between exits 20 and 13 westbound. Two signs at the exit for exit 12 have been placed, and  were caught on GSV last November (https://goo.gl/maps/2CQeArRnAhdS9V1R7).

I believe that sign was put up when the MA 146 expressway was extended to I-290.... not part of this sign replacement project.  That I-290 reassurance shield was most likely part of the currently ongoing sign project, however, as its the smaller size than what MassHighway used to use.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on January 01, 2021, 09:43:25 AM
Quote from: yakra on December 29, 2020, 08:13:32 PM
They're replacing the signs, yet not converting the exit numbers? :pan:

Project was awarded and signs fabricated while the exit renumbering project was still in design.  Per recent MassDOT practice, the exit tabs were designed to accommodate the future numbers.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on January 03, 2021, 11:09:49 PM
The ongoing MA 18 widening project in Weymouth and Abington has reached a major milestone. With the exception of around the commuter rail bridge in South Weymouth, still under construction, 4 lanes are now open along the route from MA 3 south to MA 139. Here's an example of the nearly completed roadway in Abington:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma18const121p.jpg)

Other photos of the newly opened lanes are on my Misc. Mass. Photos website:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html#southshore (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html#southshore)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on January 04, 2021, 10:10:44 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 29, 2020, 10:05:54 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on December 29, 2020, 04:56:05 PM
Took a trip on I-290 today to check out the current sign replacement project between Auburn and Worcester (current exits 7-20). A lot of the auxiliary signs are in, as well as the paddle signs at the end of the ramp, which now utilize the new design with two posts. None of the main exit signs have been placed between exits 20 and 13 westbound. Two signs at the exit for exit 12 have been placed, and  were caught on GSV last November (https://goo.gl/maps/2CQeArRnAhdS9V1R7).

I believe that sign was put up when the MA 146 expressway was extended to I-290.... not part of this sign replacement project.  That I-290 reassurance shield was most likely part of the currently ongoing sign project, however, as its the smaller size than what MassHighway used to use.

You are correct.  Some of the signs on I-290 west at 146 south were replaced as part of an ITS implementation project that included installing new overhead VMS boards.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on January 12, 2021, 06:38:00 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 05, 2020, 09:45:37 PM
Let's not forget the fact that originally there was no freeway between I-95 in Mansfield and MA 24.  MA 25 existed from MA 24, east towards Buzzards Bay.  It was only later that I-495 was built between I-95 and MA 24, then extended later replacing MA 25 only to I-195, then keeping MA 25 beyond.
I realize I'm a tad late on replying to this, I haven't been on this forum for over a month; but I will chime in.

1. The fore-mentioned I-495 extension between I-95 & MA 24 was built & opened to traffic circa 1982.

2. Based on Steve Anderson's BostonRoads.com write-up (http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/I-495_MA/), such wasn't originally planned to be part of the Interstate system and was to be a northwestern extension of MA 25.  The decision to make such an extension of I-495 instead and have such take-over most of MA 25 east of MA 24 was due to the state having leftover unbuilt Interstate mileage from the earlier-cancelled I-95 & 695 projects in and around Boston. 

Side note: 1977-era BGS for the MA 140 interchange (Exit 7A-B) off I-95 just north of I-95/495 had TO 25 references for the southbound 140 exit (Exit 7A).   Those references were removed when the I-495 extension opened. 

Needless to say, I-495's sequential interchange numbers were reset to their present numbers when the extension opened.  From I-95/Mansfield and northward, the existing exit numbers increased by 12.

In retrospect, when MA 25 was extended to the Bourne Bridge circa 1988; IMHO, such should've been an extension of I-195 from the get-go. 

Tid-bit: Prior to '88, MA 25 ended at the US 6/MA 28 interchange some 2 to 3 miles east of I-195.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: noelbotevera on January 13, 2021, 11:29:01 AM
Is there any explanation behind the madness of state/US routes in Boston?

Some, like US 20 make sense and are fine - enters from Watertown on Beacon Street, then takes over Comm Ave once MA 30 ends. It does intersect with MA 2 twice near Boston University, but it still ends at MA 2.

MA 9 is also fine - enters from Brookline on Huntington Avenue and sticks with it until it ends at MA 28. US 3 - alright, that can be explained because its freeway into Cambridge was cancelled, so it was patched onto the best roads south of I-95/MA 128. It still randomly disintegrates at the Harvard Bridge to become MA 3, and really should take over MA 3, but that's a story for another time.

MA 203 also has a bad case of disintegrating, connecting I-93 to...the Arborway. Same with MA 2, ending up on Beacon Street, and taking the rest of Comm Ave to end...at Arlington Street. It does spawn US 20 but it should take over Comm Ave after crossing the BU Bridge.

The worst offender though is MA 28. It enters from Mattapan on Columbus Avenue, and leaves via the Fellsway, crossing the Charles River Dam. The most direct route is to hop onto Storrow Drive and exit onto the Dam, which it does...southbound. For some random reason, MA 28 NB exits early at the Longfellow Bridge, ending up on Land Boulevard and reconnecting with MA 28 SB at the Dam. To be fair, using MA 28 as a long distance route is silly outside of Cape Cod.

I think that because Boston and Cambridge's streets are so archaic, MassDPW patched these state routes onto the best roads way back when, and haven't bothered changing them in 80+ years.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: dkblake on January 13, 2021, 08:09:07 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 13, 2021, 11:29:01 AM
Is there any explanation behind the madness of state/US routes in Boston?

Some, like US 20 make sense and are fine - enters from Watertown on Beacon Street, then takes over Comm Ave once MA 30 ends. It does intersect with MA 2 twice near Boston University, but it still ends at MA 2.

MA 9 is also fine - enters from Brookline on Huntington Avenue and sticks with it until it ends at MA 28. US 3 - alright, that can be explained because its freeway into Cambridge was cancelled, so it was patched onto the best roads south of I-95/MA 128. It still randomly disintegrates at the Harvard Bridge to become MA 3, and really should take over MA 3, but that's a story for another time.

MA 203 also has a bad case of disintegrating, connecting I-93 to...the Arborway. Same with MA 2, ending up on Beacon Street, and taking the rest of Comm Ave to end...at Arlington Street. It does spawn US 20 but it should take over Comm Ave after crossing the BU Bridge.

The worst offender though is MA 28. It enters from Mattapan on Columbus Avenue, and leaves via the Fellsway, crossing the Charles River Dam. The most direct route is to hop onto Storrow Drive and exit onto the Dam, which it does...southbound. For some random reason, MA 28 NB exits early at the Longfellow Bridge, ending up on Land Boulevard and reconnecting with MA 28 SB at the Dam. To be fair, using MA 28 as a long distance route is silly outside of Cape Cod.

I think that because Boston and Cambridge's streets are so archaic, MassDPW patched these state routes onto the best roads way back when, and haven't bothered changing them in 80+ years.

I read somewhere that Boston isn't a city so much as a performance art project with asphalt and zoning codes as its medium. That would explain most of these.

I actually think 28 is sensible. You've also got the history backwards- it was an original New England route going from Buzzards Bay to New Hampshire, then (I believe) was extended over to Cape Cod with the Bourne Bridge. The spiralish shape looks odd now, but the route is logical. In general, though, state routes don't mean much in Boston- road names hold more purchase over state designations, and no one uses non-Interstates to go through the city (i.e. in one end and out the other).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 13, 2021, 08:16:52 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 13, 2021, 11:29:01 AM
Is there any explanation behind the madness of state/US routes in Boston?

Some, like US 20 make sense and are fine - enters from Watertown on Beacon Street, then takes over Comm Ave once MA 30 ends. It does intersect with MA 2 twice near Boston University, but it still ends at MA 2.

MA 9 is also fine - enters from Brookline on Huntington Avenue and sticks with it until it ends at MA 28. US 3 - alright, that can be explained because its freeway into Cambridge was cancelled, so it was patched onto the best roads south of I-95/MA 128. It still randomly disintegrates at the Harvard Bridge to become MA 3, and really should take over MA 3, but that's a story for another time.

MA 203 also has a bad case of disintegrating, connecting I-93 to...the Arborway. Same with MA 2, ending up on Beacon Street, and taking the rest of Comm Ave to end...at Arlington Street. It does spawn US 20 but it should take over Comm Ave after crossing the BU Bridge.

The worst offender though is MA 28. It enters from Mattapan on Columbus Avenue, and leaves via the Fellsway, crossing the Charles River Dam. The most direct route is to hop onto Storrow Drive and exit onto the Dam, which it does...southbound. For some random reason, MA 28 NB exits early at the Longfellow Bridge, ending up on Land Boulevard and reconnecting with MA 28 SB at the Dam. To be fair, using MA 28 as a long distance route is silly outside of Cape Cod.

I think that because Boston and Cambridge's streets are so archaic, MassDPW patched these state routes onto the best roads way back when, and haven't bothered changing them in 80+ years.

Now go back and re-analyze all of this with US 1 running down Storrow Drive and the Emerald Necklace.

Also consider the state house/Boston Common/Public Garden as sort of a zero milestone for Massachusetts.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on January 13, 2021, 11:30:46 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 13, 2021, 11:29:01 AM
Is there any explanation behind the madness of state/US routes in Boston?

Some, like US 20 make sense and are fine - enters from Watertown on Beacon Street, then takes over Comm Ave once MA 30 ends. It does intersect with MA 2 twice near Boston University, but it still ends at MA 2.
The current MA 2 routing in that area has existed since 1971.  Prior to then, it ran along the current MA 2A/Mass Ave./Harvard Bridge corridor up to Memorial Drive (then US 1/MA 28).  From there, MA 2 westbound ran concurrent w/US 1/MA 28 southbound along Memorial Drive to the BU Bridge/Brookline St. intersection (then-US 1/3/MA 3/28 jct.).  From there MA 2 would run concurrent w/US 3 further along Memorial Dr. as it does presently.  The MA 2 stretch of Commonwealth Ave. in Boston at the time was MA C1 (pre-Storrow Dr. & truck route alternative).

Years earlier, MA 2 ran further along Mass Ave. (current MA 2A) to the Alewife Brook Parkway (US 3/MA 16).

Quote from: noelbotevera on January 13, 2021, 11:29:01 AM
US 3 - alright, that can be explained because its freeway into Cambridge was cancelled, so it was patched onto the best roads south of I-95/MA 128. It still randomly disintegrates at the Harvard Bridge to become MA 3, and really should take over MA 3, but that's a story for another time.
Heads-up, you're going to get sick of hearing the year 1971 in this post but most if not of the current state routings in the immediate Downtown Boston area date back to such. 

The current US/MA 3 routing in Boston dates back to that year with the present US/MA 3 handoff location* at the Memorial Dr./BU Bridge/Brookline St. (current MA 2) interchange in Cambridge.  Memorial Dr. east of the interchange at the time was US 1/MA 28.  MA 3 southbound ran concurrent w/US 1/MA 28 down to the Arborway (current MA 203) where it & MA 28 veered off US 1.  MA 3 would follow the current MA 203 corridor (MA 28 would veer off MA 3 at the Blue Hill Ave. (then MA C28 north of the intersection)) to the Southeast Expressway (current I-93/US 1) & MA 3A junction.

*Years earlier, the US/MA 3 handoff location was at the US 20 jct. at the Commonwealth Ave./Essex St./BU Bridge intersection.

Quote from: noelbotevera on January 13, 2021, 11:29:01 AM
MA 203 also has a bad case of disintegrating, connecting I-93 to...the Arborway.
See above, prior to 1971; all of 203 such was part of MA 3 & 28.  Prior to 1989, Centre St. & the Jamaicaway at MA 203's western terminus was US 1.  MA 3 & 28 were relocated off the Jamaicaway circa 1971.

Quote from: noelbotevera on January 13, 2021, 11:29:01 AM
Same with MA 2, ending up on Beacon Street, and taking the rest of Comm Ave to end...at Arlington Street. It does spawn US 20 but it should take over Comm Ave after crossing the BU Bridge.
See my earlier reply above, MA 2's current routing dates back to 1971.  It's also worth noting that the MA 2 section of Commonwealth Ave. was the easternmost leg of US 20 prior to 1964.  In retrospect & given the elimination of the C-routes (I'll explain later) circa 1971; US 20 shouldn't have been truncated to its current Kenmore Square location.

Quote from: noelbotevera on January 13, 2021, 11:29:01 AM
The worst offender though is MA 28. It enters from Mattapan on Columbus Avenue, and leaves via the Fellsway, crossing the Charles River Dam. The most direct route is to hop onto Storrow Drive and exit onto the Dam, which it does...southbound. For some random reason, MA 28 NB exits early at the Longfellow Bridge, ending up on Land Boulevard and reconnecting with MA 28 SB at the Dam.
Once again, the current routing dates back to 1971.  Prior to '71, most of the current MA 28 corridor through Downtown Boston was MA C28.  MA 28 back then followed a separate corridor that was concurrent with US 1 and/or MA 3 up through Somerville.  The northern terminus of MA C28 was at the Cambridge side of the Longfellow Bridge (current MA 3).

Speaking of the Longfellow Bridge: I'm not sure where you got your info. but MA 28 northbound does not use the Longfellow Bridge.  It runs for a short distance onto Storrow Dr. eastbound and exits at the Charles River Dam Bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3656335,-71.0689448,3a,75y,41.68h,78.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqz-A67SJSN5X5kpbn9WyNQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) & has done such since 1971.

Quote from: noelbotevera on January 13, 2021, 11:29:01 AM
To be fair, using MA 28 as a long distance route is silly outside of Cape Cod.
Due keep in mind that this route predated the various expressways/freeways built.  While one may not use such from the NH border to Cape Cod, even then; some would use sizable lengths of it to get to/from their in-state destinations.

Quote from: noelbotevera on January 13, 2021, 11:29:01 AM
I think that because Boston and Cambridge's streets are so archaic, MassDPW patched these state routes onto the best roads way back when, and haven't bothered changing them in 80+ years.
As stated earlier, most if not all the current routings of the state routes near/through Downtown Boston date back to 1971 when the C-routes were eliminated.  Prior to '71, just about every state route the entered the immediate Downtown Boston area was a C-route (C1, C9, C28, C37*).  For the most part, MA C9 & C28 pretty much became the extended/realigned MA 9 & 28 respectively; although C9 appeared to have formed an additional oddball loop/extension that was mostly concurrent w/then-MA C1.  MA C1, excluding the Commonwealth Ave. variant, became the realigned US 1 circa 1971.  Over time, US 1 would leave its former C1-corridor south of Saugus (current MA 60 interchange).  In 1975, US 1 was moved onto the Northeast Expressway (former I-95) and in 1989, it was moved off of Storrow Dr., the Fens & the Jamaicaway onto it present concurrencies w/I-93, I-95, MA 3 & MA 128

*MA C37 (MA 37 outside of the downtown area) was truncated to Braintree at I-93/then MA 128 shortly after the Southeast Expressway fully opened circa 1959.

As of Sept. 2019, there's still one remaining MA C1/C9 unishield (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3498484,-71.0932547,3a,75y,224.45h,70.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8lu0WtoSwt1lqNkSULTqVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) out in the wild so to speak.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: yakra on January 14, 2021, 04:19:07 AM
1&9
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on January 14, 2021, 07:19:39 AM


Quote from: PHLBOS on January 13, 2021, 11:30:46 PM

As of Sept. 2019, there's still one remaining MA C1/C9 unishield (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3498484,-71.0932547,3a,75y,224.45h,70.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8lu0WtoSwt1lqNkSULTqVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) out in the wild so to speak.

Not seeing it in the link...through my phone, at least.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on January 14, 2021, 07:21:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 14, 2021, 07:19:39 AM


Quote from: PHLBOS on January 13, 2021, 11:30:46 PM

As of Sept. 2019, there's still one remaining MA C1/C9 unishield (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3498484,-71.0932547,3a,75y,224.45h,70.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8lu0WtoSwt1lqNkSULTqVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) out in the wild so to speak.

Not seeing it in the link...through my phone, at least.

There's a pole directly behind the white parked car. It's on that pole, but it's tiny.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on January 14, 2021, 07:30:41 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 14, 2021, 07:21:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 14, 2021, 07:19:39 AM


Quote from: PHLBOS on January 13, 2021, 11:30:46 PM

As of Sept. 2019, there's still one remaining MA C1/C9 unishield (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3498484,-71.0932547,3a,75y,224.45h,70.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8lu0WtoSwt1lqNkSULTqVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) out in the wild so to speak.

Not seeing it in the link...through my phone, at least.

There's a pole directly behind the white parked car. It's on that pole, but it's tiny.
Ah, okay.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: noelbotevera on January 17, 2021, 12:22:30 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 13, 2021, 11:30:46 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 13, 2021, 11:29:01 AM
(quote removed to save space; please click on PHLBOS' username to see his reply)
This definitely explains a lot (along with Pete from Boston's succinct reply) and it makes sense a lot of these changes date to 1971, when Boston considered building more freeways that would obsolete these surface routes. I find it interesting that US 1 was moved much later, however.

I may have been confused to MA 28's routing from consulting this page (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/ma_3/3.html) - making me think MA 28 was somehow routed on Land Boulevard.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: CapeCodder on January 17, 2021, 11:42:30 AM
I think the original intention for the MA 25 freeway was to tie into MA 3, at least as I saw it on a 1982 Cape Cod Street atlas page.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on January 22, 2021, 08:34:31 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 17, 2021, 12:22:30 AMThis definitely explains a lot (along with Pete from Boston's succinct reply) and it makes sense a lot of these changes date to 1971, when Boston considered building more freeways that would obsolete these surface routes. I find it interesting that US 1 was moved much later, however.
Correction: US 1 in the area was moved three times since 1971.

1971: Replaced most of MA C1 routing

1975: Rerouted onto former I-95 northeast of I-93 in response to the cancellation of the proposed portion of I-95 between Saugus (US 1/MA 60) and MA 128 (interchange would be completed circa 1988) in Peabody.

1989: Rerouted onto I-93 south of Storrow Drive interchange & onto I-95 (MA 128) between Canton (I-93) and Dedham/Westwood (US 1/MA 1A) as a means of discouraging thru-truck traffic from using Storrow Drive due to limited overpass clearances aka reduce Storrowing.

Quote from: noelbotevera on January 17, 2021, 12:22:30 AM
I may have been confused to MA 28's routing from consulting this page (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ma/ma_3/3.html) - making me think MA 28 was somehow routed on Land Boulevard.
Here's how the area on that web-linked photo looks today (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3668236,-71.0684942,3a,75y,138.38h,76.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6UOXha09tGhdocEz2YsMRg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  Note that the high-rise building in the background and the MBTA Green Line viaduct to the left are the only two non-road-related landmarks in the vicinity that didn't change since 2004.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: paul02474 on January 23, 2021, 12:47:32 PM
For a historical context, MassDOT posts historic state highway maps on its website. You can compare the late 1960s to early 1970s to see the changes discussed in recent threads.
https://massdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MinimalGallery/index.html?appid=643a9eb188d0439088646866bf5e9844 (https://massdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MinimalGallery/index.html?appid=643a9eb188d0439088646866bf5e9844)
https://massdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MinimalGallery/index.html?appid=643a9eb188d0439088646866bf5e9844
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 25, 2021, 10:58:52 AM
Somehow I only just today I noticed these markers on I-95 south of 128. Presumably they're on other highways, but again, they just caught my attention today. What are they?

They count down by five going south, although many are missing. When they hit zero, they reset to a new number. One section starts over at like 370, another at 85, another at 130, etc.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210125/212a88c0ff33b0639a15c8fbdef130d6.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: deathtopumpkins on January 25, 2021, 11:09:12 AM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they're stationing. If you can give me a number matched to a specific location (not enough context to figure out location from that pic), I can confirm if this is the answer or not.
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 25, 2021, 12:34:23 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on January 25, 2021, 11:09:12 AM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they're stationing. If you can give me a number matched to a specific location (not enough context to figure out location from that pic), I can confirm if this is the answer or not.

I don't know what stationing means.

This is the location, in Attleboro:

https://goo.gl/maps/obEBwEC7ySdLvUqPA

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210125/667695f28b3284e64c9fd0ad249ac1b6.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on January 25, 2021, 12:42:06 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 25, 2021, 12:34:23 PM
I don't know what stationing means.

They're used by people who actually work on the roads. It's more of an engineering term than a roadgeek term. Basically, the start of a project will be 0, and it counts up from there.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on January 25, 2021, 11:18:52 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 25, 2021, 12:42:06 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 25, 2021, 12:34:23 PM
I don't know what stationing means.

They're used by people who actually work on the roads. It's more of an engineering term than a roadgeek term. Basically, the start of a project will be 0, and it counts up from there.

Not exactly.  Stationing is roadway based, not project based, and often adjusts at city or town lines (a typical equation at a boundary would be STA. 130+40 (town) = STA 8+40 (city)).  Stations are normally measured in 100 foot increments.  They are used for design and construction purposes to identify various features such as the start and end of curves, guardrail runs, drainage pipes and structures, and the like.  Many agencies install station markers at about 500 foot injtervals, but they are located on or near the right of way line, and are normally mounted perpendicular to traffic so they aren't visible to drivers.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on January 25, 2021, 11:35:53 PM
Quote from: roadman on January 25, 2021, 11:18:52 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 25, 2021, 12:42:06 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 25, 2021, 12:34:23 PM
I don't know what stationing means.

They're used by people who actually work on the roads. It's more of an engineering term than a roadgeek term. Basically, the start of a project will be 0, and it counts up from there.

Not exactly.  Stationing is roadway based, not project based, and often adjusts at city or town lines (a typical equation at a boundary would be STA. 130+40 (town) = STA 8+40 (city)).  Stations are normally measured in 100 foot increments.  They are used for design and construction purposes to identify various features such as the start and end of curves, guardrail runs, drainage pipes and structures, and the like.  Many agencies install station markers at about 500 foot injtervals, but they are located on or near the right of way line, and are normally mounted perpendicular to traffic so they aren't visible to drivers.
It can go either way. Sometimes you have to establish stationing for a project and sometimes you inherit it from previous projects. Can depend on the agency as well.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 26, 2021, 12:23:02 AM
Quote from: roadman on January 25, 2021, 11:18:52 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 25, 2021, 12:42:06 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 25, 2021, 12:34:23 PM
I don't know what stationing means.

They're used by people who actually work on the roads. It's more of an engineering term than a roadgeek term. Basically, the start of a project will be 0, and it counts up from there.

Not exactly.  Stationing is roadway based, not project based, and often adjusts at city or town lines (a typical equation at a boundary would be STA. 130+40 (town) = STA 8+40 (city)).  Stations are normally measured in 100 foot increments.  They are used for design and construction purposes to identify various features such as the start and end of curves, guardrail runs, drainage pipes and structures, and the like.  Many agencies install station markers at about 500 foot injtervals, but they are located on or near the right of way line, and are normally mounted perpendicular to traffic so they aren't visible to drivers.

Yep. These are all facing perpendicular. Some are at the guardrail, some further out in the ROW.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: deathtopumpkins on January 26, 2021, 09:23:53 AM
That is indeed stationing. The 1959 State Highway Layout for I-95 has the Read St overpass at approximately sta. 157+00.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on February 05, 2021, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: roadman on December 19, 2020, 10:43:39 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 14, 2020, 05:20:50 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 14, 2020, 12:30:57 AM
And are these signs going to include the renumbered exits like they are doing everywhere else in the state?
Given its still going to be at least a year (if not more) before new signs go up on US 3, and given the fact that the exit renumbering project is planning on being completed sometime late summer/fall 2021, then I'm guessing the old signs will get new numbers.  And most definitely the new signs, when fabricated for the US 3 sign replacement project, will have the new numbers. 
You are correct on both counts.
Update on the US 3 sign replacement contract. Apparently there was only one bidder, Liddell Bros., whose bid of $6.89 million announced on Jan. 26 was $1.1 million than MassDOT's estimate of $5.79 million. Is MassDOT going to have to accept it, or rebid the contract in the hopes of getting other competitors or a lower bid? Liddell was also the apparently only bidder for the I-95 exit renumbering contract in RI (still no word about when that will start). Lack of competition can only mean higher prices and more delays for sign projects in Mass. and neighboring states.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: maplou on February 07, 2021, 03:18:39 AM
I was using apple maps earlier today and I noticed that it said to get on Route 128, not I-95. This happened both northbound and southbound. The FWHA is really losing the war over the road signage LMAO
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on February 07, 2021, 08:49:23 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on February 05, 2021, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: roadman on December 19, 2020, 10:43:39 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on December 14, 2020, 05:20:50 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 14, 2020, 12:30:57 AM
And are these signs going to include the renumbered exits like they are doing everywhere else in the state?
Given its still going to be at least a year (if not more) before new signs go up on US 3, and given the fact that the exit renumbering project is planning on being completed sometime late summer/fall 2021, then I'm guessing the old signs will get new numbers.  And most definitely the new signs, when fabricated for the US 3 sign replacement project, will have the new numbers. 
You are correct on both counts.
Update on the US 3 sign replacement contract. Apparently there was only one bidder, Liddell Bros., whose bid of $6.89 million announced on Jan. 26 was $1.1 million than MassDOT's estimate of $5.79 million. Is MassDOT going to have to accept it, or rebid the contract in the hopes of getting other competitors or a lower bid? Liddell was also the apparently only bidder for the I-95 exit renumbering contract in RI (still no word about when that will start). Lack of competition can only mean higher prices and more delays for sign projects in Mass. and neighboring states.

Is Liddell the only one bidding anymore? It's bad enough they're the only bidder but they don't seem interested in getting the jobs done with any speed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: paul02474 on February 20, 2021, 11:37:47 AM
A first in Massachusetts: The Battle Road Scenic Byway — the route from Concord to Arlington, in which Colonials fought British Regulars, launching the Revolutionary War on April 19, 1775 — is now an All-American Road.
https://www.yourarlington.com/arlington-archives/town-school/local-history/18391-byway-022021
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 08, 2021, 04:38:09 PM
Seen today in Quincy, directing traffic to Route 3. This sign doesn't look all that old.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210308/518a7bfc59dd9413f464e1a744e97128.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: dkblake on March 08, 2021, 10:43:04 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 08, 2021, 04:38:09 PM
Seen today in Quincy, directing traffic to Route 3. This sign doesn't look all that old.

And the control city is Brockton??
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: abqtraveler on March 08, 2021, 11:10:21 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on January 26, 2021, 09:23:53 AM
That is indeed stationing. The 1959 State Highway Layout for I-95 has the Read St overpass at approximately sta. 157+00.

New Mexico does the same thing. NMDOT mounts station placards on its right-of-way fences at regular intervals (I think every 500 or 1,000 feet).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MinecraftNinja on March 08, 2021, 11:17:15 PM
Just looked through the old maps - all the US routes (1, 3 and 20) used to meet. I thought that was fascinating.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on March 09, 2021, 12:37:23 AM
Quote from: MinecraftNinja on March 08, 2021, 11:17:15 PM
Just looked through the old maps - all the US routes (1, 3 and 20) used to meet. I thought that was fascinating.
There used to be a concurrency - or at least junction, but I think concurrency - of 1, 2, and 3 along Mass Ave.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on March 09, 2021, 03:30:39 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 09, 2021, 12:37:23 AM
Quote from: MinecraftNinja on March 08, 2021, 11:17:15 PM
Just looked through the old maps - all the US routes (1, 3 and 20) used to meet. I thought that was fascinating.
There used to be a concurrency - or at least junction, but I think concurrency - of 1, 2, and 3 along Mass Ave.
Junction at the intersection of Memorial Drive & Brookline Ave./B.U. Bridge is where such occurred prior to 1971.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on March 09, 2021, 06:50:12 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 09, 2021, 03:30:39 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 09, 2021, 12:37:23 AM
Quote from: MinecraftNinja on March 08, 2021, 11:17:15 PM
Just looked through the old maps - all the US routes (1, 3 and 20) used to meet. I thought that was fascinating.
There used to be a concurrency - or at least junction, but I think concurrency - of 1, 2, and 3 along Mass Ave.
Junction at the intersection of Memorial Drive & Brookline Ave./B.U. Bridge is where such occurred prior to 1971.
I'm going way, way back for there to have been a concurrency. 20s or 30s.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on March 12, 2021, 07:56:22 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 09, 2021, 06:50:12 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 09, 2021, 03:30:39 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 09, 2021, 12:37:23 AM
Quote from: MinecraftNinja on March 08, 2021, 11:17:15 PM
Just looked through the old maps - all the US routes (1, 3 and 20) used to meet. I thought that was fascinating.
There used to be a concurrency - or at least junction, but I think concurrency - of 1, 2, and 3 along Mass Ave.
Junction at the intersection of Memorial Drive & Brookline Ave./B.U. Bridge is where such occurred prior to 1971.
I'm going way, way back for there to have been a concurrency. 20s or 30s.
I just checked through the available historic state road maps from this site (https://massdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MinimalGallery/index.html?appid=643a9eb188d0439088646866bf5e9844).  Based on the old maps (1929 seems to be the oldest available on the state's site), MA 2 was rerouted away from Mass Ave. in Cambridge onto Memorial Drive where it had separate concurrencies w/US 1 & US 3 circa 1935(?).
Mass Ave. (old MA 2) became MA 2A at that time.

Additionally, the old maps confirmed that US/MA 3 crossed the Charles River at the Brookline Ave./B.U. Bridge even back then.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 14, 2021, 12:14:01 PM
Quote from: maplou on February 07, 2021, 03:18:39 AM
I was using apple maps earlier today and I noticed that it said to get on Route 128, not I-95. This happened both northbound and southbound. The FWHA is really losing the war over the road signage LMAO

More like the people at Apple Maps are lazy and aren't bothering to do their research first.  128 south of Peabody is a totally useless concurrency, because the route doesn't split off at the lower end.  People (especially Boston's traffic reporters) have to wake up and realize that the world isn't going to end if it goes away completely.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: yakra on March 14, 2021, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 14, 2021, 12:14:01 PM
People (especially MassDOT) have to wake up and realize that the world isn't going to end if it goes away completely.
FTFY :bigass:
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 15, 2021, 01:43:58 AM
Quote from: roadman on March 14, 2021, 12:14:01 PM
Quote from: maplou on February 07, 2021, 03:18:39 AM
I was using apple maps earlier today and I noticed that it said to get on Route 128, not I-95. This happened both northbound and southbound. The FWHA is really losing the war over the road signage LMAO

More like the people at Apple Maps are lazy and aren't bothering to do their research first.  128 south of Peabody is a totally useless concurrency, because the route doesn't split off at the lower end.  People (especially Boston's traffic reporters) have to wake up and realize that the world isn't going to end if it goes away completely.

They're awake to the fact that the world hasn't ended because it's stayed.

It's been said a thousand times but if it has to be said again, there's clearly utility in having a name for the C-shaped ring of road ten miles out from Boston. We know this because there's a cultural "inside 128"  concept that doesn't make sense as "inside 95."  The ring is a discrete element.

You can call it "Circumferential Highway,"  you can call it "Yankee Division Highway,"  you can even call it "America's Technology Highway."  But inasmuch as it is referred to separately from the rest of 95, it is useful for it to have a name.

Rather than pay for a whole new set of signs and wait for people to embrace a new name, I say keeping "128"  is a lot easier. But I'm not an engineer, I just live and drive here.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bluecountry on April 07, 2021, 09:56:55 PM
Drove I-91 south from VT, was surprised at how much traffic there is on I-91 from Greenfield on south, any reason why so much volume?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 13, 2021, 12:06:30 AM
Quote from: roadman on March 14, 2021, 12:14:01 PM
Quote from: maplou on February 07, 2021, 03:18:39 AM
I was using apple maps earlier today and I noticed that it said to get on Route 128, not I-95. This happened both northbound and southbound. The FWHA is really losing the war over the road signage LMAO

More like the people at Apple Maps are lazy and aren't bothering to do their research first.  128 south of Peabody is a totally useless concurrency, because the route doesn't split off at the lower end.  People (especially Boston's traffic reporters) have to wake up and realize that the world isn't going to end if it goes away completely.
I love 128! Re extended it to Braintree and send I-93 down route 3.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on April 14, 2021, 09:10:38 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 13, 2021, 12:06:30 AM
I love 128! Re extended it to Braintree and send I-93 down route 3.

It would make sense to renumber MA 3 as MA 128 - why do we need a second (state) route 3 when there is already a US 3?

On the other hand, most vehicles going towards the Braintree split from Canton are most likely going north, towards Boston.  So having that direction signed "south" would certainly confuse drivers.  I would assign I-595 to the segment of I-93 between Canton and Braintree, and sign it east-west.  Then maybe give MA 3 another route number to keep it separate from US 3.

Massachusetts still recognizes MA 128 as "concurrent" with I-95 - the mileposts (and recently renumbered exits) along "standalone" MA 128 between Peabody and Gloucester start at 37.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 14, 2021, 09:17:39 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on April 14, 2021, 09:10:38 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 13, 2021, 12:06:30 AM
I love 128! Re extended it to Braintree and send I-93 down route 3.

It would make sense to renumber MA 3 as MA 128 - why do we need a second (state) route 3 when there is already a US 3?

On the other hand, most vehicles going towards the Braintree split from Canton are most likely going north, towards Boston.  So having that direction signed "south" would certainly confuse drivers.  I would assign I-595 to the segment of I-93 between Canton and Braintree, and sign it east-west.  Then maybe give MA 3 another route number to keep it separate from US 3.

Massachusetts still recognizes MA 128 as "concurrent" with I-95 - the mileposts (and recently renumbered exits) along "standalone" MA 128 between Peabody and Gloucester start at 37.
If you make MA 3 I-93 you can eliminate MA 3.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on April 14, 2021, 09:19:48 AM
MA 3 does not need to be eliminated. US 3 and MA 3 are one continuous route, just with a different designation. It's not like there are two unrelated routes with that number. (I would prefer an upgrade to US 3, though.)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 14, 2021, 09:20:46 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 14, 2021, 09:19:48 AM
MA 3 does not need to be eliminated. US 3 and MA 3 are one continuous route, just with a different designation. It's not like there are two unrelated routes with that number. (I would prefer an upgrade to US 3, though.)
There is no reason why it's not US 3 (well there is, but it shouldn't be)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on April 14, 2021, 09:41:11 AM
MA 3 should be signed as i-93 and the 128 designation should  be restored to the section from Canton to Quincy. Bay Staters would quickly see i-93 as the "Cape Cod Expressway", especially after they replace the Sagamore and Bourne Bridges.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 14, 2021, 09:42:13 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 14, 2021, 09:41:11 AM
MA 3 should be signed as i-93 and the 128 designation should  be restored to the section from Canton to Quincy. Bay Staters would quickly see i-93 as the "Cape Cod Expressway", especially after they replace the Sagamore and Bourne Bridges.
I suggested that. Maybe I-93 can go to Orleans on the Mid Cape.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on April 14, 2021, 05:14:53 PM
^~-.enough fictional discussion.-~^
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on May 15, 2021, 11:50:34 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/iM8jTsFHysmo8nN38
Very inconsistent with the exit numbers here.  Exit 7 and then skips to 18 & 19 (signed backwards in sequence) here at the I-93 and MA 3 interchange.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on May 15, 2021, 02:48:59 PM
Exit 7 is the exit for MA 3 off I-93.  Then-Exits 19 & 18 are MA 3 exits.  There's an advance here warning motorists that the exit is coming up.

Maybe a better solution would be to not have an "Exits 19 & 18" exit tab here, but instead put it on the sign in the distance.  BTW, Exits 19 & 18 is now Exits 42-41.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on May 20, 2021, 04:48:53 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 15, 2021, 02:48:59 PM
Exit 7 is the exit for MA 3 off I-93.  Then-Exits 19 & 18 are MA 3 exits.  There's an advance here warning motorists that the exit is coming up.

Maybe a better solution would be to not have an "Exits 19 & 18" exit tab here, but instead put it on the sign in the distance.  BTW, Exits 19 & 18 is now Exits 42-41.
Maybe MassDOT could handle such in a similar way NJDOT handled the old I-95 exit number tabs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2832031,-74.821183,3a,75y,51.06h,87.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sctdnO_xKPypiB7hv66qa5w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) along I-295 near Trenton.

Just feature an exit tab that reads:
EXITS 42-41 OFF 3
*using a small MA 3 shield for the above*
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: CapeCodder on June 01, 2021, 02:09:07 PM
I have a question: was MA 240 supposed to be a part of something bigger? Seems kind of pointless.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: deathtopumpkins on June 01, 2021, 02:21:51 PM
Quote from: CapeCodder on June 01, 2021, 02:09:07 PM
I have a question: was MA 240 supposed to be a part of something bigger? Seems kind of pointless.

Essentially, local residents opposed it: https://www.southcoasttoday.com/news/20200222/end-of-road-why-fairhavens-route-240-never-extended-into-acushnet
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on June 02, 2021, 05:35:10 AM
Quote from: CapeCodder on June 01, 2021, 02:09:07 PM
I have a question: was MA 240 supposed to be a part of something bigger? Seems kind of pointless.
Looking on Google maps there is a paved stub that is visible at the beginning of the southbound side. I always assumed it was planned to connect to 140 north of New Bedford, since it's number seems to be based on that route.

SM-A515U

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kiwislark on June 03, 2021, 01:03:36 AM
Quote from: 5foot14 on June 02, 2021, 05:35:10 AM
Quote from: CapeCodder on June 01, 2021, 02:09:07 PM
I have a question: was MA 240 supposed to be a part of something bigger? Seems kind of pointless.
Looking on Google maps there is a paved stub that is visible at the beginning of the southbound side. I always assumed it was planned to connect to 140 north of New Bedford, since it's number seems to be based on that route.

SM-A515U

Probably was meant to join 140 here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/MA-240,+Fairhaven,+MA+02719,+USA/@41.7127303,-70.9406172,1603m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e4e6b8a768f5e7:0xcb7e62b1e6af28ca!8m2!3d41.6544355!4d-70.8864905)?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 03, 2021, 11:54:33 AM
It seems like there is too much development in the way to make a northern extension of MA 240 feasible.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on June 03, 2021, 11:59:02 AM
Not sure if a northern extension of MA 240 is really warranted.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on June 07, 2021, 02:03:16 AM
Massachusetts might be getting its first DDI in the state. They are proposing to redesign the 1930's era cloverleaf in Natick.

Link: https://framinghamsource.com/index.php/2021/06/04/meeting-on-plans-to-re-design-route-9-27-interchange/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on June 21, 2021, 11:28:50 AM
Just for reference, here are the ten flashing greens at intersections I know of:

Brookline: W Roxbury Pkwy / Puddingstone Rd.
Peabody: 114/Driscoll St.
Peabody: 114/Roycroft Rd.
Salem: Dalton Pkwy / Broad St.
Salem: Boston St./Rawlins St.
Salem: 114/Rainbow Terrace
Salem: 1A/114/Ocean Ave.
Salem: 1A/114/Holly St.
Somerville: 16/Woodstock St.
Wakefield: North Ave./Wolcott St.

This is from the project I've been working on. I've looked at about 4/5* of intersections in the eastern third of the state north of I-90 and mostly just the towns along the coast south of I-90 (this includes Cape Cod, Nantucket, and Martha's Vineyard) and absolutely none of it in the other parts of the state. These are the ten I found. Note that this project only keeps track of intersections, so I have no idea where the ones not at intersections are or even how many there are.

*It was a group project, but I'm the only one since the beginning who's still active, and I have to review other people's work.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on June 21, 2021, 12:50:49 PM
Here's a few I know of:
Peabody: Lynn St @ St Ann's Ave
Salem: Jefferson Ave @ Willson St
Stoneham: 149 or 154 Pond St
Beverly: Cabot St @ May St
Dorchester: Morrissey Blvd @ Tolman St

I think there's a few more along some DCR parkways, but I can't remember where they are.

There also were 4 more of these, all in Salem, that no longer exist:
Bridge St @ Osgood St (Unfortunately now replaced by a flashing beacon)
Bridge St @ Skerry St (Replaced by Beacon)(GSV does not go back far enough in time)
North St @ Mason St (Replaced by regular traffic light)(GSV does not go back far enough in time)
North St @ Garden Terr (Replaced with Nothing, 2 modern ped crossings were added in 2 other locations)

Just want to point out the flashing green on Dalton Parkway in Salem DOES NOT display the yellow/red combination when activated. It has regular pedestrian signals. Not sure if this has any bearing on what your doing, just wanted to let you know.

SM-A515U

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on June 21, 2021, 06:23:29 PM
Now hold on, how many of the remaining flashing greens DO use red/yellow mode? Because that is something I want to scope out next time I'm through there.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 21, 2021, 06:44:06 PM
Saw these yesterday, one of three button copy "clusters" left.  The other two are on MA-33 and MA-49.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51260950598_db703faecb_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ben114 on June 21, 2021, 07:00:09 PM
Quote from: Ben114 on December 29, 2020, 04:56:05 PM
Took a trip on I-290 today to check out the current sign replacement project between Auburn and Worcester (current exits 7-20). A lot of the auxiliary signs are in, as well as the paddle signs at the end of the ramp, which now utilize the new design with two posts. None of the main exit signs have been placed between exits 20 and 13 westbound. Two signs at the exit for exit 12 have been placed, and  were caught on GSV last November (https://goo.gl/maps/2CQeArRnAhdS9V1R7).

I did notice two changes to destinations which could be happening. At exit 14 WB (Route 122), this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/FcVhHSxnPo1HYQsr5) has had its destinations changed from Barre / Uxbridge to Grafton / Paxton, which may change the westbound control cities at the exit. At exit 19 WB, an auxiliary sign has been placed stating "Route 12 / use exit 19". Route 12 may be removed from the main BGS for exit 19, which is currently "I-190 to Route 12".

Now the new signs on 290 are coming in. I took a trip today and took photos of the new signs I saw westbound.

Auxiliary sign before exit 20.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51261819067_b8ef77e546_z.jpg)

BGS at exit 20. Exit 19 advance can be seen in the background (I have no photo), but control cities changed to Sterling and Leominster.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51262546851_510c44761c_z.jpg)

Advance sign for exit 18. This replaced the previous "to MA 9 Ware / Framingham", now including MA 70 at referencing regions within Worcester.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51261819037_d82fa0bd1a_z.jpg)

Auxiliary sign directing traffic to the DCU Center and Polar Park. The latter may be a way to divert traffic away from Kelley Square, as Google Maps would use exit 13.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51261819022_3ab32fbdeb_z.jpg)

Auxiliary sign for St. Vincent Hospital.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51261819002_c0fa8d7a55_z.jpg)

BGS at exit 14. Same thing as seen at exit 18, old control cities of Barre and Uxbridge replaced with Grafton St.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51263292234_632b8c4f0e_z.jpg)

Advance for exits 12 and 11. Exit 11 previously was not signed here, first was at exit 12.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51263292339_25e4309988_z.jpg)

New sign listing distances from upcoming exits.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51261818952_d1e18614f9_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on June 21, 2021, 09:18:56 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 21, 2021, 06:44:06 PM
Saw these yesterday, one of three button copy "clusters" left.  The other two are on MA-33 and MA-49.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51260950598_db703faecb_c.jpg)
Shit, I must have clinched US 6 EB and never looked back west.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bjcolby50 on June 21, 2021, 09:41:13 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 21, 2021, 09:18:56 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 21, 2021, 06:44:06 PM
Saw these yesterday, one of three button copy "clusters" left.  The other two are on MA-33 and MA-49.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51260950598_db703faecb_c.jpg)
Shit, I must have clinched US 6 EB and never looked back west.

I remember going back and forth to UMass Dartmouth on MA 140 and seeing button copy almost all 19 miles between Dartmouth and Taunton (north AND south).

This must have been at least 1970 vintage, when they opened I-195.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on June 22, 2021, 10:54:42 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 21, 2021, 06:23:29 PM
Now hold on, how many of the remaining flashing greens DO use red/yellow mode? Because that is something I want to scope out next time I'm through there.

From me and 1's list all of them except Dalton Pkwy in Salem and Route 16/Woodstock St in Somerville which have pedestrian signals. I also want to point out this is not an all inclusive list, there are probably others around still hanging on. I believe there are a few DCR maintained parkways (aside from Pond St and Morrisey Blvd listed above) that still have them.

Here is a link to a custom Google Map I whipped up showing all the locations:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1HrUGx7WEFn08plygJka6zvYppT1PxeqO&usp=sharing

I anyone happens to know any other locations where these still exist I'd be happy to add them to the map.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on June 22, 2021, 01:51:10 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on June 22, 2021, 10:54:42 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 21, 2021, 06:23:29 PM
Now hold on, how many of the remaining flashing greens DO use red/yellow mode? Because that is something I want to scope out next time I'm through there.

From me and 1's list all of them except Dalton Pkwy in Salem and Route 16/Woodstock St in Somerville which have pedestrian signals. I also want to point out this is not an all inclusive list, there are probably others around still hanging on. I believe there are a few DCR maintained parkways (aside from Pond St and Morrisey Blvd listed above) that still have them.

Here is a link to a custom Google Map I whipped up showing all the locations:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1HrUGx7WEFn08plygJka6zvYppT1PxeqO&usp=sharing

I anyone happens to know any other locations where these still exist I'd be happy to add them to the map.


Eastern Ave and Bellvale Street in Malden has an overhead flashing green but with pedestrian heads(!); somewhere I have video of it from about 10 years ago but of course can't find it at the moment.  https://goo.gl/maps/SHSWpMBUE5bypHTa9

I am shocked that being "from" Peabody (growing up there, living there for years and years and years) I totally don't remember one of the Margin Street ones (at Newcastle Road) which is crazy because it is so bonkers with the Margin St. signals facing traffic on the near side and stuff.  Between having three flashing greens and having so many 12-12-8 R-Y-Y pedestrian setups still around, Peabody has some treasures still hanging around.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on June 22, 2021, 02:05:16 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 22, 2021, 01:51:10 PM
Eastern Ave and Bellvale Street in Malden has an overhead flashing green but with pedestrian heads(!); somewhere I have video of it from about 10 years ago but of course can't find it at the moment.  https://goo.gl/maps/SHSWpMBUE5bypHTa9

Duly Noted! Thanks for that! I added it to the map.

Quote from: PurdueBill on June 22, 2021, 01:51:10 PM
I am shocked that being "from" Peabody (growing up there, living there for years and years and years) I totally don't remember one of the Margin Street ones (at Newcastle Road) which is crazy because it is so bonkers with the Margin St. signals facing traffic on the near side and stuff.  Between having three flashing greens and having so many 12-12-8 R-Y-Y pedestrian setups still around, Peabody has some treasures still hanging around.

Peabody sure does have a lot of traffic light treasures still remaining. I too grew up there and lived within eyeshot of the 12-12-8 signals at Tremont/Northend St. Sadly the city is slowly replacing the 12-12-8 signals with all 12" signals. Central St @ Warren St is now all 12".
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ben114 on June 22, 2021, 08:09:33 PM
Got out again to grab a picture of the new signs for I-190 / exit 19 on I-290.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51265900030_0b647b024e_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51264131202_c895b87ae2_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: deathtopumpkins on June 22, 2021, 09:44:57 PM
When down there for work recently I found Brockton still has a flashing green at the fire station on Main St: https://goo.gl/maps/oKC2RHJz5jyAfW8i9

That same drive the southbound signal on Main at Perkins (https://goo.gl/maps/9jfvTYK3fRD8cBSf7) weirdly gave me a red+yellow before turning green. Was not expecting that.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on June 23, 2021, 01:49:19 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on June 22, 2021, 02:05:16 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 22, 2021, 01:51:10 PM
Eastern Ave and Bellvale Street in Malden has an overhead flashing green but with pedestrian heads(!); somewhere I have video of it from about 10 years ago but of course can't find it at the moment.  https://goo.gl/maps/SHSWpMBUE5bypHTa9

Duly Noted! Thanks for that! I added it to the map.

Quote from: PurdueBill on June 22, 2021, 01:51:10 PM
I am shocked that being "from" Peabody (growing up there, living there for years and years and years) I totally don't remember one of the Margin Street ones (at Newcastle Road) which is crazy because it is so bonkers with the Margin St. signals facing traffic on the near side and stuff.  Between having three flashing greens and having so many 12-12-8 R-Y-Y pedestrian setups still around, Peabody has some treasures still hanging around.

Peabody sure does have a lot of traffic light treasures still remaining. I too grew up there and lived within eyeshot of the 12-12-8 signals at Tremont/Northend St. Sadly the city is slowly replacing the 12-12-8 signals with all 12" signals. Central St @ Warren St is now all 12".

Unless they have changed it relatively recently (would necessitate new heads for the side street again), the flashing green that Quincy installed in 2018(!) at School Street and Hancock Court should still be going.  It replaced flashing yellow.  (Initially, the side street had flashing yellow at the same time the main street had flashing green; this was changed out.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hhhyUuWb8c )
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on June 23, 2021, 03:49:28 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 23, 2021, 01:49:19 PM
Unless they have changed it relatively recently (would necessitate new heads for the side street again), the flashing green that Quincy installed in 2018(!) at School Street and Hancock Court should still be going.  It replaced flashing yellow.  (Initially, the side street had flashing yellow at the same time the main street had flashing green; this was changed out.)

Kinda sketchy that they put up flashing yellow on the side street at all, especially since there does not appear to be a stop sign according to GSV. Good thing they switched it to red. They were still there as of Oct. 2020 according to GSV so I added it to the map.

Also added another one I just remembered, Boston St in Lynn
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4641044,-70.9738611,3a,42.2y,254.47h,93.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spUxTInuqtBM0P7OaEKaiXQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Also I reorganized the layers on the map by signal type instead of by town (since google only allows a max of 10 layers)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on June 23, 2021, 05:23:26 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on June 23, 2021, 03:49:28 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 23, 2021, 01:49:19 PM
Unless they have changed it relatively recently (would necessitate new heads for the side street again), the flashing green that Quincy installed in 2018(!) at School Street and Hancock Court should still be going.  It replaced flashing yellow.  (Initially, the side street had flashing yellow at the same time the main street had flashing green; this was changed out.)

Kinda sketchy that they put up flashing yellow on the side street at all, especially since there does not appear to be a stop sign according to GSV. Good thing they switched it to red. They were still there as of Oct. 2020 according to GSV so I added it to the map.

Also added another one I just remembered, Boston St in Lynn
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4641044,-70.9738611,3a,42.2y,254.47h,93.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spUxTInuqtBM0P7OaEKaiXQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4641044,-70.9738611,3a,42.2y,254.47h,93.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spUxTInuqtBM0P7OaEKaiXQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)

Also I reorganized the layers on the map by signal type instead of by town (since google only allows a max of 10 layers)
It was indeed crazy because the previous signals had dual reds (12-8) for the side street with the bottom one flashing and the top one steady when actuated.  Somewhere in the upgrade things went haywire with the side street.  Although a new flashing green in 2018 was quite a thing.  I can't believe I forgot this one in Salem; It has two flashing greens facing one way and the other way there is one flashing green angled at Winter Street (route 1A) while the other head faces traffic with a stop on Washington Square and has a bottom red.  https://goo.gl/maps/Qkbq3kjwgjUUiZMGA (https://goo.gl/maps/Qkbq3kjwgjUUiZMGA)Like many others, it has an extra pedestrian button on a short pole for a crosswalk that doesn't even have a signal itself.I can't believe I forgot this one; I remember it so well from so many times seeing it from when I was young through the last time through Salem.  Still there as of November.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on June 24, 2021, 09:29:34 AM


Quote from: PurdueBill on June 23, 2021, 05:23:26 PM
I can't believe I forgot this one in Salem; It has two flashing greens facing one way and the other way there is one flashing green angled at Winter Street (route 1A) while the other head faces traffic with a stop on Washington Square and has a bottom red.  https://goo.gl/maps/Qkbq3kjwgjUUiZMGA (https://goo.gl/maps/Qkbq3kjwgjUUiZMGA)Like many others, it has an extra pedestrian button on a short pole for a crosswalk that doesn't even have a signal itself.I can't believe I forgot this one; I remember it so well from so many times seeing it from when I was young through the last time through Salem.  Still there as of November.

I remember this one too, but I don't think the greens flash only the bottom red flashes. If you move around in GSV you can get a shot of the red on and off, but the green lights are always on even when the red is off. Come to think of it that makes it probably one of the weirdest signals since they are mixing steady green and flashing red.


SM-A515U

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on June 24, 2021, 11:26:28 AM
Quote from: 5foot14 on June 24, 2021, 09:29:34 AM


Quote from: PurdueBill on June 23, 2021, 05:23:26 PM
I can't believe I forgot this one in Salem; It has two flashing greens facing one way and the other way there is one flashing green angled at Winter Street (route 1A) while the other head faces traffic with a stop on Washington Square and has a bottom red.  https://goo.gl/maps/Qkbq3kjwgjUUiZMGA (https://goo.gl/maps/Qkbq3kjwgjUUiZMGA)Like many others, it has an extra pedestrian button on a short pole for a crosswalk that doesn't even have a signal itself.I can't believe I forgot this one; I remember it so well from so many times seeing it from when I was young through the last time through Salem.  Still there as of November.

I remember this one too, but I don't think the greens flash only the bottom red flashes. If you move around in GSV you can get a shot of the red on and off, but the green lights are always on even when the red is off. Come to think of it that makes it probably one of the weirdest signals since they are mixing steady green and flashing red.


SM-A515U



They must have changed it from longer ago (when I was young) when I remember it flashing--probably to comply better although a steady green and a flashing red at the same corner is not all that great really, even if the light isn't really "for" the corner (as it de facto is for the corner with the one head facing another street).  Between that and the two on North Street gone, Salem really got aggressive.  At least they made up for it with installing some overhead that didn't used to be on Lafayette.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on June 30, 2021, 11:16:05 AM
According to BridgeHunter.com the Bourne Bridge between Plymouth and Barnstable Counties carrying MA 28 was opened to traffic in 1935, and rehabilitated in 1982.  In addition the bridge carrying MA 28 over US 6 north of the Plymouth County Approach looks like it was totally replaced as well as it looks more late 20th Century design over the 1930 era like the main bridge next to it.

If memory serves me correct as I do remember crossing under it on US 6 returning from Plymouth, MA on a trip in 1970 and remember a center pier in the middle of the older bridge instead of the current one.  I would guess that being US 6 is a four lane undivided roadway there, it would make sense for safety that if a bridge did once have piers in the middle without a protected median, that a new build would use a new support method above and eliminate the piers.

My question is after seeing the bridge on Street View yesterday, I then figured out my memories of two look a like bridges  along a waterway was not from a trip out west I thought I remembered if from, but from the 1970 trip to Plymouth, MA when I was 5 years of age.  So was I correct in that assessment?

I know going back to the early eighties is very distant and some here were not yet born, but not a big deal.  Its no life or death situation to remember exact details, but just to answer some not so important curiousity.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on June 30, 2021, 03:16:23 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 30, 2021, 11:16:05 AM
According to BridgeHunter.com the Bourne Bridge between Plymouth and Barnstable Counties carrying MA 28 was opened to traffic in 1935, and rehabilitated in 1982.  In addition the bridge carrying MA 28 over US 6 north of the Plymouth County Approach looks like it was totally replaced as well as it looks more late 20th Century design over the 1930 era like the main bridge next to it.

If memory serves me correct as I do remember crossing under it on US 6 returning from Plymouth, MA on a trip in 1970 and remember a center pier in the middle of the older bridge instead of the current one.  I would guess that being US 6 is a four lane undivided roadway there, it would make sense for safety that if a bridge did once have piers in the middle without a protected median, that a new build would use a new support method above and eliminate the piers.

My question is after seeing the bridge on Street View yesterday, I then figured out my memories of two look a like bridges  along a waterway was not from a trip out west I thought I remembered if from, but from the 1970 trip to Plymouth, MA when I was 5 years of age.  So was I correct in that assessment?

I know going back to the early eighties is very distant and some here were not yet born, but not a big deal.  Its no life or death situation to remember exact details, but just to answer some not so important curiousity.

While I don't know about the old bridge design, looks like 1985 when 25 was completed to the Bourne Bridge was when the new one was built, https://goo.gl/maps/yc66KUriKRqKujmB7

If you look at Historic Aerials, in 1991 the modern bridge is there, but 1971 it's a totally different bridge that isn't in the same place as the new one (it's angled more to the NW/SE to curl around to US 6).

[Edited to add info]
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on June 30, 2021, 05:09:22 PM
Well knowing what design was used back then is not all that to want to know urgently.  However, the aerials of the Sagamore Rotary exist up to 2005.  It also shows that the rotary was south of the current interchange and a parking lot exists where the current exit ramps are on WB US 6/NB MA 3.  Find that interesting as nowhere in the country has a roundabout on a freeway like MA did early this century and before.

Then again the Sagamore Bridge is not a freeway as it has narrow lanes and no divider either, but I am sure that coming south on MA 3 gave motorists a shock having to slowdown to yield like US 6 does further west into Bear Mountain, NY's circle.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 01, 2021, 07:38:52 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 30, 2021, 05:09:22 PM
Well knowing what design was used back then is not all that to want to know urgently.  However, the aerials of the Sagamore Rotary exist up to 2005.  It also shows that the rotary was south of the current interchange and a parking lot exists where the current exit ramps are on WB US 6/NB MA 3.  Find that interesting as nowhere in the country has a roundabout on a freeway like MA did early this century and before.

Then again the Sagamore Bridge is not a freeway as it has narrow lanes and no divider either, but I am sure that coming south on MA 3 gave motorists a shock having to slowdown to yield like US 6 does further west into Bear Mountain, NY's circle.
Right now, the design flaw in the flyover is that MA 3 SB has to go down to one lane to let US 6 E join.
They had the forethought to make the bridge over Meetinghouse Ln. wide enough for two lanes SB.

MA 25 would be even easier to widen for a new Bourne Bridge. I wish one of the solutions was an 8-lane suspension bridge and a new freeway extension straight across that empty land in Sandwich to (former) Exit 2, US 6.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on July 01, 2021, 11:27:23 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 01, 2021, 07:38:52 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 30, 2021, 05:09:22 PM
Well knowing what design was used back then is not all that to want to know urgently.  However, the aerials of the Sagamore Rotary exist up to 2005.  It also shows that the rotary was south of the current interchange and a parking lot exists where the current exit ramps are on WB US 6/NB MA 3.  Find that interesting as nowhere in the country has a roundabout on a freeway like MA did early this century and before.

Then again the Sagamore Bridge is not a freeway as it has narrow lanes and no divider either, but I am sure that coming south on MA 3 gave motorists a shock having to slowdown to yield like US 6 does further west into Bear Mountain, NY's circle.
Right now, the design flaw in the flyover is that MA 3 SB has to go down to one lane to let US 6 E join.
They had the forethought to make the bridge over Meetinghouse Ln. wide enough for two lanes SB.

MA 25 would be even easier to widen for a new Bourne Bridge. I wish one of the solutions was an 8-lane suspension bridge and a new freeway extension straight across that empty land in Sandwich to (former) Exit 2, US 6.

Well at least the $1B in alleged costs being budgeted for road upgrades for both bridge's approaches will fix a ton of those deficiencies.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 06, 2021, 10:08:42 AM
Saw some weird-looking clearings on the WB side of the Mid-Cape Highway between (former) exit 11 and the Orleans rotary. They didn't look like drainage ditches and had gravel paths laid out. Any idea what those are for?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on July 06, 2021, 11:36:41 AM
MASSDOT needs to fix the MA 20 signs in Weston, the signs look quite news and it's annoying.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on July 06, 2021, 03:25:20 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 06, 2021, 11:36:41 AM
MASSDOT needs to fix the MA 20 signs in Weston, the signs look quite news and it's annoying.

If you were given a dollar for every US route signed as a state route in the state, you'd have your pick of most of the homes in your town mortgage-free.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on July 06, 2021, 03:50:43 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 06, 2021, 03:25:20 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 06, 2021, 11:36:41 AM
MASSDOT needs to fix the MA 20 signs in Weston, the signs look quite news and it's annoying.

If you were given a dollar for every US route signed as a state route in the state, you'd have your pick of most of the homes in your town mortgage-free.
As well as Delaware state route signs finding their way into Massachusetts.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: paul02474 on July 09, 2021, 01:27:29 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 06, 2021, 03:25:20 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 06, 2021, 11:36:41 AM
MASSDOT needs to fix the MA 20 signs in Weston, the signs look quite news and it's annoying.

If you were given a dollar for every US route signed as a state route in the state, you'd have your pick of most of the homes in your town mortgage-free.

You could certainly afford a large home in Weston or Wayland.
(https://schlichtman.org/mahighways/MA20.jpeg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on July 09, 2021, 01:40:48 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 09, 2021, 01:27:29 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 06, 2021, 03:25:20 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 06, 2021, 11:36:41 AM
MASSDOT needs to fix the MA 20 signs in Weston, the signs look quite news and it's annoying.

If you were given a dollar for every US route signed as a state route in the state, you'd have your pick of most of the homes in your town mortgage-free.

You could certainly afford a large home in Weston or Wayland.
(https://schlichtman.org/mahighways/MA20.jpeg)
I've seen MA 202 signs as well.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on July 09, 2021, 04:54:34 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 09, 2021, 01:40:48 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 09, 2021, 01:27:29 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 06, 2021, 03:25:20 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 06, 2021, 11:36:41 AM
MASSDOT needs to fix the MA 20 signs in Weston, the signs look quite news and it's annoying.

If you were given a dollar for every US route signed as a state route in the state, you'd have your pick of most of the homes in your town mortgage-free.

You could certainly afford a large home in Weston or Wayland.
(https://schlichtman.org/mahighways/MA20.jpeg)
I've seen MA 202 signs as well.

I am pretty sure I've seen all the US routes with state route shields in Mass, maybe with the exception of US 7 but it's because it's the one I've been on the least.

Also I-190 gets relegated to a US route, https://goo.gl/maps/sPpqaisw1S4ntjdP7
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on July 09, 2021, 05:39:48 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 09, 2021, 04:54:34 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 09, 2021, 01:40:48 PM
Quote from: paul02474 on July 09, 2021, 01:27:29 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 06, 2021, 03:25:20 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 06, 2021, 11:36:41 AM
MASSDOT needs to fix the MA 20 signs in Weston, the signs look quite news and it's annoying.

If you were given a dollar for every US route signed as a state route in the state, you'd have your pick of most of the homes in your town mortgage-free.

You could certainly afford a large home in Weston or Wayland.
(https://schlichtman.org/mahighways/MA20.jpeg)
I've seen MA 202 signs as well.

I am pretty sure I've seen all the US routes with state route shields in Mass, maybe with the exception of US 7 but it's because it's the one I've been on the least.

Also I-190 gets relegated to a US route, https://goo.gl/maps/sPpqaisw1S4ntjdP7
There is only one MA 1 I've ever seen. Pretty sure I've seen a 7.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on July 09, 2021, 05:59:20 PM
There's a MA 1 at the MA 62 cloverleaf (I think on 62 eastbound before the bridge). Is that the one you're thinking of?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on July 09, 2021, 06:53:33 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 09, 2021, 05:59:20 PM
There's a MA 1 at the MA 62 cloverleaf (I think on 62 eastbound before the bridge). Is that the one you're thinking of?

https://goo.gl/maps/MF5o1wcVe2AAaBpF9
One I pass frequently on bike rides.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on July 10, 2021, 05:45:56 PM
At least a quarter of all the signed in Mass for US 202 mistakenly show MA-202
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on July 10, 2021, 05:56:39 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on July 10, 2021, 05:45:56 PM
At least a quarter of all the signed in Mass for US 202 mistakenly show MA-202
Yikes what is going on with MASSDOT
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on July 10, 2021, 10:45:06 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 10, 2021, 05:56:39 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on July 10, 2021, 05:45:56 PM
At least a quarter of all the signed in Mass for US 202 mistakenly show MA-202
Yikes what is going on with MASSDOT

Poor quality control and oversight of contractors. Hell there are still a dozen-plus exits on 495 that have "old exit XX" slapped under the same old exit number weeks after the project finished.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on July 10, 2021, 10:47:59 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 10, 2021, 10:45:06 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 10, 2021, 05:56:39 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on July 10, 2021, 05:45:56 PM
At least a quarter of all the signed in Mass for US 202 mistakenly show MA-202
Yikes what is going on with MASSDOT

Poor quality control and oversight of contractors. Hell there are still a dozen-plus exits on 495 that have "old exit XX" slapped under the same old exit number weeks after the project finished.
Lol all you have to do is google the roads and you can see what the sign should be.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: paul02474 on July 13, 2021, 11:42:28 AM
Massachusetts is notorious for awful signage. Here's a significant example, on Crosby Drive southbound, approaching traffic signals at Route 62 (Burlington Road). T Crosby Drive runs parallel to US 3, and the ramp to the right leads to US 3 northbound.

(https://schlichtman.org/mahighways/not3.jpeg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on July 13, 2021, 12:57:12 PM
The US 3 North sign probably just got knocked down. It's there on 2019 Google Street View.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on July 13, 2021, 02:06:30 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 13, 2021, 12:57:12 PM
The US 3 North sign probably just got knocked down. It's there on 2019 Google Street View.

I think the gripe is not with the missing sign, but with the fact that you turn right ahead to access US 3 South, and you can turn either direction ahead and be on MA 62.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on July 13, 2021, 07:39:08 PM
Quote from: spooky on July 13, 2021, 02:06:30 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 13, 2021, 12:57:12 PM
The US 3 North sign probably just got knocked down. It's there on 2019 Google Street View.

I think the gripe is not with the missing sign, but with the fact that you turn right ahead to access US 3 South, and you can turn either direction ahead and be on MA 62.

That's what I got out of it as well.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: paul02474 on July 13, 2021, 09:26:20 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 13, 2021, 07:39:08 PM
Quote from: spooky on July 13, 2021, 02:06:30 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 13, 2021, 12:57:12 PM
The US 3 North sign probably just got knocked down. It's there on 2019 Google Street View.

I think the gripe is not with the missing sign, but with the fact that you turn right ahead to access US 3 South, and you can turn either direction ahead and be on MA 62.

That's what I got out of it as well.

Exactly. The message on that sign is that you are heading southbound on US 3 and it will lead you to MA 62. in this situation, you are heading south on a local street, the intersection ahead is MA 62, and you will need to turn right at the signal to reach US 3 southbound.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 20, 2021, 01:08:03 PM
Closure of I-93 South lanes north of Boston due to truck striking bridge:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/uncategorized/update-i-93-southbound-in-medford-update-i-93-southbound-in-medford-expect-major-delays/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/uncategorized/update-i-93-southbound-in-medford-update-i-93-southbound-in-medford-expect-major-delays/)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 20, 2021, 05:31:54 PM
This is a little gem that is buried within the MassDOT web site.  Lists exit numbers and destinations on freeway exit signs.  https://www.mass.gov/service-details/major-highway-routes-and-exits
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: paul02474 on July 20, 2021, 10:27:25 PM
Meanwhile, in Medford, MassDOT is demolishing a portion of the eastbound Roosevelt Circle bridge over I-93 has the highway narrowed from four to two lanes.

According to the Boston Globe:

The tractor-trailer that hit the bridge at about 3:20 p.m. Monday was a 2013 Peterbilt 367 owned by Dove Transportation of Lincoln, Ala., and the water clarifying tank that it was hauling "sustained significant damage,"  according to David Procopio, a State Police spokesman.

The truck, which was heading to Everett, measured 14 feet 9 inches with its load included – 9 inches taller than was permitted, according Procopio. The driver, who police said refused medical attention, also violated the permit for not having flag cars accompanying the truck and for breaking off the route that the state had given it permission to travel on, which did not include I-93, State Police said.

(https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/img_4008-jpeg.686380/)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 21, 2021, 09:17:20 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 24, 2021, 11:26:28 AM
Quote from: 5foot14 on June 24, 2021, 09:29:34 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 23, 2021, 05:23:26 PM
I can't believe I forgot this one in Salem; It has two flashing greens facing one way and the other way there is one flashing green angled at Winter Street (route 1A) while the other head faces traffic with a stop on Washington Square and has a bottom red.  https://goo.gl/maps/Qkbq3kjwgjUUiZMGA (https://goo.gl/maps/Qkbq3kjwgjUUiZMGA)Like many others, it has an extra pedestrian button on a short pole for a crosswalk that doesn't even have a signal itself.I can't believe I forgot this one; I remember it so well from so many times seeing it from when I was young through the last time through Salem.  Still there as of November.

I remember this one too, but I don't think the greens flash only the bottom red flashes. If you move around in GSV you can get a shot of the red on and off, but the green lights are always on even when the red is off. Come to think of it that makes it probably one of the weirdest signals since they are mixing steady green and flashing red.

They must have changed it from longer ago (when I was young) when I remember it flashing--probably to comply better although a steady green and a flashing red at the same corner is not all that great really, even if the light isn't really "for" the corner (as it de facto is for the corner with the one head facing another street).
That signal has been steady green for the MA 1A traffic since the original 12-inch signalheads were installed circa 1980s... maybe late 1970s.

The prior 8-inch signalheads, dating back to the 50s or 60s fully-painted in yellow, featured the flashing greens.

Quote from: roadman on July 20, 2021, 05:31:54 PM
This is a little gem that is buried within the MassDOT web site.  Lists exit numbers and destinations on freeway exit signs.  https://www.mass.gov/service-details/major-highway-routes-and-exits

How quickly will MassDOT change the listings for I-290 & 395?  Such are still showing their current sequential numbers.

The listing for I-84 still shows the old sequential numbers.

One destination listing error for the I-95 northbound exit off MA 128 southbound.  The current signs list Portsmouth, NH not NH-Maine.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on July 21, 2021, 09:50:52 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 21, 2021, 09:17:20 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 20, 2021, 05:31:54 PM
This is a little gem that is buried within the MassDOT web site.  Lists exit numbers and destinations on freeway exit signs.  https://www.mass.gov/service-details/major-highway-routes-and-exits

How quickly will MassDOT change the listings for I-290 & 395?  Such are still showing their current sequential numbers.

The listing for I-84 still shows the old sequential numbers.

One destination listing error for the I-95 northbound exit off MA 128 southbound.  The current signs list Portsmouth, NH not NH-Maine.

I-91 still lists the old exit numbers as well...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on July 21, 2021, 10:16:04 PM
Given that I-290 and I-395 actually are sequential still last I heard, such would be accurate.  I'm more interested in when roads that are now mile-based but show sequential on that site (such as I-91) would be fixed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on July 22, 2021, 09:59:45 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 20, 2021, 05:31:54 PM
This is a little gem that is buried within the MassDOT web site.  Lists exit numbers and destinations on freeway exit signs.  https://www.mass.gov/service-details/major-highway-routes-and-exits
Cool, but Wikipedia does this for all these roads and many more in every state.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on July 26, 2021, 06:47:35 PM
They are finally making some good progress with the sign replacement on I-290 from Auburn to Worcester.  Here are a few shots:

Eastbound:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51332915566_5113ea053b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2md7Boo)290EB-Exit11-2 (https://flic.kr/p/2md7Boo) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51333636639_af7617375d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mdbiJF)290EB-Exit19-20 (https://flic.kr/p/2mdbiJF) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

And Westbound:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51333759039_e4a915ecc7_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mdbW82)290WB-Exit14 (https://flic.kr/p/2mdbW82) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51333240843_9f58f18074_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2md9h5B)290WB-Exit11 (https://flic.kr/p/2md9h5B) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51332293597_7315597744_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2md4quM)290WB-Exit08-3 (https://flic.kr/p/2md4quM) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51333252018_7a73dd8de9_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2md9kph)290WB-Exit08-4 (https://flic.kr/p/2md9kph) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

And on Sutton Ave off I-395 Exit 4... this gem....
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51333747189_1530c1cd44_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mdbSAH)395SB-Exit94-entrance (https://flic.kr/p/2mdbSAH) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

See 'em all, including I-190 and I-495 exit renumbering shots here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/collections/72157659357861836/

Next to nothing for progress on the I-495 Bolton-to-Lowell project, FYI.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 27, 2021, 09:14:22 AM
The Sutton Ave Freeway Entrance sign has been there for some time.  It was installed under the last I-395 Webster to Auburn sign update.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jmacswimmer on July 27, 2021, 09:24:22 AM
Curious why MassDOT went with that "right lane ends at exit 7" verbiage on the 1/2-mile overhead over the usual "EXIT ONLY" you'd expect to see in that scenario - only thing I can think of is to try to prevent any confusion for exit 8 traffic?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 27, 2021, 07:51:24 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on July 27, 2021, 09:24:22 AM
Curious why MassDOT went with that "right lane ends at exit 7" verbiage on the 1/2-mile overhead over the usual "EXIT ONLY" you'd expect to see in that scenario - only thing I can think of is to try to prevent any confusion for exit 8 traffic?

That is correct sir.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on July 27, 2021, 11:23:26 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 27, 2021, 07:51:24 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on July 27, 2021, 09:24:22 AM
Curious why MassDOT went with that "right lane ends at exit 7" verbiage on the 1/2-mile overhead over the usual "EXIT ONLY" you'd expect to see in that scenario - only thing I can think of is to try to prevent any confusion for exit 8 traffic?

That is correct sir.
Odds that somehow that sign will be screwy after the exit number change crews are done with it?

fixed quote
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on July 28, 2021, 08:58:42 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 22, 2021, 09:59:45 PMCool, but Wikipedia does this for all these roads and many more in every state.

Right.  If it's on the internet, it must be correct.

If your view of the world is filtered through Wikipedia ("the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"), you have a serious problem.  Apparently you've never seen a Wikipedia article edited by someone with less-than-honorable intentions.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on July 28, 2021, 10:01:41 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 28, 2021, 08:58:42 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 22, 2021, 09:59:45 PMCool, but Wikipedia does this for all these roads and many more in every state.

Right.  If it's on the internet, it must be correct.

If your view of the world is filtered through Wikipedia ("the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"), you have a serious problem.  Apparently you've never seen a Wikipedia article edited by someone with less-than-honorable intentions.

Wikipedia's road articles are were mostly written by this community.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on July 28, 2021, 01:19:52 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 28, 2021, 08:58:42 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 22, 2021, 09:59:45 PMCool, but Wikipedia does this for all these roads and many more in every state.

Right.  If it's on the internet, it must be correct.

If your view of the world is filtered through Wikipedia ("the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"), you have a serious problem.  Apparently you've never seen a Wikipedia article edited by someone with less-than-honorable intentions.
The articles should have citations you can check.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 31, 2021, 10:22:34 PM
The US 3 sign replacement project has now finally appeared among projects under construction in the MassDOT Projects Listing (ProjectInfo). According to the project page the Notice to Proceed was given on March 1, and as of July 9 work is 2% complete. The site notes as of July 9 "The contractor started mobilizing the work crew and equipment this week. The subcontractor (Soil X) is preforming the soil borings and taken samples to be analyzed. The results will be used for designing the overhead guide sign support system. Cosco, Inc. has also started work on the proposed highway guardrail system." Work on the soil borings is to be completed as of today ("the end of July"). The revised project listings no longer give a date of project completion, I am guessing Spring of 2023.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJ Particle on August 01, 2021, 10:02:43 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 31, 2021, 10:22:34 PM
The US 3 sign replacement project has now finally appeared among projects under construction in the MassDOT Projects Listing (ProjectInfo). According to the project page the Notice to Proceed was given on March 1, and as of July 9 work is 2% complete. The site notes as of July 9 "The contractor started mobilizing the work crew and equipment this week. The subcontractor (Soil X) is preforming the soil borings and taken samples to be analyzed. The results will be used for designing the overhead guide sign support system. Cosco, Inc. has also started work on the proposed highway guardrail system." Work on the soil borings is to be completed as of today ("the end of July"). The revised project listings no longer give a date of project completion, I am guessing Spring of 2023.

So I guess these will be the first BGSs in MA to originally come with the new exit numbers?  😊
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on August 02, 2021, 06:46:56 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on August 01, 2021, 10:02:43 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 31, 2021, 10:22:34 PM
The US 3 sign replacement project has now finally appeared among projects under construction in the MassDOT Projects Listing (ProjectInfo). According to the project page the Notice to Proceed was given on March 1, and as of July 9 work is 2% complete. The site notes as of July 9 "The contractor started mobilizing the work crew and equipment this week. The subcontractor (Soil X) is preforming the soil borings and taken samples to be analyzed. The results will be used for designing the overhead guide sign support system. Cosco, Inc. has also started work on the proposed highway guardrail system." Work on the soil borings is to be completed as of today ("the end of July"). The revised project listings no longer give a date of project completion, I am guessing Spring of 2023.

So I guess these will be the first BGSs in MA to originally come with the new exit numbers?  😊

Assuming the lack of activity on 495 continues, that will be the case. 495 got all new auxiliary and exit gore signs, but nothing new for BGSs in the months since.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on August 03, 2021, 12:17:37 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on August 02, 2021, 06:46:56 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on August 01, 2021, 10:02:43 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 31, 2021, 10:22:34 PM
The US 3 sign replacement project has now finally appeared among projects under construction in the MassDOT Projects Listing (ProjectInfo). According to the project page the Notice to Proceed was given on March 1, and as of July 9 work is 2% complete. The site notes as of July 9 "The contractor started mobilizing the work crew and equipment this week. The subcontractor (Soil X) is preforming the soil borings and taken samples to be analyzed. The results will be used for designing the overhead guide sign support system. Cosco, Inc. has also started work on the proposed highway guardrail system." Work on the soil borings is to be completed as of today ("the end of July"). The revised project listings no longer give a date of project completion, I am guessing Spring of 2023.

So I guess these will be the first BGSs in MA to originally come with the new exit numbers?  😊

Assuming the lack of activity on 495 continues, that will be the case. 495 got all new auxiliary and exit gore signs, but nothing new for BGSs in the months since.
Meanwhile, MassDOT updated the I-495 project on their project listings site, which now says the project is complete. Umm, forget something?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on August 03, 2021, 09:01:42 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 03, 2021, 12:17:37 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on August 02, 2021, 06:46:56 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on August 01, 2021, 10:02:43 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 31, 2021, 10:22:34 PM
The US 3 sign replacement project has now finally appeared among projects under construction in the MassDOT Projects Listing (ProjectInfo). According to the project page the Notice to Proceed was given on March 1, and as of July 9 work is 2% complete. The site notes as of July 9 "The contractor started mobilizing the work crew and equipment this week. The subcontractor (Soil X) is preforming the soil borings and taken samples to be analyzed. The results will be used for designing the overhead guide sign support system. Cosco, Inc. has also started work on the proposed highway guardrail system." Work on the soil borings is to be completed as of today ("the end of July"). The revised project listings no longer give a date of project completion, I am guessing Spring of 2023.

So I guess these will be the first BGSs in MA to originally come with the new exit numbers?  😊

Assuming the lack of activity on 495 continues, that will be the case. 495 got all new auxiliary and exit gore signs, but nothing new for BGSs in the months since.
Meanwhile, MassDOT updated the I-495 project on their project listings site, which now says the project is complete. Umm, forget something?

I can't even find the Littleton to Lowell one in there. The one for Lowell to Methuen is marked as completed but I can't find the one they're currently "working" on.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on August 03, 2021, 11:28:26 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on August 03, 2021, 09:01:42 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 03, 2021, 12:17:37 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on August 02, 2021, 06:46:56 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on August 01, 2021, 10:02:43 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 31, 2021, 10:22:34 PM
The US 3 sign replacement project has now finally appeared among projects under construction in the MassDOT Projects Listing (ProjectInfo). According to the project page the Notice to Proceed was given on March 1, and as of July 9 work is 2% complete. The site notes as of July 9 "The contractor started mobilizing the work crew and equipment this week. The subcontractor (Soil X) is preforming the soil borings and taken samples to be analyzed. The results will be used for designing the overhead guide sign support system. Cosco, Inc. has also started work on the proposed highway guardrail system." Work on the soil borings is to be completed as of today ("the end of July"). The revised project listings no longer give a date of project completion, I am guessing Spring of 2023.

So I guess these will be the first BGSs in MA to originally come with the new exit numbers?  😊

Assuming the lack of activity on 495 continues, that will be the case. 495 got all new auxiliary and exit gore signs, but nothing new for BGSs in the months since.
Meanwhile, MassDOT updated the I-495 project on their project listings site, which now says the project is complete. Umm, forget something?

I can't even find the Littleton to Lowell one in there. The one for Lowell to Methuen is marked as completed but I can't find the one they're currently "working" on.
It's not listed under a particular town. You have to go under Advanced Project Search and click on the Project Type link for Structural Signing, Under Construction, Project Number 607919.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: empirestate on August 09, 2021, 10:05:53 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 28, 2021, 08:58:42 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 22, 2021, 09:59:45 PMCool, but Wikipedia does this for all these roads and many more in every state.

Right.  If it's on the internet, it must be correct.

If your view of the world is filtered through Wikipedia ("the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"), you have a serious problem.  Apparently you've never seen a Wikipedia article edited by someone with less-than-honorable intentions.

Well that escalated quickly.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on August 09, 2021, 10:17:22 PM
They are making progress on Littleton-to-Lowell, from an "approach-road" standpoint.  Exited in Westford briefly for food and noticed new signs on the offramps and onramps.  There's a staging yard around the MA 2A exit that has a few of these signs left in it, and there are now secondary guide signs in there as well.  Still no overheads, whatsoever, and no evidence of earthwork to support the foundations. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 15, 2021, 07:22:58 PM
Looks like the MA-18 Expwy segment will be a boulevard soon.
https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/2021/02/05/massdot-studying-rt-18-improvements-elm-st-north-new-bedford-coggeshall-pedestrian-bikes-sidewalks/4387528001/

So these would prob stay until then...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51376947331_86b467bae1_c.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51373277397_a7216d0444_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJ Particle on August 15, 2021, 11:14:09 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 15, 2021, 07:22:58 PM
Looks like the MA-18 Expwy segment will be a boulevard soon.
https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/2021/02/05/massdot-studying-rt-18-improvements-elm-st-north-new-bedford-coggeshall-pedestrian-bikes-sidewalks/4387528001/

IMHO any freeway removal in a major MA metro area would be a BAD idea.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 16, 2021, 09:15:43 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on August 15, 2021, 11:14:09 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 15, 2021, 07:22:58 PM
Looks like the MA-18 Expwy segment will be a boulevard soon.
https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/2021/02/05/massdot-studying-rt-18-improvements-elm-st-north-new-bedford-coggeshall-pedestrian-bikes-sidewalks/4387528001/

IMHO any freeway removal in a major MA metro area would be a BAD idea.

This one isn't really doing much freeway work.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on August 16, 2021, 09:35:25 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on August 15, 2021, 11:14:09 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on August 15, 2021, 07:22:58 PM
Looks like the MA-18 Expwy segment will be a boulevard soon.
https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/2021/02/05/massdot-studying-rt-18-improvements-elm-st-north-new-bedford-coggeshall-pedestrian-bikes-sidewalks/4387528001/

IMHO any freeway removal in a major MA metro area would be a BAD idea.
We already cleaned up our city with the Big Dig.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: yakra on August 16, 2021, 09:54:51 AM
"Massachusetts is a really big city."
- some guy on a bus in Portland c. 2005
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on August 16, 2021, 11:07:16 AM
Quote from: yakra on August 16, 2021, 09:54:51 AM
"Massachusetts is a really big city."
- some guy on a bus in Portland c. 2005
He might be surprised by the fact the MA town I grew up in had some dirt roads...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 16, 2021, 02:23:03 PM
Quote from: yakra on August 16, 2021, 09:54:51 AM
"Massachusetts is a really big city."
- some guy on a bus in Portland c. 2005
MA is actually bigger than NJ.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 18, 2021, 03:27:34 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on August 16, 2021, 02:23:03 PM
Quote from: yakra on August 16, 2021, 09:54:51 AM
"Massachusetts is a really big city."
- some guy on a bus in Portland c. 2005
MA is actually bigger than NJ.

Only in area. When people talk of the "size"  of cities it's most often in terms of population, and in that regard NJ is 25% larger.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: JWF1959 on August 29, 2021, 07:01:34 PM


And on Sutton Ave off I-395 Exit 4... this gem....



I've noticed this one for years.   It looks like a relatively recent sign (well, maybe less than 20 years old..). Has the word "freeway" ever been used in Massachusetts?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on August 29, 2021, 07:04:17 PM
Quote from: JWF1959 on August 29, 2021, 07:01:34 PM


And on Sutton Ave off I-395 Exit 4... this gem....



I've noticed this one for years.   It looks like a relatively recent sign (well, maybe less than 20 years old..). Has the word "freeway" ever been used in Massachusetts?

Do you have a picture or link?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on August 29, 2021, 07:42:54 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 29, 2021, 07:04:17 PM
Quote from: JWF1959 on August 29, 2021, 07:01:34 PM


And on Sutton Ave off I-395 Exit 4... this gem....



I've noticed this one for years.   It looks like a relatively recent sign (well, maybe less than 20 years old..). Has the word "freeway" ever been used in Massachusetts?

Do you have a picture or link?

From reply 1568:

Quote from: shadyjay on July 26, 2021, 06:47:35 PM
And on Sutton Ave off I-395 Exit 4... this gem....
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51333747189_1530c1cd44_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mdbSAH)
395SB-Exit94-entrance (https://flic.kr/p/2mdbSAH) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 08:44:54 PM
I just found out Massachusetts is getting $4.2 billion (https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-announces-approximately-8-billion-for-massachusetts-in-bipartisan-infrastructure-package-advances-in-critical-safety-and-equity-priorities) for road improvements in the infrastructure bill (plus $1 billion for bridges, the bulk of which will be going to the ones connecting Cape Cod to the Mainland).

That is more than enough for pretty much all of the state's highway needs
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on August 30, 2021, 08:59:48 PM


Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 08:44:54 PM
I just found out Massachusetts is getting $4.2 billion (https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-announces-approximately-8-billion-for-massachusetts-in-bipartisan-infrastructure-package-advances-in-critical-safety-and-equity-priorities) for road improvements in the infrastructure bill (plus $1 billion for bridges, the bulk of which will be going to the ones connecting Cape Cod to the Mainland).

That is more than enough for pretty much all of the state's highway needs

Your concept of costs for transportation projects is off the mark.  All their needs?  No way.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 09:44:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 30, 2021, 08:59:48 PM


Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 08:44:54 PM
I just found out Massachusetts is getting $4.2 billion (https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-announces-approximately-8-billion-for-massachusetts-in-bipartisan-infrastructure-package-advances-in-critical-safety-and-equity-priorities) for road improvements in the infrastructure bill (plus $1 billion for bridges, the bulk of which will be going to the ones connecting Cape Cod to the Mainland).

That is more than enough for pretty much all of the state's highway needs

Your concept of costs for transportation projects is off the mark.  All their needs?  No way.
Replace the cloverleaf interchanges on 95 with 93 (both of them), 2, and 3 with stacks
Remove the last at-grade intersections on 2
Remove at-grade intersections on 1A
Widen US 1 to 6 lanes from Malden to Saugus
Widen 93 to 8 lanes to the New Hampshire border

That about covers it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on August 30, 2021, 09:46:22 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 09:44:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 30, 2021, 08:59:48 PM


Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 08:44:54 PM
I just found out Massachusetts is getting $4.2 billion (https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-announces-approximately-8-billion-for-massachusetts-in-bipartisan-infrastructure-package-advances-in-critical-safety-and-equity-priorities) for road improvements in the infrastructure bill (plus $1 billion for bridges, the bulk of which will be going to the ones connecting Cape Cod to the Mainland).

That is more than enough for pretty much all of the state's highway needs

Your concept of costs for transportation projects is off the mark.  All their needs?  No way.
Replace the cloverleaf interchanges on 95 with 93 (both of them), 2, and 3 with stacks
Remove the last at-grade intersections on 2
Remove at-grade intersections on 1A
Widen US 1 to 6 lanes from Malden to Saugus
Widen 93 to 8 lanes to the New Hampshire border

That about covers it.

Leaving what funding for MassDOT's capital program?

Even with a preservation program, MA would need to spend billions to keep its conditions from declining.  And then you have routine maintenance...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 09:52:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 30, 2021, 09:46:22 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 09:44:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 30, 2021, 08:59:48 PM


Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 08:44:54 PM
I just found out Massachusetts is getting $4.2 billion (https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-announces-approximately-8-billion-for-massachusetts-in-bipartisan-infrastructure-package-advances-in-critical-safety-and-equity-priorities) for road improvements in the infrastructure bill (plus $1 billion for bridges, the bulk of which will be going to the ones connecting Cape Cod to the Mainland).

That is more than enough for pretty much all of the state's highway needs

Your concept of costs for transportation projects is off the mark.  All their needs?  No way.
Replace the cloverleaf interchanges on 95 with 93 (both of them), 2, and 3 with stacks
Remove the last at-grade intersections on 2
Remove at-grade intersections on 1A
Widen US 1 to 6 lanes from Malden to Saugus
Widen 93 to 8 lanes to the New Hampshire border

That about covers it.

Leaving what funding for MassDOT's capital program?

Even with a preservation program, MA would need to spend billions to keep its conditions from declining.  And then you have routine maintenance...

Hopefully Worcester Polytechnic can get that self healing concrete on the market soon.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on August 30, 2021, 10:07:38 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 09:52:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 30, 2021, 09:46:22 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 09:44:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 30, 2021, 08:59:48 PM


Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 08:44:54 PM
I just found out Massachusetts is getting $4.2 billion (https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-announces-approximately-8-billion-for-massachusetts-in-bipartisan-infrastructure-package-advances-in-critical-safety-and-equity-priorities) for road improvements in the infrastructure bill (plus $1 billion for bridges, the bulk of which will be going to the ones connecting Cape Cod to the Mainland).

That is more than enough for pretty much all of the state's highway needs

Your concept of costs for transportation projects is off the mark.  All their needs?  No way.
Replace the cloverleaf interchanges on 95 with 93 (both of them), 2, and 3 with stacks
Remove the last at-grade intersections on 2
Remove at-grade intersections on 1A
Widen US 1 to 6 lanes from Malden to Saugus
Widen 93 to 8 lanes to the New Hampshire border

That about covers it.

Leaving what funding for MassDOT's capital program?

Even with a preservation program, MA would need to spend billions to keep its conditions from declining.  And then you have routine maintenance...

Hopefully Worcester Polytechnic can get that self healing concrete on the market soon.
Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 11:35:14 PM
When they do widen the Sagamore and Bourne Bridges, won't that increase the pressure to widen Route 3?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJ Particle on August 30, 2021, 11:40:24 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 11:35:14 PM
When they do widen the Sagamore and Bourne Bridges, won't that increase the pressure to widen Route 3?
Probably not, since the new bridges are only each planned to have 2 travel lanes per direction + an aux lane between exits 1 and 55....

...unless of course you start/end the added lane at Exit 1.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on August 31, 2021, 12:49:58 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 09:52:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 30, 2021, 09:46:22 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 09:44:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 30, 2021, 08:59:48 PM


Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 08:44:54 PM
I just found out Massachusetts is getting $4.2 billion (https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-announces-approximately-8-billion-for-massachusetts-in-bipartisan-infrastructure-package-advances-in-critical-safety-and-equity-priorities) for road improvements in the infrastructure bill (plus $1 billion for bridges, the bulk of which will be going to the ones connecting Cape Cod to the Mainland).

That is more than enough for pretty much all of the state's highway needs

Your concept of costs for transportation projects is off the mark.  All their needs?  No way.
Replace the cloverleaf interchanges on 95 with 93 (both of them), 2, and 3 with stacks
Remove the last at-grade intersections on 2
Remove at-grade intersections on 1A
Widen US 1 to 6 lanes from Malden to Saugus
Widen 93 to 8 lanes to the New Hampshire border

That about covers it.

Leaving what funding for MassDOT's capital program?

Even with a preservation program, MA would need to spend billions to keep its conditions from declining.  And then you have routine maintenance...

Hopefully Worcester Polytechnic can get that self healing concrete on the market soon.
That helps, though even if we assume it will eliminate ALL maintenance/rehabilitation going forward, it will still cost money to install.  It's not like waving a magic wand and making all existing maintenance rehabilitation needs immediately go away.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 31, 2021, 02:25:36 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on August 30, 2021, 11:40:24 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 11:35:14 PM
When they do widen the Sagamore and Bourne Bridges, won't that increase the pressure to widen Route 3?
Probably not, since the new bridges are only each planned to have 2 travel lanes per direction + an aux lane between exits 1 and 55....

...unless of course you start/end the added lane at Exit 1.
Correct. You wouldn't want more than a 4-lane bridge because then you would have choke points at the zipper merges.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on August 31, 2021, 03:48:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 31, 2021, 12:49:58 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 09:52:05 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 30, 2021, 09:46:22 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 09:44:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 30, 2021, 08:59:48 PM


Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 08:44:54 PM
I just found out Massachusetts is getting $4.2 billion (https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-announces-approximately-8-billion-for-massachusetts-in-bipartisan-infrastructure-package-advances-in-critical-safety-and-equity-priorities) for road improvements in the infrastructure bill (plus $1 billion for bridges, the bulk of which will be going to the ones connecting Cape Cod to the Mainland).

That is more than enough for pretty much all of the state's highway needs

Your concept of costs for transportation projects is off the mark.  All their needs?  No way.
Replace the cloverleaf interchanges on 95 with 93 (both of them), 2, and 3 with stacks
Remove the last at-grade intersections on 2
Remove at-grade intersections on 1A
Widen US 1 to 6 lanes from Malden to Saugus
Widen 93 to 8 lanes to the New Hampshire border

That about covers it.

Leaving what funding for MassDOT's capital program?

Even with a preservation program, MA would need to spend billions to keep its conditions from declining.  And then you have routine maintenance...

Hopefully Worcester Polytechnic can get that self healing concrete on the market soon.
That helps, though even if we assume it will eliminate ALL maintenance/rehabilitation going forward, it will still cost money to install.  It's not like waving a magic wand and making all existing maintenance rehabilitation needs immediately go away.

But it will massively increase the net present value of highway investment
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: gohkenytp on August 31, 2021, 06:34:11 PM
Did I ever tell you about the Public Works in Canton? They seem a bit nice since they know which road signs should be placed.

Here's an example of one before the installation of the Keep Right sign as I requested:
(https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=15a34adf22&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msg-a:r2742307067546604915&th=17b96f22cf606988&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ-Mb87B60updZIj2B6nFPWQQWMW2rAuBSVeT8q5dd6-8FPgKKPmZqSlVdsReceWE9ip7Zjw2jzUr0n7svWWFwGSjYHe6LHgHkbDIA51zjjhtXFs8HfGqsXcBpg&disp=emb&realattid=ii_ksupvc9a0)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on August 31, 2021, 06:36:26 PM
Your image is from mail.google.com, which probably means that only you can access it. It's not showing up as anything, not even a "no image exists" icon.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: gohkenytp on August 31, 2021, 06:46:09 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 31, 2021, 06:36:26 PM
Your image is from mail.google.com, which probably means that only you can access it. It's not showing up as anything, not even a "no image exists" icon.

Oh. Well, here's the Keep Right sign that is installed on where Neponset Street meets Church Street:
(https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-c7chaa/images/stencil/1000x1000/products/806/5017/r4-8__21929.1579616513.png?c=2)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 02, 2021, 07:08:55 PM
There are a couple of new work zone signs, one of them covered up, on the Route 16 on ramp to 93 southbound at Medford Square. Anyone know what project is in the offing?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on September 03, 2021, 11:45:10 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 02, 2021, 07:08:55 PM
There are a couple of new work zone signs, one of them covered up, on the Route 16 on ramp to 93 southbound at Medford Square. Anyone know what project is in the offing?
From searching the MassDOT project site, the only possible reason for work zone signage would be a contract for pavement rehabilitation work on both I-93 in Medford and Somerville and on I-495 in the Chelmsford area (No. 610724). The comments on the site indicating the work started in April and they started work on I-495 with milling work prior to paving to be completed by Labor Day. Presumably the I-93 work would start after that is completed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 03, 2021, 12:24:10 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on September 03, 2021, 11:45:10 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 02, 2021, 07:08:55 PM
There are a couple of new work zone signs, one of them covered up, on the Route 16 on ramp to 93 southbound at Medford Square. Anyone know what project is in the offing?
From searching the MassDOT project site, the only possible reason for work zone signage would be a contract for pavement rehabilitation work on both I-93 in Medford and Somerville and on I-495 in the Chelmsford area (No. 610724). The comments on the site indicating the work started in April and they started work on I-495 with milling work prior to paving to be completed by Labor Day. Presumably the I-93 work would start after that is completed.

Thanks for looking that up! I guess that'll be the end of the BRRRRRT from tread marks left from the 2011 "Fast 14"  project.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ben114 on September 08, 2021, 04:17:07 PM
With the I-290 sign replacement project coming to an end, why has the Shrewsbury Street exit (new 19 / old 15) never had an advance BGS? I've never seen one before and there still isn't one now.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on September 11, 2021, 02:13:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 11:35:14 PM
When they do widen the Sagamore and Bourne Bridges, won't that increase the pressure to widen Route 3?
I think that both should be widened but not sure how feasible that is. I don't see how the Bourne Bridge would affect route 3.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on September 17, 2021, 10:18:33 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 11, 2021, 02:13:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 11:35:14 PM
When they do widen the Sagamore and Bourne Bridges, won't that increase the pressure to widen Route 3?
I think that both should be widened but not sure how feasible that is. I don't see how the Bourne Bridge would affect route 3.
I still think a third 4-lane bridge half way between them, connecting 25 to 6, would be better.
<dismount hobbyhorse>
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 20, 2021, 09:54:32 AM
Quote from: Ben114 on September 08, 2021, 04:17:07 PM
With the I-290 sign replacement project coming to an end, why has the Shrewsbury Street exit (new 19 / old 15) never had an advance BGS? I've never seen one before and there still isn't one now.

The I-290 sign project is still ongoing, as some new structures within Downtown Worcester have yet to be installed.  As part of this installation, Shrewsbury Street will be getting two new advance signs, one 1 1/4 miles before the exit, and one 1/2 mile before the exit.  A sign at the exit itself will be installed as well (the original sign was removed when the bridge over the CSX tracks was rebuilt several years back, but was never re-installed).  Note that, previously, Shrewsbury Street was mostly relegated to the interchange sequence signs that were installed under the 1995 sign project.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on September 20, 2021, 11:22:28 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 20, 2021, 09:54:32 AM
Quote from: Ben114 on September 08, 2021, 04:17:07 PM
With the I-290 sign replacement project coming to an end, why has the Shrewsbury Street exit (new 19 / old 15) never had an advance BGS? I've never seen one before and there still isn't one now.

The I-290 sign project is still ongoing, as some new structures within Downtown Worcester have yet to be installed.  As part of this installation, Shrewsbury Street will be getting two new advance signs, one 1 1/4 miles before the exit, and one 1/2 mile before the exit.  A sign at the exit itself will be installed as well (the original sign was removed when the bridge over the CSX tracks was rebuilt several years back, but was never re-installed).  Note that, previously, Shrewsbury Street was mostly relegated to the interchange sequence signs that were installed under the 1995 sign project.
According to the corrected entry in MassDOT's ProjectInfo site, the contract is 76% complete. The I-495 Bolton to Lowell entry though still insists that project is complete.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: paul02474 on September 20, 2021, 09:50:46 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 08:44:54 PM
I just found out Massachusetts is getting $4.2 billion (https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-announces-approximately-8-billion-for-massachusetts-in-bipartisan-infrastructure-package-advances-in-critical-safety-and-equity-priorities) for road improvements in the infrastructure bill (plus $1 billion for bridges, the bulk of which will be going to the ones connecting Cape Cod to the Mainland).

The good folks on this forum have plenty of good choices for their top ten urgent and unfounded projects, but there is no doubt the I-93 and I-95 interchange (mostly) in Reading is the most urgent in the state. When you consider the Commerce Way interchange is a half stacked flyover, there is no reason for the worst interchange in the state to be a tight-radius cloverleaf.

Interchange improvements are cost-effective solutions for congestion, and I would include stacked flyovers at I-95 and US 3 in Burlington, I-95 and MA 2 in Lexington, and I-93 and I-95 in Canton, on my top 10 list.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2021, 10:45:50 AM
Quote from: paul02474 on September 20, 2021, 09:50:46 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 08:44:54 PM
I just found out Massachusetts is getting $4.2 billion (https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-announces-approximately-8-billion-for-massachusetts-in-bipartisan-infrastructure-package-advances-in-critical-safety-and-equity-priorities) for road improvements in the infrastructure bill (plus $1 billion for bridges, the bulk of which will be going to the ones connecting Cape Cod to the Mainland).

The good folks on this forum have plenty of good choices for their top ten urgent and unfounded projects, but there is no doubt the I-93 and I-95 interchange (mostly) in Reading is the most urgent in the state. When you consider the Commerce Way interchange is a half stacked flyover, there is no reason for the worst interchange in the state to be a tight-radius cloverleaf.

Interchange improvements are cost-effective solutions for congestion, and I would include stacked flyovers at I-95 and US 3 in Burlington, I-95 and MA 2 in Lexington, and I-93 and I-95 in Canton, on my top 10 list.

Yes, but that is a political stalemate, not a financial one.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2021, 10:48:03 AM
New signs, still mostly covered, going up in Medford on 93 saying "buses use breakdown lane."  What's the story behind this?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on September 21, 2021, 12:40:31 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2021, 10:48:03 AM
New signs, still mostly covered, going up in Medford on 93 saying "buses use breakdown lane."  What's the story behind this?

I was just going to ask this... here are what such signs look like as I drove thru there on Sunday. I'm not to positive about why, but I think it either has to do with the I-93 HOV lanes being reinstated a while ago and/or an expansion of the (MBTA?) bus lane network in the Greater Boston area. They appear to run from about Exit 21/22 to the south (around where the I-93 SB HOV begins) to Exit 27 to the north (just before I-95/MA 128), please correct me if I am wrong.

This is on I-93 SB near Exit 24 in Stoneham:
(https://i.ibb.co/fNhzp12/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-22-15.png) (https://ibb.co/09gRMDc)

This is on I-93 NB just before Exit 25 in Stoneham:
(https://i.ibb.co/znhWjdQ/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-21-55.png) (https://ibb.co/7YJx8hj)

The signs are very similar to MA-W8-26 signs with the "BREAKDOWN LANE TRAVEL PERMITTED WEEKDAYS XX-YY AM/PM" message being replaced with "BUSES USING BREAKDOWN LANE MON-FRI XX-YY AM/PM":
(https://i.ibb.co/1MYLhjr/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-34-06.png) (https://ibb.co/r3KmTNx)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2021, 12:53:55 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on September 21, 2021, 12:40:31 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2021, 10:48:03 AM
New signs, still mostly covered, going up in Medford on 93 saying "buses use breakdown lane."  What's the story behind this?

I was just going to ask this... here are what such signs look like as I drove thru there on Sunday. I'm not to positive about why, but I think it either has to do with the I-93 HOV lanes being reinstated a while ago and/or an expansion of the (MBTA?) bus lane network in the Greater Boston area.

There is also one on the Mystic Valley Parkway on-ramp to 93 South.

There has been a lot of work lately to create reserved bus lanes going toward Boston. Broadway in Somerville, Mystic Ave, Broadway in Everett, Tobin Bridge... perhaps this is another part of that initiative.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 22, 2021, 12:45:48 PM
There has (somewhat shockingly) not been any publicity around it, but the state is indeed about to start letting buses use the shoulders on I-93.

Such has been briefly mentioned in a couple news articles:
https://whav.net/2021/09/08/boston-commuter-bus-returns-to-merrimack-valley-service-after-covid-19-suspension/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/02/15/metro/next-generation-bus-lanes-is-coming-greater-boston/

And a bit more information can be found here, see page 23: https://www.mass.gov/doc/congestion-study-updates-presented-to-board-on-11232020/download [pdf]

Interestingly that powerpoint also includes the idea of converting the HOV lanes on 93 to HOT lanes, and suggests allowing buses on the shoulder on virtually every freeway in greater Boston.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on September 22, 2021, 06:09:33 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 22, 2021, 12:45:48 PM
There has (somewhat shockingly) not been any publicity around it, but the state is indeed about to start letting buses use the shoulders on I-93.

Such has been briefly mentioned in a couple news articles:
https://whav.net/2021/09/08/boston-commuter-bus-returns-to-merrimack-valley-service-after-covid-19-suspension/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/02/15/metro/next-generation-bus-lanes-is-coming-greater-boston/

And a bit more information can be found here, see page 23: https://www.mass.gov/doc/congestion-study-updates-presented-to-board-on-11232020/download [pdf]

Interestingly that powerpoint also includes the idea of converting the HOV lanes on 93 to HOT lanes, and suggests allowing buses on the shoulder on virtually every freeway in greater Boston.

Awesome, I finally see why the state won't upgrade US 3 to eight lanes, because they feel it's more "feasible" to put rich people lanes in there instead. Same with 93 between 95 and 495. Fantastic.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on September 22, 2021, 08:24:08 PM
Speaking of breakdown lane travel... how common is it for MassDOT to allow breakdown lane travel during short-term work zones on the freeway? On I-290 WB on 7 August 2021, they were doing a double lane closure and just before the middle lane ended with the right lane, I saw these black and white regulatory signs stating "TRAVEL IN BREAKDOWN LANE PERMITTED IN WORK AREA" (with a VMS sign saying the same thing). There isn't any "END BREAKDOWN LANE TRAVEL" signage but guessing the "PERMITTED IN WORK AREA" part denotes the end of the breakdown lane travel is at the end of the work zone.

(https://i.ibb.co/WsbvQ7T/IMG-8855.jpg) (https://ibb.co/V37YdbK)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on September 22, 2021, 09:23:21 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on September 22, 2021, 08:24:08 PM
Speaking of breakdown lane travel... how common is it for MassDOT to allow breakdown lane travel during short-term work zones on the freeway? On I-290 WB on 7 August 2021, they were doing a double lane closure and just before the middle lane ended with the right lane, I saw these black and white regulatory signs stating "TRAVEL IN BREAKDOWN LANE PERMITTED IN WORK AREA" (with a VMS sign saying the same thing). There isn't any "END BREAKDOWN LANE TRAVEL" signage but guessing the "PERMITTED IN WORK AREA" part denotes the end of the breakdown lane travel is at the end of the work zone.

(https://i.ibb.co/WsbvQ7T/IMG-8855.jpg) (https://ibb.co/V37YdbK)

Not common from what I've encountered and most are too afraid to use them when they do exist.

The bigger problem I've seen with them is that I see more at night. That might be why uptake in using them is limited in my experience.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on September 22, 2021, 11:12:52 PM
What has stopped Massachusetts drivers from using the shoulder anyway? Been a proud tradition since I was a kid.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 23, 2021, 05:22:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 22, 2021, 11:12:52 PM
What has stopped Massachusetts drivers from using the shoulder anyway? Been a proud tradition since I was a kid.

Little gives me as much pleasure as watching a cop stop people using the shoulder to get around stopped traffic.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 23, 2021, 05:25:50 PM
In Salem, the city that brought you the Eurostile italic font on street signs...

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210923/11cabdacbc9f572ca27a1ac981042cb0.jpg)

How many sets of eyes do you suppose were complicit in letting this through?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on September 23, 2021, 09:05:50 PM
Breakdown lane travel is incredibly dangerous in my opinion. What happens if you break down?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on September 23, 2021, 09:08:45 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 23, 2021, 09:05:50 PM
Breakdown lane travel is incredibly dangerous in my opinion. What happens if you break down?

There are emergency pulloffs about every ½ mile in the locations with rush hour breakdown lane use.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on September 23, 2021, 09:10:31 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 23, 2021, 09:08:45 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 23, 2021, 09:05:50 PM
Breakdown lane travel is incredibly dangerous in my opinion. What happens if you break down?

There are emergency pulloffs about every ½ mile in the locations with rush hour breakdown lane use.
What if you can't make it 1/2 miles?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: yakra on September 24, 2021, 12:37:15 AM
Quote from: 1 on September 23, 2021, 09:08:45 PM
There are emergency pulloffs about every ½ mile in the locations with rush hour breakdown lane use.
Let's start allowing travel in those too then.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: deathtopumpkins on September 24, 2021, 08:08:25 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 23, 2021, 09:10:31 PMWhat if you can't make it 1/2 miles?

If your car experiences that extreme of a sudden breakdown, it's pretty unlikely you'd even make it to the shoulder anyway.

I have seen a disabled vehicle on the shoulder on 93 during rush hour though. Traffic backs up a bit behind them, but you just merge back into the travel lanes and go around them. Pre-COVID it's not like traffic was moving quickly during those hours anyway.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on September 24, 2021, 08:11:43 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 23, 2021, 05:25:50 PM
In Salem, the city that brought you the Eurostile italic font on street signs...

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210923/11cabdacbc9f572ca27a1ac981042cb0.jpg)

How many sets of eyes do you suppose were complicit in letting this through?

Imagine just having to look ahead and up 6-8' feet to get a guide on how to get it correct.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on September 24, 2021, 08:52:37 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 23, 2021, 05:22:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 22, 2021, 11:12:52 PM
What has stopped Massachusetts drivers from using the shoulder anyway? Been a proud tradition since I was a kid.

Little gives me as much pleasure as watching a cop stop people using the shoulder to get around stopped traffic.
Heh.  True.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on September 24, 2021, 09:59:39 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 23, 2021, 05:25:50 PM
In Salem, the city that brought you the Eurostile italic font on street signs...

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210923/11cabdacbc9f572ca27a1ac981042cb0.jpg)

How many sets of eyes do you suppose were complicit in letting this through?
Not to mention that 107 and 114 are state routes not US routes

SM-A515U

Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 24, 2021, 11:15:43 AM
Quote from: 5foot14 on September 24, 2021, 09:59:39 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 23, 2021, 05:25:50 PM
In Salem, the city that brought you the Eurostile italic font on street signs...

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210923/11cabdacbc9f572ca27a1ac981042cb0.jpg)

How many sets of eyes do you suppose were complicit in letting this through?
Not to mention that 107 and 114 are state routes not US routes

SM-A515U

That was my point.

Does someone mis-order, then nobody wants to rock the boat and put in a change that delay the final payment to the contractor?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 24, 2021, 11:21:02 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 23, 2021, 09:10:31 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 23, 2021, 09:08:45 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 23, 2021, 09:05:50 PM
Breakdown lane travel is incredibly dangerous in my opinion. What happens if you break down?

There are emergency pulloffs about every ½ mile in the locations with rush hour breakdown lane use.
What if you can't make it 1/2 miles?

From experience, if you lose all power while driving in free-flowing traffic at speed it's going to take you a while to coast over to a stop. 1/2 mile is not that much in that case.

If you break down in stopped or slow traffic you probably weren't going to make it to the shoulder anyway.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on September 27, 2021, 10:28:04 AM
Is there a reason why MA 129 is concurrent with US 1 in Saugus and Lynnfield?  It seems rather unnecessary.  Wouldn't it make more sense for that route to continue following Walnut St and Linwood Rd into Lynn, and rejoining its current alignment where it intersects MA 107?

Or another option, MA 129 doesn't turn right onto Main St in Wakefield, continuing to follow Lowell St and Salem St into Lynnfield, and rejoining its current alignment near where US-1 and I-95/MA 128 intersect in that area.

I'm sure this would clear up some confusion as far as route numbers go in that area.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on September 27, 2021, 11:14:38 AM


Quote from: kramie13 on September 27, 2021, 10:28:04 AM
Is there a reason why MA 129 is concurrent with US 1 in Saugus and Lynnfield?  It seems rather unnecessary.  Wouldn't it make more sense for that route to continue following Walnut St and Linwood Rd into Lynn, and rejoining its current alignment where it intersects MA 107?

Or another option, MA 129 doesn't turn right onto Main St in Wakefield, continuing to follow Lowell St and Salem St into Lynnfield, and rejoining its current alignment near where US-1 and I-95/MA 128 intersect in that area.

I'm sure this would clear up some confusion as far as route numbers go in that area.

Originally 129 did continue down Walnut St into Lynn, using Kirtland/Boston/Federal Streets to get to 107. From there its route varied through the years to get to Swampscott. By the 70s it was rerouted up route 1 to go around the north side of Lynn. I don't know for sure but if I had to guess this was to provide a more efficient route to Swampscott. Then in the 90s it was rerouted again to bring 129 closer to downtown Lynn,  with the old Route designated 129A. As for why they never rerouted it along Lowell/Salem St? Probably deemed unnecessary since 128 runs parallel. Or Wakefield wanted to keep 129 through the center of town.

SM-A515U

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on September 27, 2021, 02:48:39 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on September 27, 2021, 10:28:04 AM
Is there a reason why MA 129 is concurrent with US 1 in Saugus and Lynnfield?  It seems rather unnecessary.  Wouldn't it make more sense for that route to continue following Walnut St and Linwood Rd into Lynn, and rejoining its current alignment where it intersects MA 107?

Or another option, MA 129 doesn't turn right onto Main St in Wakefield, continuing to follow Lowell St and Salem St into Lynnfield, and rejoining its current alignment near where US-1 and I-95/MA 128 intersect in that area.

I'm sure this would clear up some confusion as far as route numbers go in that area.

It's funny that both of those options are more logical than the current routing.

Here would be my plan... Your first option is MA 129, your second option is a westward extension of MA 129A or a new state route outright (either replacing MA 129 from US 1 route the 129/129A junction). The state can then delete the portion of 129 thru Lynn that would be route-less after the change.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 28, 2021, 12:04:50 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 23, 2021, 09:05:50 PM
Breakdown lane travel is incredibly dangerous in my opinion. What happens if you break down?
How dangerous was it when it was allowed on I-95/MA 128, before the add-a-lane project was completed?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 28, 2021, 01:48:34 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 28, 2021, 12:04:50 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 23, 2021, 09:05:50 PM
Breakdown lane travel is incredibly dangerous in my opinion. What happens if you break down?
How dangerous was it when it was allowed on I-95/MA 128, before the add-a-lane project was completed?
I don't recall the exact statistics, but peak hour breakdown lane travel between Randolph and Wellesley travel actually had relatively few incidents over the years it was in operation.  There was only one fatality I recall in the late 1990s where a disabled car was struck by a speeding driver going over 100.  However, this happened during the middle of the day when the breakdown lane was closed to travel.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on September 28, 2021, 10:00:01 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 28, 2021, 12:04:50 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 23, 2021, 09:05:50 PM
Breakdown lane travel is incredibly dangerous in my opinion. What happens if you break down?
How dangerous was it when it was allowed on I-95/MA 128, before the add-a-lane project was completed?
Let's also not forget the one on Route 3 between Exit 27 and Exit 38...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on September 29, 2021, 11:33:39 AM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on September 28, 2021, 10:00:01 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 28, 2021, 12:04:50 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 23, 2021, 09:05:50 PM
Breakdown lane travel is incredibly dangerous in my opinion. What happens if you break down?
How dangerous was it when it was allowed on I-95/MA 128, before the add-a-lane project was completed?
Let's also not forget the one on Route 3 between Exit 27 and Exit 38...
And I-93 between north of Route 125 in Wilmington and south of Routes 110/113 in Methuen.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kefkafloyd on September 29, 2021, 06:57:50 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on September 22, 2021, 06:09:33 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 22, 2021, 12:45:48 PM
There has (somewhat shockingly) not been any publicity around it, but the state is indeed about to start letting buses use the shoulders on I-93.

Such has been briefly mentioned in a couple news articles:
https://whav.net/2021/09/08/boston-commuter-bus-returns-to-merrimack-valley-service-after-covid-19-suspension/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/02/15/metro/next-generation-bus-lanes-is-coming-greater-boston/

And a bit more information can be found here, see page 23: https://www.mass.gov/doc/congestion-study-updates-presented-to-board-on-11232020/download [pdf]

Interestingly that powerpoint also includes the idea of converting the HOV lanes on 93 to HOT lanes, and suggests allowing buses on the shoulder on virtually every freeway in greater Boston.

Awesome, I finally see why the state won't upgrade US 3 to eight lanes, because they feel it's more "feasible" to put rich people lanes in there instead. Same with 93 between 95 and 495. Fantastic.

US 3 needs a 65MPH speed limit before any widening, let alone HOT lanes.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on September 29, 2021, 09:33:38 PM
Quote from: kefkafloyd on September 29, 2021, 06:57:50 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on September 22, 2021, 06:09:33 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on September 22, 2021, 12:45:48 PM
There has (somewhat shockingly) not been any publicity around it, but the state is indeed about to start letting buses use the shoulders on I-93.

Such has been briefly mentioned in a couple news articles:
https://whav.net/2021/09/08/boston-commuter-bus-returns-to-merrimack-valley-service-after-covid-19-suspension/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/02/15/metro/next-generation-bus-lanes-is-coming-greater-boston/

And a bit more information can be found here, see page 23: https://www.mass.gov/doc/congestion-study-updates-presented-to-board-on-11232020/download [pdf]

Interestingly that powerpoint also includes the idea of converting the HOV lanes on 93 to HOT lanes, and suggests allowing buses on the shoulder on virtually every freeway in greater Boston.

Awesome, I finally see why the state won't upgrade US 3 to eight lanes, because they feel it's more "feasible" to put rich people lanes in there instead. Same with 93 between 95 and 495. Fantastic.

US 3 needs a 65MPH speed limit before any widening, let alone HOT lanes.
The speed limit is de facto 75 unless a cop is having a bad day.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 01, 2021, 01:54:27 PM
Latest iteration of Mass Pike Allston reconfiguration released this week:

https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/09/30/mass-pike-overhaul-allston-highway-upgrade-boardwalk-soldiers-field
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MinecraftNinja on October 01, 2021, 05:08:41 PM
Wicked awesome.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on October 06, 2021, 09:28:36 PM
Is this the end of MA 1A?  Or does it loop back to end at I-95?
https://goo.gl/maps/i8ZSDZQhKJSu8uvA6
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on October 06, 2021, 11:29:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 06, 2021, 09:28:36 PM
Is this the end of MA 1A?  Or does it loop back to end at I-95?
https://goo.gl/maps/i8ZSDZQhKJSu8uvA6
Officially, or going by signage? Officially, 1A runs concurrent north with US 1 from Dedham until the I-90 exit on I-93 in Boston. The signage on Elm Street heading west and at the intersection of Washington and Elm Streets implies MA 1A simply begins and ends there:
https://goo.gl/maps/HhEBPypMavy9N68Q8]https://goo.gl/maps/1gX7LVmhG8TVrABb6[url]

[url]https://goo.gl/maps/HhEBPypMavy9N68Q8]

[url]https://goo.gl/maps/HhEBPypMavy9N68Q8]https://goo.gl/maps/1gX7LVmhG8TVrABb6[url]

[url]https://goo.gl/maps/HhEBPypMavy9N68Q8 (https://goo.gl/maps/1gX7LVmhG8TVrABb6%5Burl=http://%5Burl)

Here's the signage heading north on Washington Street at Elm, no mention of 1A:
https://goo.gl/maps/WPhcnE89NVe7sgwbA (https://goo.gl/maps/WPhcnE89NVe7sgwbA)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on October 07, 2021, 12:28:32 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 06, 2021, 09:28:36 PM
Is this the end of MA 1A?  Or does it loop back to end at I-95?
https://goo.gl/maps/i8ZSDZQhKJSu8uvA6
1A runs concurrent with 1 (by milepost only, not law) north of there.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on October 08, 2021, 12:38:36 PM
The MassDOT project listing for the US 3 sign replacement project has been updated with the following:
Current Status:   The contractor started mobilizing the work crew and equipment. The subcontractor (Soil X) completed all soil borings. All soil samples will be analyzed. The results will be used for designing the overhead guide sign support system. Cosco, Inc. continues to work on the highway guardrail system. (as of 10/01/2021)
Additional Info:   The installation of the proposed highway guardrail is projected to be completed by the end of the construction season. The first series of overhead sign supports and foundation designs is expected to be completed soon. (as of 10/01/2021).
The project is 4% complete.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: storm2k on October 08, 2021, 03:37:58 PM
This falls under "just an observation", but having been in the Woburn area for work the past few days, it is a shame that there isn't room for them to do some sort of better interchange between Rt 93 and Rt 95 there, because that current cloverleaf that exists for an interchange between two main freeways in the immediate Boston suburbs is very substandard for the traffic. Quite a bit of backups each day on there which makes getting on from nearby interchange ramps a really unpleasant chore.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on October 08, 2021, 06:51:34 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 08, 2021, 03:37:58 PM
This falls under "just an observation", but having been in the Woburn area for work the past few days, it is a shame that there isn't room for them to do some sort of better interchange between Rt 93 and Rt 95 there, because that current cloverleaf that exists for an interchange between two main freeways in the immediate Boston suburbs is very substandard for the traffic. Quite a bit of backups each day on there which makes getting on from nearby interchange ramps a really unpleasant chore.

There is room, but is the NIMBYist of conceptual construction projects in the state.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: storm2k on October 10, 2021, 12:27:18 PM
On my way home from the northern Boston suburbs, I did dip into downtown Boston to see the Zakim Bridge and the Big Dig (last couple times I was in Boston I took flights there and did not have a rental car so never drove either), and I have to say, the Zakim Bridge is lovely. Got this picture midspan:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51573639214_111045ca22_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on October 13, 2021, 01:39:36 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 08, 2021, 03:37:58 PM
This falls under "just an observation", but having been in the Woburn area for work the past few days, it is a shame that there isn't room for them to do some sort of better interchange between Rt 93 and Rt 95 there, because that current cloverleaf that exists for an interchange between two main freeways in the immediate Boston suburbs is very substandard for the traffic. Quite a bit of backups each day on there which makes getting on from nearby interchange ramps a really unpleasant chore.

A subject of ongoing debate for at least 20 years.  There have been multiple proposals to relieve the pressures on this interchange, and so far none of them have been approved.  The Commonwealth's web page devoted to the project (https://www.mass.gov/i-93i-95-interchange-improvements-project) states the project is "on hold."  Many of us who live in that area aren't holding our collective breath that anything will be done about it.

As Sector Z alluded to, there will be land takings for the project no matter which plan is approved.  The interchange is surrounded by densely populated areas in portions of three towns, each full of NIMBY's who are fiercely resisting any and all changes in their neighborhoods.  In the end it may not matter, as the price for land takings alone could possibly kill the project altogether.  (Current average home prices in these towns is around $700,000 to $900,000.)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on October 13, 2021, 01:55:14 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on October 13, 2021, 01:39:36 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 08, 2021, 03:37:58 PM
This falls under "just an observation", but having been in the Woburn area for work the past few days, it is a shame that there isn't room for them to do some sort of better interchange between Rt 93 and Rt 95 there, because that current cloverleaf that exists for an interchange between two main freeways in the immediate Boston suburbs is very substandard for the traffic. Quite a bit of backups each day on there which makes getting on from nearby interchange ramps a really unpleasant chore.

A subject of ongoing debate for at least 20 years.  There have been multiple proposals to relieve the pressures on this interchange, and so far none of them have been approved.  The Commonwealth's web page devoted to the project (https://www.mass.gov/i-93i-95-interchange-improvements-project) states the project is "on hold."  Many of us who live in that area aren't holding our collective breath that anything will be done about it.

As Sector Z alluded to, there will be land takings for the project no matter which plan is approved.  The interchange is surrounded by densely populated areas in portions of three towns, each full of NIMBY's who are fiercely resisting any and all changes in their neighborhoods.  In the end it may not matter, as the price for land takings alone could possibly kill the project altogether.  (Current average home prices in these towns is around $700,000 to $900,000.)

Why couldn't they have used the land as the Woburn Mall was being demolished?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on October 13, 2021, 04:03:45 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 13, 2021, 01:55:14 PMWhy couldn't they have used the land as the Woburn Mall was being demolished?

Because it wasn't available.  It was rebuilt and rebranded as Woburn Village. and is actually expanding, including affordable housing in a 350-unit complex still under construction.  Besides, it's too far away to have any practical use in alleviating the traffic problems at the interchange.  Washington Street and Mishawum Road (each with a lot of their own traffic problems) sit between Woburn Village and 93.  The most practical (IMO) solution to the traffic problems involves flyover ramps between the highways, which wouldn't even come close to Woburn Village's site.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on October 16, 2021, 09:02:08 AM
It seems like there's enough ROW to give large parts of the Southeast Expressway breakdown lanes. Why don't they?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on October 16, 2021, 11:59:35 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 16, 2021, 09:02:08 AM
It seems like there's enough ROW to give large parts of the Southeast Expressway breakdown lanes. Why don't they?
You're cluttering threads with fictional speculation.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on October 17, 2021, 02:48:46 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 16, 2021, 11:59:35 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 16, 2021, 09:02:08 AM
It seems like there's enough ROW to give large parts of the Southeast Expressway breakdown lanes. Why don't they?
You're cluttering threads with fictional speculation.
That's a legit question.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on October 17, 2021, 09:09:02 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 16, 2021, 09:02:08 AM
It seems like there's enough ROW to give large parts of the Southeast Expressway breakdown lanes. Why don't they?

I've suspected that since they can't add one the entire length, they won't add one anywhere.

That said, near the Granite Ave exit where there is a wider inner median, the tow trucks hang in there when the HOV lane is open in case something goes wrong in there. That specific purpose alone may be one of the reasons that particular stretch has been left alone.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJStephens on October 17, 2021, 04:53:42 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on October 13, 2021, 01:39:36 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 08, 2021, 03:37:58 PM
This falls under "just an observation", but having been in the Woburn area for work the past few days, it is a shame that there isn't room for them to do some sort of better interchange between Rt 93 and Rt 95 there, because that current cloverleaf that exists for an interchange between two main freeways in the immediate Boston suburbs is very substandard for the traffic. Quite a bit of backups each day on there which makes getting on from nearby interchange ramps a really unpleasant chore.

A subject of ongoing debate for at least 20 years.  There have been multiple proposals to relieve the pressures on this interchange, and so far none of them have been approved.  The Commonwealth's web page devoted to the project (https://www.mass.gov/i-93i-95-interchange-improvements-project) states the project is "on hold."  Many of us who live in that area aren't holding our collective breath that anything will be done about it.

As Sector Z alluded to, there will be land takings for the project no matter which plan is approved.  The interchange is surrounded by densely populated areas in portions of three towns, each full of NIMBY's who are fiercely resisting any and all changes in their neighborhoods.  In the end it may not matter, as the price for land takings alone could possibly kill the project altogether.  (Current average home prices in these towns is around $700,000 to $900,000.)

Example of what happens to a cloverleaf, when traffic loads overwhelm it.  It did well for a relatively long time due it's fairly large footprint.   Weaving issues occur when traffic counts exceed it's capacity.   Yes there should have been planning, and acquisitions in the area surrounding it, starting in the seventies.  Remember congestion, and delays there, in the late eighties.  Can only imagine it now.  What is needed is a full directional stack, with high ramp design speeds.  Segmental or Box Beam Design would be a plus, guess standard steel girder is what is envisioned.       
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 17, 2021, 09:36:40 PM
Apparently the City of Woburn has been advancing its own plan for a relief onramp to 93 South from Washington Street via Cedar Street. I'm not sure how that merge is going to work with the 128/95 North to 93 South ramp ending in the same place.

http://homenewshere.com/middlesex_east/article_662e277a-eaad-11e9-929c-03869f5e9d82.html
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on October 17, 2021, 10:25:19 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 08, 2021, 03:37:58 PM
This falls under "just an observation", but having been in the Woburn area for work the past few days, it is a shame that there isn't room for them to do some sort of better interchange between Rt 93 and Rt 95 there, because that current cloverleaf that exists for an interchange between two main freeways in the immediate Boston suburbs is very substandard for the traffic. Quite a bit of backups each day on there which makes getting on from nearby interchange ramps a really unpleasant chore.

Someday that interchange will become a stack or at least a cloverstack, once MassDOT finds the money.
(https://i.imgur.com/uaHqKwe.jpg)
As you can see here, it's possible to upgrade the interchange without significant ROW takings, in fact, land is freed up by the removal of the large loop ramps.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on October 17, 2021, 11:43:07 PM
Another interchange that needs major work: US 3/I-95. When I'm driving NB on 95 to work I see a long line of cars on US 3 slowing down for the loop on the trumpet interchange and when I'm driving SB from work, I see a long queue from the C/D road that provides access to the Burlington Mall and US 3 NB.

They should build a directional ramp for traffic getting from US 3 to I-95 NB and they should have a braided ramp to eliminate the weave between US 3 and the Middlesex Turnpike.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on October 18, 2021, 11:02:53 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 06, 2021, 09:28:36 PM
Is this the end of MA 1A?  Or does it loop back to end at I-95?
https://goo.gl/maps/i8ZSDZQhKJSu8uvA6

Speaking of Route 1A and "A" routes in general, I have some questions to ask:

1. Does there need to be a route 1A and a route 3A paralleling routes 1 and 3 for almost their entire stretches through Massachusetts?
2. Why is route 1A a state route when route 1 is a US route?  Same for routes 3A (north of Boston), 6A, 7A, and 20A.
3. There are 2 route 8A's in the Berkshires.  Couldn't one of them be route 8B?
4. Do we need a MA state route 3 in addition to a US route 3?  Wouldn't it make for sense for the south shore route 3 to be a completely different route number to avoid confusion?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 18, 2021, 12:50:25 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 17, 2021, 10:25:19 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 08, 2021, 03:37:58 PM
This falls under "just an observation", but having been in the Woburn area for work the past few days, it is a shame that there isn't room for them to do some sort of better interchange between Rt 93 and Rt 95 there, because that current cloverleaf that exists for an interchange between two main freeways in the immediate Boston suburbs is very substandard for the traffic. Quite a bit of backups each day on there which makes getting on from nearby interchange ramps a really unpleasant chore.

Someday that interchange will become a stack or at least a cloverstack, once MassDOT finds the money.
(https://i.imgur.com/uaHqKwe.jpg)
As you can see here, it's possible to upgrade the interchange without significant ROW takings, in fact, land is freed up by the removal of the large loop ramps.

I think it's guilt by association...even if it's true, it would take up less land, freeways are bad are so engrained in people's minds it doesn't matter anymore.  Plus, high rise ramps "OMG terrible" is what people will say, ignoring the fact there's a huge expressway there already.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on October 18, 2021, 01:03:22 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 18, 2021, 12:50:25 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 17, 2021, 10:25:19 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 08, 2021, 03:37:58 PM
This falls under "just an observation", but having been in the Woburn area for work the past few days, it is a shame that there isn't room for them to do some sort of better interchange between Rt 93 and Rt 95 there, because that current cloverleaf that exists for an interchange between two main freeways in the immediate Boston suburbs is very substandard for the traffic. Quite a bit of backups each day on there which makes getting on from nearby interchange ramps a really unpleasant chore.

Someday that interchange will become a stack or at least a cloverstack, once MassDOT finds the money.
(https://i.imgur.com/uaHqKwe.jpg)
As you can see here, it's possible to upgrade the interchange without significant ROW takings, in fact, land is freed up by the removal of the large loop ramps.

I think it's guilt by association...even if it's true, it would take up less land, freeways are bad are so engrained in people's minds it doesn't matter anymore.  Plus, high rise ramps "OMG terrible" is what people will say, ignoring the fact there's a huge expressway there already.

I think it's just the sheer cost.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on October 18, 2021, 06:30:09 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on October 18, 2021, 11:02:53 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 06, 2021, 09:28:36 PM
Is this the end of MA 1A?  Or does it loop back to end at I-95?
https://goo.gl/maps/i8ZSDZQhKJSu8uvA6

Speaking of Route 1A and "A" routes in general, I have some questions to ask:

1. Does there need to be a route 1A and a route 3A paralleling routes 1 and 3 for almost their entire stretches through Massachusetts?
2. Why is route 1A a state route when route 1 is a US route?  Same for routes 3A (north of Boston), 6A, 7A, and 20A.
3. There are 2 route 8A's in the Berkshires.  Couldn't one of them be route 8B?
4. Do we need a MA state route 3 in addition to a US route 3?  Wouldn't it make for sense for the south shore route 3 to be a completely different route number to avoid confusion?
1. These are remnants of the former road bypassed by newer alignments. Sometimes the state is able to relinquish maintenance - especially for dead ends or short pieces - but sometimes it isn't and has to assign a number. (MA does unnumbered highways more than most states, but in this case it's next to the parent highway so why not.) The number lets you know that it's continuous enough to take until you get to the rest of the highway system.
2. Varies by state. Maine likes the Alternates to be US highways, RI used to have US 1A as well as RI 1A, but Mass has never done it that way. Same in NY except US 20A for some reason.
3. Yes. That is a perplexing one. They really could outright get rid of the one of them that gets no traffic and doesn't resemble a state highway. (Even if it's in their logs, as noted above, MA has unnumbered highways.)
4. I wish the whole thing was US 3. Someone in MA must have thought that would happen someday, but I don't believe anyone ever applied to connect them.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on October 18, 2021, 09:55:37 PM
Has anyone else noticed the enormous amount of debris on the inside shoulder of 95? Is that because they don't sweep it up frequently because it's dangerous?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on October 21, 2021, 12:54:50 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on September 21, 2021, 12:40:31 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2021, 10:48:03 AM
New signs, still mostly covered, going up in Medford on 93 saying "buses use breakdown lane."  What's the story behind this?

I was just going to ask this... here are what such signs look like as I drove thru there on Sunday. I'm not to positive about why, but I think it either has to do with the I-93 HOV lanes being reinstated a while ago and/or an expansion of the (MBTA?) bus lane network in the Greater Boston area. They appear to run from about Exit 21/22 to the south (around where the I-93 SB HOV begins) to Exit 27 to the north (just before I-95/MA 128), please correct me if I am wrong.

This is on I-93 SB near Exit 24 in Stoneham:
(https://i.ibb.co/fNhzp12/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-22-15.png) (https://ibb.co/09gRMDc)

This is on I-93 NB just before Exit 25 in Stoneham:
(https://i.ibb.co/znhWjdQ/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-21-55.png) (https://ibb.co/7YJx8hj)

The signs are very similar to MA-W8-26 signs with the "BREAKDOWN LANE TRAVEL PERMITTED WEEKDAYS XX-YY AM/PM" message being replaced with "BUSES USING BREAKDOWN LANE MON-FRI XX-YY AM/PM":
(https://i.ibb.co/1MYLhjr/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-34-06.png) (https://ibb.co/r3KmTNx)

https://blog.mass.gov/transportation/uncategorized/massdot-alerts-drivers-to-bus-on-shoulder-testing-on-section-of-i-93/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on October 21, 2021, 01:32:15 PM
Quote from: roadman on October 21, 2021, 12:54:50 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on September 21, 2021, 12:40:31 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2021, 10:48:03 AM
New signs, still mostly covered, going up in Medford on 93 saying "buses use breakdown lane."  What's the story behind this?

I was just going to ask this... here are what such signs look like as I drove thru there on Sunday. I'm not to positive about why, but I think it either has to do with the I-93 HOV lanes being reinstated a while ago and/or an expansion of the (MBTA?) bus lane network in the Greater Boston area. They appear to run from about Exit 21/22 to the south (around where the I-93 SB HOV begins) to Exit 27 to the north (just before I-95/MA 128), please correct me if I am wrong.

This is on I-93 SB near Exit 24 in Stoneham:
(https://i.ibb.co/fNhzp12/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-22-15.png) (https://ibb.co/09gRMDc)

This is on I-93 NB just before Exit 25 in Stoneham:
(https://i.ibb.co/znhWjdQ/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-21-55.png) (https://ibb.co/7YJx8hj)

The signs are very similar to MA-W8-26 signs with the "BREAKDOWN LANE TRAVEL PERMITTED WEEKDAYS XX-YY AM/PM" message being replaced with "BUSES USING BREAKDOWN LANE MON-FRI XX-YY AM/PM":
(https://i.ibb.co/1MYLhjr/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-34-06.png) (https://ibb.co/r3KmTNx)

https://blog.mass.gov/transportation/uncategorized/massdot-alerts-drivers-to-bus-on-shoulder-testing-on-section-of-i-93/

That sounds very dangerous. Imagine it: you're stuck in bumper to bumper traffic and all of a sudden, a bus comes plowing down the shoulder at full speed just a few feet from your car.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on October 21, 2021, 03:36:23 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 21, 2021, 01:32:15 PMThat sounds very dangerous. Imagine it: you're stuck in bumper to bumper traffic and all of a sudden, a bus comes plowing down the shoulder at full speed just a few feet from your car.

Buses will be restricted to 35mph in the breakdown lane.  A testing period using empty buses began Wednesday 10/20 and is expected to last three weeks.  The stretch of I-93 where buses will be permitted to use the breakdown lane is about 7 miles, from Somerville to the I-95 junction in Reading/Woburn.  According to MassDOT, only buses operated by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Merrimac Valley Regional Transit Authority and Logan Express will be allowed in the breakdown lane.  The buses will be required to yield to motorists using entrance and exit lanes.


The Boston-bound buses will have one heck of a weave at the southern end of the breakdown-lane use.  They'll have to move to the far left lane in short order to enter the HOV lane.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on October 21, 2021, 04:17:54 PM


Quote from: kernals12 on October 21, 2021, 01:32:15 PM
Quote from: roadman on October 21, 2021, 12:54:50 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on September 21, 2021, 12:40:31 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2021, 10:48:03 AM
New signs, still mostly covered, going up in Medford on 93 saying "buses use breakdown lane."  What's the story behind this?

I was just going to ask this... here are what such signs look like as I drove thru there on Sunday. I'm not to positive about why, but I think it either has to do with the I-93 HOV lanes being reinstated a while ago and/or an expansion of the (MBTA?) bus lane network in the Greater Boston area. They appear to run from about Exit 21/22 to the south (around where the I-93 SB HOV begins) to Exit 27 to the north (just before I-95/MA 128), please correct me if I am wrong.

This is on I-93 SB near Exit 24 in Stoneham:
(https://i.ibb.co/fNhzp12/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-22-15.png) (https://ibb.co/09gRMDc)

This is on I-93 NB just before Exit 25 in Stoneham:
(https://i.ibb.co/znhWjdQ/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-21-55.png) (https://ibb.co/7YJx8hj)

The signs are very similar to MA-W8-26 signs with the "BREAKDOWN LANE TRAVEL PERMITTED WEEKDAYS XX-YY AM/PM" message being replaced with "BUSES USING BREAKDOWN LANE MON-FRI XX-YY AM/PM":
(https://i.ibb.co/1MYLhjr/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-34-06.png) (https://ibb.co/r3KmTNx)

https://blog.mass.gov/transportation/uncategorized/massdot-alerts-drivers-to-bus-on-shoulder-testing-on-section-of-i-93/

That sounds very dangerous. Imagine it: you're stuck in bumper to bumper traffic and all of a sudden, a bus comes plowing down the shoulder at full speed just a few feet from your car.

Since when don't Bostonians do the very same thing?  They"ve been using the shoulder to get around jams for decades -- probably since the car was invented.
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 22, 2021, 03:26:52 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 21, 2021, 04:17:54 PM


Quote from: kernals12 on October 21, 2021, 01:32:15 PM
Quote from: roadman on October 21, 2021, 12:54:50 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on September 21, 2021, 12:40:31 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2021, 10:48:03 AM
New signs, still mostly covered, going up in Medford on 93 saying "buses use breakdown lane."  What's the story behind this?

I was just going to ask this... here are what such signs look like as I drove thru there on Sunday. I'm not to positive about why, but I think it either has to do with the I-93 HOV lanes being reinstated a while ago and/or an expansion of the (MBTA?) bus lane network in the Greater Boston area. They appear to run from about Exit 21/22 to the south (around where the I-93 SB HOV begins) to Exit 27 to the north (just before I-95/MA 128), please correct me if I am wrong.

This is on I-93 SB near Exit 24 in Stoneham:
(https://i.ibb.co/fNhzp12/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-22-15.png) (https://ibb.co/09gRMDc)

This is on I-93 NB just before Exit 25 in Stoneham:
(https://i.ibb.co/znhWjdQ/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-21-55.png) (https://ibb.co/7YJx8hj)

The signs are very similar to MA-W8-26 signs with the "BREAKDOWN LANE TRAVEL PERMITTED WEEKDAYS XX-YY AM/PM" message being replaced with "BUSES USING BREAKDOWN LANE MON-FRI XX-YY AM/PM":
(https://i.ibb.co/1MYLhjr/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-34-06.png) (https://ibb.co/r3KmTNx)

https://blog.mass.gov/transportation/uncategorized/massdot-alerts-drivers-to-bus-on-shoulder-testing-on-section-of-i-93/

That sounds very dangerous. Imagine it: you're stuck in bumper to bumper traffic and all of a sudden, a bus comes plowing down the shoulder at full speed just a few feet from your car.

Since when don't Bostonians do the very same thing?  They"ve been using the shoulder to get around jams for decades -- probably since the car was invented.

People don't often drive down the shoulder on 93 here, and traffic is terrible daily.

They may have to start sweeping the shoulder, though.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 12:46:44 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 22, 2021, 03:26:52 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 21, 2021, 04:17:54 PM


Quote from: kernals12 on October 21, 2021, 01:32:15 PM
Quote from: roadman on October 21, 2021, 12:54:50 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on September 21, 2021, 12:40:31 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2021, 10:48:03 AM
New signs, still mostly covered, going up in Medford on 93 saying "buses use breakdown lane."  What's the story behind this?

I was just going to ask this... here are what such signs look like as I drove thru there on Sunday. I'm not to positive about why, but I think it either has to do with the I-93 HOV lanes being reinstated a while ago and/or an expansion of the (MBTA?) bus lane network in the Greater Boston area. They appear to run from about Exit 21/22 to the south (around where the I-93 SB HOV begins) to Exit 27 to the north (just before I-95/MA 128), please correct me if I am wrong.

This is on I-93 SB near Exit 24 in Stoneham:
(https://i.ibb.co/fNhzp12/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-22-15.png) (https://ibb.co/09gRMDc)

This is on I-93 NB just before Exit 25 in Stoneham:
(https://i.ibb.co/znhWjdQ/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-21-55.png) (https://ibb.co/7YJx8hj)

The signs are very similar to MA-W8-26 signs with the "BREAKDOWN LANE TRAVEL PERMITTED WEEKDAYS XX-YY AM/PM" message being replaced with "BUSES USING BREAKDOWN LANE MON-FRI XX-YY AM/PM":
(https://i.ibb.co/1MYLhjr/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-34-06.png) (https://ibb.co/r3KmTNx)

https://blog.mass.gov/transportation/uncategorized/massdot-alerts-drivers-to-bus-on-shoulder-testing-on-section-of-i-93/

That sounds very dangerous. Imagine it: you're stuck in bumper to bumper traffic and all of a sudden, a bus comes plowing down the shoulder at full speed just a few feet from your car.

Since when don't Bostonians do the very same thing?  They"ve been using the shoulder to get around jams for decades -- probably since the car was invented.

People don't often drive down the shoulder on 93 here, and traffic is terrible daily.

They may have to start sweeping the shoulder, though.
When I was a kid, it was a common occurrence on the Pike.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mrsman on October 22, 2021, 05:25:22 PM
^^^^

Quite a few places that allow for rush hour shoulder use for buses.

Here's a sign on the I-495 Inner Loop of the Captial Beltway near Old Georgetown Rd in Bethesda:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.013573,-77.1294581,3a,15y,99.65h,91.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV8wgxQnHuzwLgAAO3-KAmA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

A Metrobus route previously operated service between Tysons and Bethesda between 1998 and 2003, using these shoulder lanes to bypass traffic. But it was discontinued after the bottleneck at the American Legion Bridge caused buses to experience long delays on the Beltway.  I know there is some interest in reinstating the service, but it is still something to see a sign for this 18 years after service terminated.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 23, 2021, 10:04:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 12:46:44 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 22, 2021, 03:26:52 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 21, 2021, 04:17:54 PM


Quote from: kernals12 on October 21, 2021, 01:32:15 PM
Quote from: roadman on October 21, 2021, 12:54:50 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on September 21, 2021, 12:40:31 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2021, 10:48:03 AM
New signs, still mostly covered, going up in Medford on 93 saying "buses use breakdown lane."  What's the story behind this?

I was just going to ask this... here are what such signs look like as I drove thru there on Sunday. I'm not to positive about why, but I think it either has to do with the I-93 HOV lanes being reinstated a while ago and/or an expansion of the (MBTA?) bus lane network in the Greater Boston area. They appear to run from about Exit 21/22 to the south (around where the I-93 SB HOV begins) to Exit 27 to the north (just before I-95/MA 128), please correct me if I am wrong.

This is on I-93 SB near Exit 24 in Stoneham:
(https://i.ibb.co/fNhzp12/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-22-15.png) (https://ibb.co/09gRMDc)

This is on I-93 NB just before Exit 25 in Stoneham:
(https://i.ibb.co/znhWjdQ/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-21-55.png) (https://ibb.co/7YJx8hj)

The signs are very similar to MA-W8-26 signs with the "BREAKDOWN LANE TRAVEL PERMITTED WEEKDAYS XX-YY AM/PM" message being replaced with "BUSES USING BREAKDOWN LANE MON-FRI XX-YY AM/PM":
(https://i.ibb.co/1MYLhjr/Screenshot-2021-09-21-at-12-34-06.png) (https://ibb.co/r3KmTNx)

https://blog.mass.gov/transportation/uncategorized/massdot-alerts-drivers-to-bus-on-shoulder-testing-on-section-of-i-93/

That sounds very dangerous. Imagine it: you're stuck in bumper to bumper traffic and all of a sudden, a bus comes plowing down the shoulder at full speed just a few feet from your car.

Since when don't Bostonians do the very same thing?  They"ve been using the shoulder to get around jams for decades -- probably since the car was invented.

People don't often drive down the shoulder on 93 here, and traffic is terrible daily.

They may have to start sweeping the shoulder, though.
When I was a kid, it was a common occurrence on the Pike.

I just don't see it that often on 93. Occasionally, sure, but cops hang out along there at rush hour.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on October 24, 2021, 07:01:38 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 23, 2021, 10:04:45 PM
I just don't see it that often on 93. Occasionally, sure, but cops hang out along there at rush hour.

Except where and when it's legal, of course.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 09, 2021, 10:22:23 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 24, 2021, 07:01:38 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 23, 2021, 10:04:45 PM
I just don't see it that often on 93. Occasionally, sure, but cops hang out along there at rush hour.

Except where and when it's legal, of course.

Well, sure, but I figured that was outside the scope of the discussion.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 09, 2021, 10:58:51 PM
What's happening on the remnant of the downramp from the old Sullivan Square overpass on Mystic Ave (Mass. 38) northbound? After years of it being overgrown and Jersey-barriered off, some construction is happening over there.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20211110/f129099de7e42aa2df3de54ab12e3ec6.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: storm2k on November 11, 2021, 11:25:41 PM
Forgive the potatoish quality (it was nighttime and I was in a car), but start and end signs for US20 in the Back Bay. 3365 miles to the other end of US-20.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51674131374_1529714fbb_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51673696818_69991745c2_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on November 14, 2021, 08:01:08 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 09, 2021, 10:58:51 PM
What's happening on the remnant of the downramp from the old Sullivan Square overpass on Mystic Ave (Mass. 38) northbound? After years of it being overgrown and Jersey-barriered off, some construction is happening over there.

Given how brightly lit it is under I-93, I would think that's where they're working, using the area you refer to for staging the equipment.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on November 14, 2021, 09:05:15 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 11, 2021, 11:25:41 PM
Forgive the potatoish quality (it was nighttime and I was in a car), but start and end signs for US20 in the Back Bay. 3365 miles to the other end of US-20.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51674131374_1529714fbb_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51673696818_69991745c2_c.jpg)

They've apparently been there for a while. The first (WB) one is visible in the 9/2018 Google street view, but it's strangely located at the intersection of Comm Ave and Kenmore St, before the actual square. The second (EB) one is visible in 9/2019 street view where Comm Ave intersects Brookline Ave. entering the square.

I like this kind of mileage sign. There's a matching one visible in 7/2019 street view in Newport. They should add "Longest numbered route in US" underneath them. They look so similar that they must have been put up by agreement.

I still remember a similar sign on US-6 when I lived in Provincetown as a child, with the distance to Long Beach (even longer than US-20 back then). US-6 has signs now, in P'town and Bishop. But so many important long roads, like I-90, US-1, have nothing.

I wonder if 3365 miles includes or excludes the Yellowstone gap.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on November 14, 2021, 09:06:30 PM
Quote from: pderocco on November 14, 2021, 09:05:15 PM
I wonder if 3365 miles includes or excludes the Yellowstone gap.

We've already established here that this number is just plain wrong. It includes the sum of all bannered routes of US 20 in addition to US 20 itself.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 14, 2021, 09:16:15 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 14, 2021, 09:06:30 PM
Quote from: pderocco on November 14, 2021, 09:05:15 PM
I wonder if 3365 miles includes or excludes the Yellowstone gap.

We've already established here that this number is just plain wrong. It includes the sum of all bannered routes of US 20 in addition to US 20 itself.

According to Google Maps, it's 3149 miles from Newport, OR to Kenmore Square using the most direct route.  Don't think taking only US 20 adds 216 miles to the trip. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 15, 2021, 11:57:23 AM
Does anyone know if there is an End US 20 sign at the other end of the highway at the US 20/US 101 junction in Newport, OR?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on November 15, 2021, 01:32:30 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 15, 2021, 11:57:23 AM
Does anyone know if there is an End US 20 sign at the other end of the highway at the US 20/US 101 junction in Newport, OR?
I don't think so.  There's a BEGIN and mileage to Boston, though.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on November 17, 2021, 12:51:15 PM
https://www.mass.gov/event/andover-proposed-replacement-of-six-i-495-bridges-2021-11-17t183000-0500-2021-11-17t203000-0500

Here's something exciting. MassDOT is replacing 6 bridges on 495 in Andover. They say the new bridges will be wide enough to accommodate a fourth lane in each direction on 495.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on November 17, 2021, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 17, 2021, 12:51:15 PM
https://www.mass.gov/event/andover-proposed-replacement-of-six-i-495-bridges-2021-11-17t183000-0500-2021-11-17t203000-0500

Here's something exciting. MassDOT is replacing 6 bridges on 495 in Andover. They say the new bridges will be wide enough to accommodate a fourth lane in each direction on 495.

Before you get excited about a fourth lane, keep in mind that the state doesn't even want to consider Lexus lanes there, let alone a regular fourth lane for each side.

Christmas Eve 2015 one of those bridges (one of them over MA 28) had a car sized pothole form on it. They probably could use a replacement.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on November 17, 2021, 02:46:32 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on November 17, 2021, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 17, 2021, 12:51:15 PM
https://www.mass.gov/event/andover-proposed-replacement-of-six-i-495-bridges-2021-11-17t183000-0500-2021-11-17t203000-0500

Here's something exciting. MassDOT is replacing 6 bridges on 495 in Andover. They say the new bridges will be wide enough to accommodate a fourth lane in each direction on 495.

Before you get excited about a fourth lane, keep in mind that the state doesn't even want to consider Lexus lanes there, let alone a regular fourth lane for each side.

Christmas Eve 2015 one of those bridges (one of them over MA 28) had a car sized pothole form on it. They probably could use a replacement.

Why would they go to the trouble of putting in wider bridges if they weren't planning to use it? Replacing bridges also is usually the most expensive part of a widening project.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on November 17, 2021, 03:39:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 17, 2021, 02:46:32 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on November 17, 2021, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 17, 2021, 12:51:15 PM
https://www.mass.gov/event/andover-proposed-replacement-of-six-i-495-bridges-2021-11-17t183000-0500-2021-11-17t203000-0500

Here's something exciting. MassDOT is replacing 6 bridges on 495 in Andover. They say the new bridges will be wide enough to accommodate a fourth lane in each direction on 495.

Before you get excited about a fourth lane, keep in mind that the state doesn't even want to consider Lexus lanes there, let alone a regular fourth lane for each side.

Christmas Eve 2015 one of those bridges (one of them over MA 28) had a car sized pothole form on it. They probably could use a replacement.

Why would they go to the trouble of putting in wider bridges if they weren't planning to use it? Replacing bridges also is usually the most expensive part of a widening project.

Because Massachusetts. Look at US 3 from 95 to NH, it's been capable of being four lanes each side since it was built, and despite daily backups on it they're gone thru one repave job still keeping it at 3. Widening isn't on the radar, save for a study where they brought up toll lanes.

Also this, which is a relatively new bridge and puts a hard stop to widening 495, https://goo.gl/maps/VEEVUKZJF4gJhDxD7

I'd get the feds to chip in on widening 495 from I-90 to MA 125. So much non-Massachusetts traffic uses it. It backs up like mad at nearly all daylight times northbound in Lawrence and Methuen.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on November 17, 2021, 03:50:45 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on November 17, 2021, 03:39:13 PM
Also this, which is a relatively new bridge and puts a hard stop to widening 495, https://goo.gl/maps/VEEVUKZJF4gJhDxD7

Fortunately, there's already a fourth lane there – under the bridge.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on November 17, 2021, 04:16:08 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 17, 2021, 03:50:45 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on November 17, 2021, 03:39:13 PM
Also this, which is a relatively new bridge and puts a hard stop to widening 495, https://goo.gl/maps/VEEVUKZJF4gJhDxD7

Fortunately, there's already a fourth lane there – under the bridge.

A fifth, too!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on November 17, 2021, 05:21:24 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on November 17, 2021, 03:39:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 17, 2021, 02:46:32 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on November 17, 2021, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 17, 2021, 12:51:15 PM
https://www.mass.gov/event/andover-proposed-replacement-of-six-i-495-bridges-2021-11-17t183000-0500-2021-11-17t203000-0500

Here's something exciting. MassDOT is replacing 6 bridges on 495 in Andover. They say the new bridges will be wide enough to accommodate a fourth lane in each direction on 495.

Before you get excited about a fourth lane, keep in mind that the state doesn't even want to consider Lexus lanes there, let alone a regular fourth lane for each side.

Christmas Eve 2015 one of those bridges (one of them over MA 28) had a car sized pothole form on it. They probably could use a replacement.

Why would they go to the trouble of putting in wider bridges if they weren't planning to use it? Replacing bridges also is usually the most expensive part of a widening project.

Because Massachusetts. Look at US 3 from 95 to NH, it's been capable of being four lanes each side since it was built, and despite daily backups on it they're gone thru one repave job still keeping it at 3. Widening isn't on the radar, save for a study where they brought up toll lanes.

Also this, which is a relatively new bridge and puts a hard stop to widening 495, https://goo.gl/maps/VEEVUKZJF4gJhDxD7

I'd get the feds to chip in on widening 495 from I-90 to MA 125. So much non-Massachusetts traffic uses it. It backs up like mad at nearly all daylight times northbound in Lawrence and Methuen.

Any widening of US 3 is pointless without a rebuild of the interchange at 95.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on November 18, 2021, 09:43:45 AM
The Haverhill Bridge is getting rebuilt with full width shoulders on both sides

https://www.eagletribune.com/news/haverhill/4-year-102m-bridge-replacement-on-495-to-begin-next-week/article_21fd80b4-8d78-50cd-a960-03eba29eb8db.html

It seems like MassDOT is taking advantage of the replacement of rusting bridges to futureproof 495 for widening.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on November 18, 2021, 08:13:51 PM
Here's my US 3/I-95 Interchange rebuild proposal
(https://i.imgur.com/LtbyBc0.png)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on November 18, 2021, 10:37:57 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 18, 2021, 08:13:51 PM
Here's my US 3/I-95 Interchange rebuild proposal
(https://i.imgur.com/LtbyBc0.png)
this may be the most sensible thing you've ever posted
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on November 19, 2021, 02:57:16 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 11, 2021, 11:25:41 PM
Forgive the potatoish quality (it was nighttime and I was in a car), but start and end signs for US20 in the Back Bay. 3365 miles to the other end of US-20.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51674131374_1529714fbb_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51673696818_69991745c2_c.jpg)

Only in Massachusetts would a US route end at a state route.  It happens TWICE - at Kenmore Square with US 20 ending at MA 2, and in Plymouth with US 44 ending at MA 3A!

Something tells me that's not "kosher", and that a US highway should end at an Interstate or another US highway.  US 20 should somehow be extended to meet US 1.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on November 19, 2021, 03:49:06 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on November 19, 2021, 02:57:16 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 11, 2021, 11:25:41 PM
Forgive the potatoish quality (it was nighttime and I was in a car), but start and end signs for US20 in the Back Bay. 3365 miles to the other end of US-20.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51674131374_1529714fbb_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51673696818_69991745c2_c.jpg)

Only in Massachusetts would a US route end at a state route.  It happens TWICE - at Kenmore Square with US 20 ending at MA 2, and in Plymouth with US 44 ending at MA 3A!

Something tells me that's not "kosher", and that a US highway should end at an Interstate or another US highway.  US 20 should somehow be extended to meet US 1.

US 20 going from US 1 to US 101 would be awesome.  With 1 being on the underground Central Artery (and probably staying there), the closest we could get is to route 20 to something that interchanges with the Artery and the options are limited.

I-90 ending at route 1A, not another Interstate, continues that theme--although that is much more sensible because it used to end at 93 and the Ted Williams Tunnel should be part of 90. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on November 19, 2021, 05:48:44 PM
How do we feel about US 29? US 30, 40, 322? Don't hold back.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: empirestate on November 19, 2021, 08:19:53 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on November 19, 2021, 02:57:16 PM
Only in Massachusetts would a US route end at a state route.

Such as the (original) end of US 220 in Waverly, Massachusetts. :D
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on November 19, 2021, 08:56:07 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on November 19, 2021, 02:57:16 PM
Only in Massachusetts would a US route end as a state route.

FTFY.   

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on November 19, 2021, 09:41:53 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on November 19, 2021, 03:49:06 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on November 19, 2021, 02:57:16 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 11, 2021, 11:25:41 PM
Forgive the potatoish quality (it was nighttime and I was in a car), but start and end signs for US20 in the Back Bay. 3365 miles to the other end of US-20.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51674131374_1529714fbb_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51673696818_69991745c2_c.jpg)

Only in Massachusetts would a US route end at a state route.  It happens TWICE - at Kenmore Square with US 20 ending at MA 2, and in Plymouth with US 44 ending at MA 3A!

Something tells me that's not "kosher", and that a US highway should end at an Interstate or another US highway.  US 20 should somehow be extended to meet US 1.

US 20 going from US 1 to US 101 would be awesome.  With 1 being on the underground Central Artery (and probably staying there), the closest we could get is to route 20 to something that interchanges with the Artery and the options are limited.
Don't forget also that US 3 ends at MA 2A/MA 3. I also think that US routes should end at other US routes or interstates and have incorporated those ideas in my route changes section of my Massachusetts website. US 3 would be routed further along I-95 North then south on I-93 and take over MA 3 in Boston and end at US 6 (if MA 3 is not replaced by an interstate):
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/us3newroutemap2.jpg)

US 44 would end at proposed US 3 (or even better an interstate) in Plymouth, US 20 is a little harder, for now I just have it continue to the Boston Common, taking over MA 2, not quite at a US route. An alternative, which I currently have for MA 2, would be for it to use Mass Ave and end at the Mass Ave interchange with I-93/US 1/MA 3 (or US 3 in my proposal).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: yakra on November 21, 2021, 10:16:46 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on November 19, 2021, 02:57:16 PM
Only in Massachusetts would a US route end at a state route.  It happens TWICE - at Kenmore Square with US 20 ending at MA 2, and in Plymouth with US 44 ending at MA 3A!
Challenge accepted.

US2   http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.980443&lon=-122.190907&zoom=15 (Edit: LOL OK this one's a bit debatable ;P)
US3   http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.357238&lon=-71.092631&zoom=15
US6   http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.045357&lon=-70.214707&zoom=15
US20  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.348879&lon=-71.096649&zoom=15
US29  https://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.302757&lon=-76.824431&zoom=15
US33  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.551569&lon=-77.451832&zoom=15
US34  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.823781&lon=-87.802691&zoom=15
US44  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.960192&lon=-70.670328&zoom=15
US50  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.331623&lon=-75.086770&zoom=15
US52  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.630658&lon=-81.997259&zoom=15
US52  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.656832&lon=-82.143852&zoom=15

US62  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.091872&lon=-79.059387&zoom=15
US69  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=29.898891&lon=-93.928782&zoom=15
US69  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.646883&lon=-93.391213&zoom=15
US87  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.616421&lon=-96.624005&zoom=15
US96  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=29.898891&lon=-93.928782&zoom=15
US101 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.029474&lon=-118.215294&zoom=15
(also debatable.)
US113 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.938649&lon=-75.427923&zoom=15
US167 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=29.975643&lon=-92.141669&zoom=15
US176 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.307412&lon=-82.458615&zoom=15
US197 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.649066&lon=-121.156111&zoom=15
US202 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.680441&lon=-75.590417&zoom=15
US209 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.539049&lon=-76.961178&zoom=15
US212 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=44.889916&lon=-93.390259&zoom=15
(wibbly wobbly rampy wampy stuff)
US223 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.715155&lon=-83.688183&zoom=15
US224 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.002419&lon=-80.347266&zoom=15
US258 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.010855&lon=-76.314651&zoom=15
US271 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.346657&lon=-95.294281&zoom=15
US287 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=29.898891&lon=-93.928782&zoom=15
US301 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.531490&lon=-75.649753&zoom=15
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 21, 2021, 11:13:07 AM
Does US 202 really count?  It does end at US 13/US 40 concurrent with DE 141.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: yakra on November 21, 2021, 12:46:12 PM
Oops. Doesn't count. Crossed off the list.

Here's what I done did. There's just something fun about bash scripting...
for cr in $(tail -n +2 _systems/usaus_con.csv | cut -f5 -d';'); do
  rte=$(echo $cr | cut -f1 -d',')
  line=$(grep ".*;.*;.*;.*;.*;.*;$rte;.*" _systems/usaus.csv)
  rg=$(echo $line | cut -f2 -d';')
  route=$(echo $line | sed -r 's~.*;.*;(.*);.*;.*;.*;.*;.*~\1~')
  result=$(head -n 1 $rg/usaus/$rte.wpt | grep "^$rg[0-9]" | sed -r -e 's~ *$~~' -e 's~.* (.*)~\1\&zoom=15~')
  if [ $(echo $result | wc -c) -gt 1 ]; then echo -e "$route\t$result"; fi
  rte=$(echo $cr | sed 's~.*,~~')
  line=$(grep ".*;.*;.*;.*;.*;.*;$rte;.*" _systems/usaus.csv)
  rg=$(grep ".*;.*;.*;.*;.*;.*;$rte;.*" _systems/usaus.csv | cut -f2 -d';')
  route=$(echo $line | sed -r 's~.*;.*;(.*);.*;.*;.*;.*;.*~\1~')
  result=$(tail -n 1 $rg/usaus/$rte.wpt | grep "^$rg[0-9]" | sed -r -e 's~ *$~~' -e 's~.* (.*)~\1\&zoom=15~')
  if [ $(echo $result | wc -c) -gt 1 ]; then echo -e "$route\t$result"; fi
done
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on November 24, 2021, 07:31:20 PM
MassDOT is putting the 495/90 Interchange rebuild up for bid in March 2022
https://hwy.massdot.state.ma.us/webapps/const/statusReport.asp
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJStephens on November 25, 2021, 10:15:05 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 24, 2021, 07:31:20 PM
MassDOT is putting the 495/90 Interchange rebuild up for bid in March 2022
https://hwy.massdot.state.ma.us/webapps/const/statusReport.asp

   Exit  11A.  $339 million.  Symmetrical stack?  Segmental?  Steel girder? Could one be built up there for that money?   
   Perhaps some some of Turbine, with de-emphasis on 90 W to 495 N, and 495 S to 90 W movements, due to existence of I-290.  Guessing EZ-Pass largely eliminates the need for a wonky trumpet, correct?   
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on November 25, 2021, 11:14:50 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on November 25, 2021, 10:15:05 AMExit  106 (old exit 11A).

FTFY (exits were converted to a mileage based system between 12/13/20 and 1/15/21 on the Mass Turnpike). This interchange is exit 58 (old exit 22) on Interstate 495.

Quote from: DJStephens on November 25, 2021, 10:15:05 AM$339 million.  Symmetrical stack?  Segmental?  Steel girder? Could one be built up there for that money?   
   Perhaps some some of Turbine, with de-emphasis on 90 W to 495 N, and 495 S to 90 W movements, due to existence of I-290.  Guessing EZ-Pass largely eliminates the need for a wonky trumpet, correct?

I believe this Mass.gov website goes over the proposed design for this interchange:
https://www.mass.gov/i-495i-90-interchange-improvements
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on December 05, 2021, 11:16:05 PM
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/sumner-tunnel-restoration-project-details
I see the Sumner Tunnel will be closed in 2023 for a short period to refurbish the almost 90 year facility.

That I am sure will be a nightmare while that is being done as it looks like the Callahan will remain outbound, so the Ted Williams Tunnel will have to carry the load.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on December 05, 2021, 11:21:32 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 05, 2021, 11:16:05 PM
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/sumner-tunnel-restoration-project-details
I see the Sumner Tunnel will be closed in 2023 for a short period to refurbish the almost 90 year facility.

That I am sure will be a nightmare while that is being done as it looks like the Callahan will remain outbound, so the Ted Williams Tunnel will have to carry the load.

No you don't understand, people will respond to the loss of capacity by going to the airport less. I am very smart.  :bigass:
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on December 10, 2021, 11:47:44 AM
MassDOT blog post about upcoming 2-year pilot project of running buses along the shoulders of I-93 between Woburn and Somerville during rush hours:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/two-year-bus-on-shoulder-travel-pilot-beginning-week-of-december-20th/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/two-year-bus-on-shoulder-travel-pilot-beginning-week-of-december-20th/)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: neilbert on December 13, 2021, 11:52:00 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on November 25, 2021, 10:15:05 AM
   Perhaps some some of Turbine, with de-emphasis on 90 W to 495 N, and 495 S to 90 W movements, due to existence of I-290.

But then you _really_ need to do something about
(a) 290 > 495NB being a huge sharp curve on an elevated bridge. There have been a few projects and suggestions to clear this but they never seem to get anywhere
(b) 495SB > 290 gets backed up to 3 miles at times, due to slowdowns from trucks on the ramp combined with the standard Masshole determination to jump into the stopped traffic at the last moment.
(c) Worcester. 290 rush hour is a few miles - I don't know AM as I never come through there, but PM can back up from exit 25 to 16 with ease.

None of these are unsolvable problems but just focusing on 90/495 is faster, cheaper and simpler, putting it in MassDOT's wheelhouse.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: storm2k on December 14, 2021, 04:50:46 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on December 10, 2021, 11:47:44 AM
MassDOT blog post about upcoming 2-year pilot project of running buses along the shoulders of I-93 between Woburn and Somerville during rush hours:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/two-year-bus-on-shoulder-travel-pilot-beginning-week-of-december-20th/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/two-year-bus-on-shoulder-travel-pilot-beginning-week-of-december-20th/)

Saw the signs for this. They look flimsy and hastily erected and I am sure most of them will be knocked down before very long. Also not sure how that's going to work in that last stretch before 95 since they already converted the shoulder north of Montvale Ave to an exit only lane for 95 northbound.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on December 14, 2021, 07:26:30 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 14, 2021, 04:50:46 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on December 10, 2021, 11:47:44 AM
MassDOT blog post about upcoming 2-year pilot project of running buses along the shoulders of I-93 between Woburn and Somerville during rush hours:
http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/two-year-bus-on-shoulder-travel-pilot-beginning-week-of-december-20th/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/two-year-bus-on-shoulder-travel-pilot-beginning-week-of-december-20th/)

Saw the signs for this. They look flimsy and hastily erected and I am sure most of them will be knocked down before very long. Also not sure how that's going to work in that last stretch before 95 since they already converted the shoulder north of Montvale Ave to an exit only lane for 95 northbound.

I'm interested in what happens when traffic is waffling between 20 and 50 MPH, like it can tend to do, what are the buses going to do then? I can see them putting the effort to get into the right lane to do 35 when traffic is 20, then have to get immediately over because it's sped back up to 50. I presume it will be much better in hard gridlock, like from an accident.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on December 14, 2021, 08:45:59 PM
Quote from: neilbert on December 13, 2021, 11:52:00 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on November 25, 2021, 10:15:05 AM
   Perhaps some some of Turbine, with de-emphasis on 90 W to 495 N, and 495 S to 90 W movements, due to existence of I-290.

But then you _really_ need to do something about
(a) 290 > 495NB being a huge sharp curve on an elevated bridge. There have been a few projects and suggestions to clear this but they never seem to get anywhere
(b) 495SB > 290 gets backed up to 3 miles at times, due to slowdowns from trucks on the ramp combined with the standard Masshole determination to jump into the stopped traffic at the last moment.
Adding a lane to each of those ramps would help quite a bit.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: deathtopumpkins on December 15, 2021, 08:51:24 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 14, 2021, 08:45:59 PM
Quote from: neilbert on December 13, 2021, 11:52:00 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on November 25, 2021, 10:15:05 AM
   Perhaps some some of Turbine, with de-emphasis on 90 W to 495 N, and 495 S to 90 W movements, due to existence of I-290.

But then you _really_ need to do something about
(a) 290 > 495NB being a huge sharp curve on an elevated bridge. There have been a few projects and suggestions to clear this but they never seem to get anywhere
(b) 495SB > 290 gets backed up to 3 miles at times, due to slowdowns from trucks on the ramp combined with the standard Masshole determination to jump into the stopped traffic at the last moment.
Adding a lane to each of those ramps would help quite a bit.

Rebuilding the 495 SB to 290 ramp as two lanes is planned:
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/about-the-i-495-sb-to-i-290-wb-ramp-improvement-project

MassDOT extended the deceleration lane on 495 as an interim measure in 2019, but there's no currently timeline on the more major improvements.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on December 15, 2021, 10:56:50 PM
It's good that they are going to modify and modernize the 90/495 interchange, but that's not the only Pike interchange that could stand a major upgrade now that the toll booths are no longer there. 

Some others that need it:
10/202 interchange - adding a more direct EB onramp from 10/202 NB, and a direct ramp from 90 WB to 10/202 NB would remove some of the congestion here.  The traffic on the big jughandle road coming out of Westfield center creates massive traffic and most of it is headed East. 

91/5 interchange - adding a direct 90EB -> 91 SB ramp would save people from going around all three outer trumpet loops in that mess and remove at least some traffic from the bad weave areas on the 90 let of the complex. 

290/395 interchange - Not sure what a good solution here is, but there must be something that can be done to make this obsolete, underpowered interchange work better.  Especially removing that horrible 90 WB onramp loop.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on December 15, 2021, 11:11:08 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on December 15, 2021, 10:56:50 PM
It's good that they are going to modify and modernize the 90/495 interchange, but that's not the only Pike interchange that could stand a major upgrade now that the toll booths are no longer there. 

Some others that need it:
10/202 interchange - adding a more direct EB onramp from 10/202 NB, and a direct ramp from 90 WB to 10/202 NB would remove some of the congestion here.  The traffic on the big jughandle road coming out of Westfield center creates massive traffic and most of it is headed East. 

91/5 interchange - adding a direct 90EB -> 91 SB ramp would save people from going around all three outer trumpet loops in that mess and remove at least some traffic from the bad weave areas on the 90 let of the complex. 

290/395 interchange - Not sure what a good solution here is, but there must be something that can be done to make this obsolete, underpowered interchange work better.  Especially removing that horrible 90 WB onramp loop.

How could you not mention the 95/128 interchange? The bridges are succumbing to concrete cancer and it's major source of backups. And now that they've gotten rid of toll booths, the massive tangle of ramps can be greatly simplified.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on December 15, 2021, 11:18:13 PM
Good point, I don't know how I missed that one.   They did help a bit by moving the 90WB offramp to a new spot, but that's really just a band-aid.   Most of the bridges here look BADLY in need of replacement.   This one will be difficult to sort out because of the geography (the river snakes through the whole thing, the surroundings are highly developed, and the turnpike crosses really high above 95, requiring longer ramps to connect).  Also, any work here should address the weave/merges with the adjacent MA30 ramps.   
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DrSmith on December 16, 2021, 12:47:32 PM
It good they thought ahead and made the new ramp improvement from the Pike Westbound to Rt 128. It at least gives more room to weave through there than having the choke point all there where you have to go north or south after the old toll booths.

To add to the list of interchanges to improve: I-291 and going through a traffic light and Rt 146 and again a traffic light too.

The 290/395 interchange could potentially be improved and straightened if some of the on/off ramps from Rt 12 were removed and at least have a larger radius of curvature overall instead of some tighter turns there now. Either make the on/off connections from Rt 12 one ramp each way instead of the old trumpet style or remove them all together maybe. Further changing the 395/20 interchange in the area to something smaller than a cloverleaf might give some real estate and help simplify the area too. The challenge it appears may also be on the connection onto the Pike. There is a lot of rock there and housing right up along everything. Maybe a directional T could be done, although that might be much bigger.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on December 16, 2021, 06:51:03 PM
There is some sort of construction going on at the 291 interchange, where the roadways at the stop light are being re-aligned.   The light isn't being removed, but I think the road is being angled to be less of a hard 90-degree turn.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: storm2k on December 19, 2021, 11:34:20 PM
Curiosity question about MA30/Commonwealth Ave. It runs as a divided roadway throughout the Boston city limits, as the Green Line light rail runs through the median. Past there, it looks like it was built as a divided roadway all the way out to the 95 and 90 interchange but past the city limits they don't use one side of it except for local access to driveways and stuff, and the other roadway hosts two lane traffic. I'm curious why they did this.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on December 20, 2021, 08:59:53 AM
Quote from: storm2k on December 19, 2021, 11:34:20 PM
Curiosity question about MA30/Commonwealth Ave. It runs as a divided roadway throughout the Boston city limits, as the Green Line light rail runs through the median. Past there, it looks like it was built as a divided roadway all the way out to the 95 and 90 interchange but past the city limits they don't use one side of it except for local access to driveways and stuff, and the other roadway hosts two lane traffic. I'm curious why they did this.

It's called the Commonwealth Ave Carraigeway. It was an intentional design by Frederick Law Olmstead as part of the Emerald Necklace.

Apparently it's getting a re-design soon, https://www.newtonma.gov/government/planning/transportation-planning/projects/commonwealth-avenue-carriageway-redesign
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on December 24, 2021, 01:53:57 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 20, 2021, 08:59:53 AM
Quote from: storm2k on December 19, 2021, 11:34:20 PM
Curiosity question about MA30/Commonwealth Ave. It runs as a divided roadway throughout the Boston city limits, as the Green Line light rail runs through the median. Past there, it looks like it was built as a divided roadway all the way out to the 95 and 90 interchange but past the city limits they don't use one side of it except for local access to driveways and stuff, and the other roadway hosts two lane traffic. I'm curious why they did this.

It's called the Commonwealth Ave Carraigeway. It was an intentional design by Frederick Law Olmstead as part of the Emerald Necklace.

Apparently it's getting a re-design soon, https://www.newtonma.gov/government/planning/transportation-planning/projects/commonwealth-avenue-carriageway-redesign

I'm not impressed. That's only about a third of a mile.

Comm Ave was never part of the Emerald Necklace, which is along the Arborway, Jamaicaway, Riverway, and Fenway. That doesn't mean that Olmstead didn't design it, though.

I recall driving Comm Ave a lot in the early 70s, and west of Washington St (route 16), the narrow side was used for westbound traffic. I remember being pissed off when I drove through there one day, and there was a new shoefly squeezing us all over to the left side. So I don't think it was originally intended as a road with one side reserved for local traffic, just a normal divided road but with actual carriages on it, and then later one side was widened out of necessity and the other wasn't. Just my guess.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on December 25, 2021, 09:04:22 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 20, 2021, 08:59:53 AM
Quote from: storm2k on December 19, 2021, 11:34:20 PM
Curiosity question about MA30/Commonwealth Ave. It runs as a divided roadway throughout the Boston city limits, as the Green Line light rail runs through the median. Past there, it looks like it was built as a divided roadway all the way out to the 95 and 90 interchange but past the city limits they don't use one side of it except for local access to driveways and stuff, and the other roadway hosts two lane traffic. I'm curious why they did this.

It's called the Commonwealth Ave Carraigeway. It was an intentional design by Frederick Law Olmstead as part of the Emerald Necklace.

Apparently it's getting a re-design soon, https://www.newtonma.gov/government/planning/transportation-planning/projects/commonwealth-avenue-carriageway-redesign

As long as whatever they do (in that project or the future work on the bridge over the Charles) doesn't eliminate the amazing old median double-flasher with diagonal yellow arrows and a classic Newton square, old-font KEEP RIGHT sign.  I remember that from when we would visit my late grandmother when she lived in Newton a long, long time ago.  It was there the last time I was by it a couple years ago; I hope it is still there.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 14, 2022, 06:29:44 PM
I drove to Tyngsboro from CT yesterday.
Why are there two sets of mile markers on I-290? Is it multiplexed?


I noticed quite a few extruded aluminum signs seem to "bleach"  white from my headlights for a second just before I drive under them. I could see how the white and green would blend together for certain drivers.  I don't notice that w CT ones. They stay clear and vibrant color wise as I drive towards them.

I remember some NY signs did that on I-287/87 heading east towards the TPZ Bridge. Those were really bad, you'd think it was a white sign for a few seconds.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on January 14, 2022, 06:34:21 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 14, 2022, 06:29:44 PM
I drove to Tyngsboro from CT yesterday.
Why are there two sets of mile markers on I-290? Is it multiplexed?


I noticed quite a few extruded aluminum signs seem to “bleach” white from my headlights for a second just before I drive under them. I could see how the white and green would blend together for certain drivers.  I don’t notice that w CT ones. They stay clear and vibrant color wise as I drive towards them.

I remember some NY signs did that on I-287/87 heading east towards the TPZ Bridge. Those were really bad, you’d think it was a white sign for a few seconds.

I-290 isn’t multiplexed. The second set of mile markers is from the exit renumbering in August 2021. There are dual mile markers for I-395, which ends at the Mass Pike. MassDOT has considered extending I-395 over the existing I-290 to Marlborough if the general public is used to it. It’s a little confusing at first.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on February 03, 2022, 06:31:27 PM
Governor Baker has unveiled the latest infrastructure plan for the Bay State today. 5.4 billion dollars will be devoted to highway funding and bridge upgrades. This includes the Rourke Bridge in Lowell, which is in desperate need of repair.


https://www.newburyportnews.com/news/baker-unveils-9-5b-infrastructure-plan/article_2424a45e-8537-11ec-acff-77e3d6f714e8.html
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on February 03, 2022, 07:11:53 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 03, 2022, 06:31:27 PM
Governor Baker has unveiled the latest infrastructure plan for the Bay State today. 5.4 billion dollars will be devoted to highway funding and bridge upgrades. This includes the Rourke Bridge in Lowell, which is in desperate need of repair.


https://www.newburyportnews.com/news/baker-unveils-9-5b-infrastructure-plan/article_2424a45e-8537-11ec-acff-77e3d6f714e8.html

Why does US 20 need to be widened to 4 lanes between Charlton and Oxford?

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 03, 2022, 07:54:52 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 03, 2022, 07:11:53 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 03, 2022, 06:31:27 PM
Governor Baker has unveiled the latest infrastructure plan for the Bay State today. 5.4 billion dollars will be devoted to highway funding and bridge upgrades. This includes the Rourke Bridge in Lowell, which is in desperate need of repair.


https://www.newburyportnews.com/news/baker-unveils-9-5b-infrastructure-plan/article_2424a45e-8537-11ec-acff-77e3d6f714e8.html

Why does US 20 need to be widened to 4 lanes between Charlton and Oxford?

For traffic shunpiking between I-84 and Worcester, and because Treehouse Brewery has grown so big.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on February 03, 2022, 08:46:10 PM
It's already 4 lanes through there, the proposed project will add a center barrier instead of just double-yellow lines and add full-width shoulders and turn lanes.     This stretch carries a lot of shunpike traffic but is really windy and has a lot of driveways, leading to a high accident rate.

The section in Charlton east of MA-31 to the Oxford line was completed years ago, it's about time they do the stretch west of Charlton Ctr heading towards Sturbridge.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on February 04, 2022, 05:22:40 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 03, 2022, 06:31:27 PM
Governor Baker has unveiled the latest infrastructure plan for the Bay State today. 5.4 billion dollars will be devoted to highway funding and bridge upgrades. This includes the Rourke Bridge in Lowell, which is in desperate need of repair.


https://www.newburyportnews.com/news/baker-unveils-9-5b-infrastructure-plan/article_2424a45e-8537-11ec-acff-77e3d6f714e8.html

Here is the master list of all things being funded under this.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/bil-bridge-program/download
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on February 04, 2022, 05:26:32 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 03, 2022, 07:54:52 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 03, 2022, 07:11:53 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 03, 2022, 06:31:27 PM
Governor Baker has unveiled the latest infrastructure plan for the Bay State today. 5.4 billion dollars will be devoted to highway funding and bridge upgrades. This includes the Rourke Bridge in Lowell, which is in desperate need of repair.


https://www.newburyportnews.com/news/baker-unveils-9-5b-infrastructure-plan/article_2424a45e-8537-11ec-acff-77e3d6f714e8.html

Why does US 20 need to be widened to 4 lanes between Charlton and Oxford?

For traffic shunpiking between I-84 and Worcester, and because Treehouse Brewery has grown so big.

Shunpiking indeed, especially on holidays/weekends.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on February 04, 2022, 09:39:54 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 04, 2022, 05:22:40 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 03, 2022, 06:31:27 PM
Governor Baker has unveiled the latest infrastructure plan for the Bay State today. 5.4 billion dollars will be devoted to highway funding and bridge upgrades. This includes the Rourke Bridge in Lowell, which is in desperate need of repair.


https://www.newburyportnews.com/news/baker-unveils-9-5b-infrastructure-plan/article_2424a45e-8537-11ec-acff-77e3d6f714e8.html

Here is the master list of all things being funded under this.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/bil-bridge-program/download
That's not everything. It doesn't include the Cape Cod Bridges or the Allston Viaduct
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on February 04, 2022, 09:48:28 AM
That's odd. Perhaps the Cape Cod bridges have been put on hold until a later date. Those bridges need to be redone with all the tourist traffic that goes there every summer. The Sagamore Bridge  has that lane drop at Exit 1 and needs attention.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on February 04, 2022, 09:57:56 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 04, 2022, 09:48:28 AM
That's odd. Perhaps the Cape Cod bridges have been put on hold until a later date. Those bridges need to be redone with all the tourist traffic that goes there every summer. The Sagamore Bridge  has that lane drop at Exit 1 and needs attention.

I think that list you shared is just the projects that had been confirmed by the existing STIP, when they didn't have the funding needed for those projects. There are procedures needed for adding projects to the STIP. They said in the press release that "In addition to these projects, MassDOT will work over the coming months with regional partners to develop a prioritized list of roadway, bicycle and pedestrian, and safety projects to be supported with this funding."

Fingers crossed for improvements to the 93/95 Interchange in Reading.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on February 04, 2022, 10:25:40 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 04, 2022, 09:57:56 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 04, 2022, 09:48:28 AM
That's odd. Perhaps the Cape Cod bridges have been put on hold until a later date. Those bridges need to be redone with all the tourist traffic that goes there every summer. The Sagamore Bridge  has that lane drop at Exit 1 and needs attention.

I think that list you shared is just the projects that had been confirmed by the existing STIP, when they didn't have the funding needed for those projects. There are procedures needed for adding projects to the STIP. They said in the press release that "In addition to these projects, MassDOT will work over the coming months with regional partners to develop a prioritized list of roadway, bicycle and pedestrian, and safety projects to be supported with this funding."

Fingers crossed for improvements to the 93/95 Interchange in Reading.

My apologies. I should have read that a little better. But yes, I do agree that 93/95 needs to be rebuilt. I get why MassDOT has held back because a full buildout would indeed destroy the houses on the Woburn side. It's very annoying that those houses are the only obstacle. Also the Canton Death Curve at the southern I-93 junction should also be rebuilt.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on February 04, 2022, 11:55:36 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 04, 2022, 09:57:56 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 04, 2022, 09:48:28 AM
That's odd. Perhaps the Cape Cod bridges have been put on hold until a later date. Those bridges need to be redone with all the tourist traffic that goes there every summer. The Sagamore Bridge  has that lane drop at Exit 1 and needs attention.

I think that list you shared is just the projects that had been confirmed by the existing STIP, when they didn't have the funding needed for those projects. There are procedures needed for adding projects to the STIP. They said in the press release that "In addition to these projects, MassDOT will work over the coming months with regional partners to develop a prioritized list of roadway, bicycle and pedestrian, and safety projects to be supported with this funding."

Fingers crossed for improvements to the 93/95 Interchange in Reading.
The Cape bridges project is also to be funded under the Infrastructure Law. A deal has been finalized between the Mass. governor and the federal government where the latter pays for the building of 2 new bridges to be built next to the existing ones, engineering work could start by the end of the year if all parties (federal, state and local) sign off on the plan. Here's a link to a news report from this morning:
https://www.boston25news.com/news/gov-baker-reaches-agreement-replace-cape-cod-bridges/1500d37b-d225-45bd-86bb-866e353c26f2/ (https://www.boston25news.com/news/gov-baker-reaches-agreement-replace-cape-cod-bridges/1500d37b-d225-45bd-86bb-866e353c26f2/)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on February 04, 2022, 12:38:47 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 04, 2022, 10:25:40 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 04, 2022, 09:57:56 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 04, 2022, 09:48:28 AM
That's odd. Perhaps the Cape Cod bridges have been put on hold until a later date. Those bridges need to be redone with all the tourist traffic that goes there every summer. The Sagamore Bridge  has that lane drop at Exit 1 and needs attention.

I think that list you shared is just the projects that had been confirmed by the existing STIP, when they didn't have the funding needed for those projects. There are procedures needed for adding projects to the STIP. They said in the press release that "In addition to these projects, MassDOT will work over the coming months with regional partners to develop a prioritized list of roadway, bicycle and pedestrian, and safety projects to be supported with this funding."

Fingers crossed for improvements to the 93/95 Interchange in Reading.

My apologies. I should have read that a little better. But yes, I do agree that 93/95 needs to be rebuilt. I get why MassDOT has held back because a full buildout would indeed destroy the houses on the Woburn side.
It's very annoying that those houses are the only obstacle. Also the Canton Death Curve at the southern I-93 junction should also be rebuilt.
That's utterly false. It's completely possible to rebuild the interchange within its existing footprint. In fact, by removing the loops, you wind up with surplus ROW. And if you think a few dozen homeowners can stop such an important project that has backing from numerous stakeholders, you're wrong. The issue is cost.

And 128 has tons of other bottlenecks that need fixing. The US3 interchange is bad, with traffic entering from Burlington Mall conflicting with traffic getting on US 3, creating backups that usually stretch onto 95.

And the whole part from the Canton Interchange to the Braintree Split needs a full billion dollar rebuild
-The Canton Trumpet needs to be replaced with directional ramps
-The Route 24 interchange needs to lose its left hand ramps
-Don't get me started on the Braintree Split
-C/D roads should be built to fix the problem with closely spaced interchanges

Also, the Turnpike Interchange is going to need to be rebuilt sooner or later, the bridges are succumbing to concrete cancer.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on February 04, 2022, 01:31:30 PM
Both 95/93 interchanges need major redos, as does 24, Braintree split, Turnpike and US 3.  I would also add that the US 20 interchange in Waltham needs an upgrade to deal with the city's commercial development. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on February 04, 2022, 02:38:27 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on February 04, 2022, 01:31:30 PM
Both 95/93 interchanges need major redos, as does 24, Braintree split, Turnpike and US 3.  I would also add that the US 20 interchange in Waltham needs an upgrade to deal with the city's commercial development.

They're already planning improvements to the US 20 interchange
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on February 04, 2022, 03:29:15 PM
I find the idea of doing a major interchange reconstruction of a cramped cloverleaf like I-95/I-93 without needing ROW to be absolutely laughable.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on February 04, 2022, 03:59:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 04, 2022, 03:29:15 PM
I find the idea of doing a major interchange reconstruction of a cramped cloverleaf like I-95/I-93 without needing ROW to be absolutely laughable.

(https://i.imgur.com/A6Y6vZx.jpg)

The sacrifice here is that it requires a relatively low design speed on the ramps.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on February 04, 2022, 04:04:45 PM
Speaking of 93/95 in Woburn, I wasn't aware this concept existed.

https://www.improve93s.com/

"Improve" translated as "a tiny bind-aid on the bullet wound"
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on February 04, 2022, 04:23:24 PM
I think I remember that proposal. That looks less destructive and I think this should happen. I don't see why MassDOT can't do it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on February 04, 2022, 06:01:59 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 04, 2022, 04:23:24 PM
I think I remember that proposal. That looks less destructive and I think this should happen. I don't see why MassDOT can't do it.
Money
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on February 05, 2022, 10:47:10 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 04, 2022, 04:04:45 PM
Speaking of 93/95 in Woburn, I wasn't aware this concept existed.

https://www.improve93s.com/

"Improve" translated as "a tiny bind-aid on the bullet wound"

That'll make a mess out of Cedar St. by turning it into an arterial road. It's currently an industrial park alley with lots of driveways. Imagine a line of cars and trucks on Cedar St headed for I-93, and trying to make a left turn into it from Cummings Park. In a tractor trailer.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on February 06, 2022, 08:23:25 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 04, 2022, 03:59:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 04, 2022, 03:29:15 PM
I find the idea of doing a major interchange reconstruction of a cramped cloverleaf like I-95/I-93 without needing ROW to be absolutely laughable.

(https://i.imgur.com/A6Y6vZx.jpg)

The sacrifice here is that it requires a relatively low design speed on the ramps.
Pfft.  A temporary fix at best.  It's still a cloverleaf with slightly longer weaves.  May not even solve the issues.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: yakra on February 06, 2022, 09:57:44 AM
^ clearly did not look at the diagram
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on February 06, 2022, 10:00:58 AM
Quote from: yakra on February 06, 2022, 09:57:44 AM
^ clearly did not look at the diagram
...or looked at the diagram on his phone. :D

Still seems like a partial solution to me.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: yakra on February 06, 2022, 10:07:01 AM
What seems partial about it?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on February 06, 2022, 10:07:30 AM
Quote from: yakra on February 06, 2022, 10:07:01 AM
What seems partial about it?

Two of the four quadrants are changing, and two of the four are remaining the same.

Another way to help solve the problem: have it four lanes northbound between MA 28 and the 95/128 split; the lane drop at MA 28 causes congestion from merging.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on February 06, 2022, 11:06:07 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 06, 2022, 10:07:30 AM
Quote from: yakra on February 06, 2022, 10:07:01 AM
What seems partial about it?

Two of the four quadrants are changing, and two of the four are remaining the same.

Another way to help solve the problem: have it four lanes northbound between MA 28 and the 95/128 split; the lane drop at MA 28 causes congestion from merging.
Those two quadrants changing eliminates the weave so it's not small potatoes.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on February 06, 2022, 02:19:04 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 06, 2022, 11:06:07 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 06, 2022, 10:07:30 AM
Quote from: yakra on February 06, 2022, 10:07:01 AM
What seems partial about it?

Two of the four quadrants are changing, and two of the four are remaining the same.

Another way to help solve the problem: have it four lanes northbound between MA 28 and the 95/128 split; the lane drop at MA 28 causes congestion from merging.
Those two quadrants changing eliminates the weave so it's not small potatoes.
Reminds me of what was done at I-495/Georgia Ave in DC, albeit trying to retain all movements.  Proof would be in post-construction traffic conditions.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on February 06, 2022, 02:32:19 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 06, 2022, 10:07:30 AM
Quote from: yakra on February 06, 2022, 10:07:01 AM
What seems partial about it?

Two of the four quadrants are changing, and two of the four are remaining the same.

Another way to help solve the problem: have it four lanes northbound between MA 28 and the 95/128 split; the lane drop at MA 28 causes congestion from merging.

Widening to four lanes northbound all the way to the I-95/128 split would be a major project from both a cost and construction perspective.  However, extending the fourth lane to just north of the on-ramp from Route 28 north would do much to improve the merge.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on February 06, 2022, 04:35:14 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 06, 2022, 10:00:58 AM
Quote from: yakra on February 06, 2022, 09:57:44 AM
^ clearly did not look at the diagram
...or looked at the diagram on his phone. :D

Still seems like a partial solution to me.
I was confused by the diagram for a while too, despite looking at it on a desktop.  It would help if the color used for ramps that would be removed were consistent - the loops use dark gray but the outer ramps use white.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on February 08, 2022, 08:20:18 PM
Don't know if this fits on a "Google Maps" thread or here, but have a question about how Google Maps shows toll roads. Why is the Massachusetts Turnpike between Exits 45 and 54, as well as between Exits 90 and 96 listed as a "toll road" by Google Maps, even though there are no tolls between those two interchanges (for all users)?

EDIT: And also why doesn't MassDOT put "Last Exit Before Toll" signs at the last exits before the tolls restart as well on the Mass Pike on the un-tolled segments listed above?

An example of Google Maps listing the tolled and untolled sections of a toll road is the Garden State Parkway, particularly between the Driscoll Bridge and the NJ/NY border, where there are a few untolled segments (between exit 129 and US 22 (NB) or I-78 (SB) is an example) as well as places to get off the freeway before encountering a mainline or ramp toll.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on February 08, 2022, 08:26:29 PM
Is I-87 → I-88 and the reverse commute still free after AET? Before AET, you would receive a ticket and pay $0.00 as you exited. Google Maps always showed that segment as a toll road, too, and it's not a recent change unlike the Mass Pike. That said, if they never changed the details on the Mass Pike from when Google Maps was created, the segment west of Exit 51 would still be listed as free for passenger cars, and it isn't.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on February 08, 2022, 08:34:43 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 08, 2022, 08:26:29 PM
Is I-87 → I-88 and the reverse commute still free after AET? Before AET, you would receive a ticket and pay $0.00 as you exited. Google Maps always showed that segment as a toll road, too, and it's not a recent change unlike the Mass Pike. That said, if they never changed the details on the Mass Pike from when Google Maps was created, the segment west of Exit 51 would still be listed as free for passenger cars, and it isn't.

If you are talking about the NY Thruway, yes, it is still $0.00 for all users, but that's only if you entered at Interchanges 24, 25, and 26 and exited at 25 A, or entered at 25 A and exit to 24, 25 or 26.

Source: Took a trip to Binghamton NY from Orono ME from last Thu-Sat that involved that route, and also here (https://www.thruway.ny.gov/news/adjustment/toll-chart-2021-ny-ezpass.pdf).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on February 08, 2022, 10:48:43 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on February 08, 2022, 08:20:18 PM
Don't know if this fits on a "Google Maps" thread or here, but have a question about how Google Maps shows toll roads. Why is the Massachusetts Turnpike between Exits 45 and 54, as well as between Exits 90 and 96 listed as a "toll road" by Google Maps, even though there are no tolls between those two interchanges (for all users)?

EDIT: And also why doesn't MassDOT put "Last Exit Before Toll" signs at the last exits before the tolls restart as well on the Mass Pike on the un-tolled segments listed above?

An example of Google Maps listing the tolled and untolled sections of a toll road is the Garden State Parkway, particularly between the Driscoll Bridge and the NJ/NY border, where there are a few untolled segments (between exit 129 and US 22 (NB) or I-78 (SB) is an example) as well as places to get off the freeway before encountering a mainline or ramp toll.

I miss the old days when Rand McNally carved up the Garden State color-wise to show where the toll-free stretches were.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mass_citizen on February 08, 2022, 10:50:31 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on January 14, 2022, 06:34:21 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 14, 2022, 06:29:44 PM
I drove to Tyngsboro from CT yesterday.
Why are there two sets of mile markers on I-290? Is it multiplexed?


I noticed quite a few extruded aluminum signs seem to "bleach"  white from my headlights for a second just before I drive under them. I could see how the white and green would blend together for certain drivers.  I don't notice that w CT ones. They stay clear and vibrant color wise as I drive towards them.

I remember some NY signs did that on I-287/87 heading east towards the TPZ Bridge. Those were really bad, you'd think it was a white sign for a few seconds.

I-290 isn't multiplexed. The second set of mile markers is from the exit renumbering in August 2021. There are dual mile markers for I-395, which ends at the Mass Pike. MassDOT has considered extending I-395 over the existing I-290 to Marlborough if the general public is used to it. It's a little confusing at first.

So is the plan to remove the 290 designation? Why number the exits based off 395?

Agreed it is confusing...as are most ideas traffic engineers come up with  :awesomeface:
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on February 09, 2022, 04:49:57 AM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on February 08, 2022, 08:20:18 PM
Don't know if this fits on a "Google Maps" thread or here, but have a question about how Google Maps shows toll roads. Why is the Massachusetts Turnpike between Exits 45 and 54, as well as between Exits 90 and 96 listed as a "toll road" by Google Maps, even though there are no tolls between those two interchanges (for all users)?


Because technically it still is a toll road, the toll between these points is just $0. They did a similar thing years ago between the NY border and Springfield. Folks in western mass were upset paying tolls that wound up going to Boston and the big dig so the Masspike set the toll to $0 for Exits 1-6. By not eliminating its status as a toll road, they preserve their ability to add them back later (which they did). If they relinquish the toll road status and I-90 becomes a free interstate, it would be very difficult to add tolls back again.

SM-A515U
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on February 09, 2022, 01:42:43 PM
Quote from: pderocco on February 05, 2022, 10:47:10 PMThat'll make a mess out of Cedar St. by turning it into an arterial road. It's currently an industrial park alley with lots of driveways. Imagine a line of cars and trucks on Cedar St headed for I-93, and trying to make a left turn into it from Cummings Park. In a tractor trailer.

It will also add exponentially to the traffic load on Washington Street, which south of the Cedar Street intersection is not nearly wide enough to handle tractor-trailer traffic.  As it stands now, rush-hour traffic routinely backs up through the Cedar Street intersection from the traffic lights at Salem Street.

I understand they're looking for a quick fix, after almost two decades of not deciding how to fix the problem permanently.  But turning Cedar Street into an on-ramp to I-93S doesn't really fix anything.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on February 09, 2022, 01:45:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 06, 2022, 08:23:25 AMPfft.  A temporary fix at best.  It's still a cloverleaf with slightly longer weaves.  May not even solve the issues.

Not to mention that it does nothing about the conflicting entrance and exit ramps on 93.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on February 09, 2022, 11:57:22 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on February 09, 2022, 04:49:57 AM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on February 08, 2022, 08:20:18 PM
Don't know if this fits on a "Google Maps" thread or here, but have a question about how Google Maps shows toll roads. Why is the Massachusetts Turnpike between Exits 45 and 54, as well as between Exits 90 and 96 listed as a "toll road" by Google Maps, even though there are no tolls between those two interchanges (for all users)?


Because technically it still is a toll road, the toll between these points is just $0. They did a similar thing years ago between the NY border and Springfield. Folks in western mass were upset paying tolls that wound up going to Boston and the big dig so the Masspike set the toll to $0 for Exits 1-6. By not eliminating its status as a toll road, they preserve their ability to add them back later (which they did). If they relinquish the toll road status and I-90 becomes a free interstate, it would be very difficult to add tolls back again.

Yeah but Google's decision to show it as toll vs. free doesn't change whether they can charge tolls later (:
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on February 15, 2022, 02:14:31 PM
What mandates a "2-mile" advance warning sign on highways?  I've noticed that when driving on highways in Massachusetts, usually an exit as a 1 mile and a 1/2 mile warning sign.  But some exits have 2 mile warning signs as well.  Usually it's for an interstate highway interchange, but I've noticed that the US 1 exit on I-495 in Plainville now has 2 mile warning signs, and recently a "2 1/4 miles" warning sign was put up for the US 3/Lowell Connector interchange.  WHY?  It seems so unnecessary!

And speaking of unnecessary, why are there duplicate signs for Exits 33 A-B on I-495 in Mansfield, as seen here?
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0063859,-71.2238196,3a,75y,315.43h,99.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5jBkPhUjbLmdMrLcdi8eeg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on February 15, 2022, 04:44:59 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on February 15, 2022, 02:14:31 PM
What mandates a "2-mile" advance warning sign on highways?  I've noticed that when driving on highways in Massachusetts, usually an exit as a 1 mile and a 1/2 mile warning sign.  But some exits have 2 mile warning signs as well.  Usually it's for an interstate highway interchange, but I've noticed that the US 1 exit on I-495 in Plainville now has 2 mile warning signs, and recently a "2 1/4 miles" warning sign was put up for the US 3/Lowell Connector interchange.  WHY?  It seems so unnecessary!

And speaking of unnecessary, why are there duplicate signs for Exits 33 A-B on I-495 in Mansfield, as seen here?
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0063859,-71.2238196,3a,75y,315.43h,99.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5jBkPhUjbLmdMrLcdi8eeg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

They are very common across the state. There's even a 5 1/2 mile sign for the Mass Pike at Exit 6 for I-291 in Springfield. The duplicate signs in Mansfield are placed on the entrance ramp from Exit 31. Not sure why they did it like this, but who knows.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on February 15, 2022, 05:03:59 PM
Median may not be wide enough to accommodate a single pole sign, as such:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2075075,-71.1393763,3a,75y,308.66h,88.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOGq_a5U4UXpNnTPw2PhpfQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The Springfield I-90 advance on I-91 is to show that the best route to I-90 West is to stay on I-91 North for another 5 1/2 miles.  The last sign iteration for I-291 had no directions for I-90... it just said "EAST 291/TO 90/Mass Pike", when the best route to travel west is to stay on I-91.  Maybe the change of heart because the section of I-90 between the I-91 exit and the I-291 exit is now toll-free, so there's no incentive to send westbound traffic via I-291, since there's no extra revenue to grab.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on February 15, 2022, 10:25:41 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on February 15, 2022, 02:14:31 PM
And speaking of unnecessary, why are there duplicate signs for Exits 33 A-B on I-495 in Mansfield, as seen here?
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0063859,-71.2238196,3a,75y,315.43h,99.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5jBkPhUjbLmdMrLcdi8eeg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The left one is over the I-495 mainline, the right one is over the collector road from Route 140.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on February 16, 2022, 12:13:26 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on February 15, 2022, 02:14:31 PM
What mandates a "2-mile" advance warning sign on highways?  I've noticed that when driving on highways in Massachusetts, usually an exit as a 1 mile and a 1/2 mile warning sign.  But some exits have 2 mile warning signs as well.  Usually it's for an interstate highway interchange, but I've noticed that the US 1 exit on I-495 in Plainville now has 2 mile warning signs, and recently a "2 1/4 miles" warning sign was put up for the US 3/Lowell Connector interchange.  WHY?  It seems so unnecessary!
It's supposed to be warranted for major interchanges, which US 3 would certainly qualify as. I guess there was an issue locating the sign 2 miles away so they went with 2 1/4. Not so sure US 1 really warrants "major" status or not - up to the agency to determine.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 16, 2022, 08:03:47 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 16, 2022, 12:13:26 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on February 15, 2022, 02:14:31 PM
What mandates a "2-mile" advance warning sign on highways?  I've noticed that when driving on highways in Massachusetts, usually an exit as a 1 mile and a 1/2 mile warning sign.  But some exits have 2 mile warning signs as well.  Usually it's for an interstate highway interchange, but I've noticed that the US 1 exit on I-495 in Plainville now has 2 mile warning signs, and recently a "2 1/4 miles" warning sign was put up for the US 3/Lowell Connector interchange.  WHY?  It seems so unnecessary!
It's supposed to be warranted for major interchanges, which US 3 would certainly qualify as. I guess there was an issue locating the sign 2 miles away so they went with 2 1/4. Not so sure US 1 really warrants "major" status or not - up to the agency to determine.

US 1 does warrant it a few weekends a year.  It's the exit many take to get to Gillette Stadium. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on February 16, 2022, 11:25:47 PM
Was looking at GSV to see how the tolls were collected at the I-90 and I-95 connection. I see that going EB from I-95 you paid cash on the ramp at a separate plaza  adjacent to the mainline east ticket terminus plaza.  However, I see that that the current Exits 123 A and 123B lie west of of the former eastern ticket plaza, so I assume sure that WB I-90 to I-95 had you obtain a ticket, then exit to surrender it similar to the Delaware Valley Interchange on the PA Turnpike from New Jersey where you got your ticket at the eastern plaza and then proceeded right to Exit 359 to pay your toll.

Unfortunately GSV from 2007 is no help there, but interesting enough I see some old grading near Park Road from Satellite imagery, so it suggests that the original WB ramp might of been elsewhere. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 16, 2022, 11:35:40 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 16, 2022, 11:25:47 PM
Was looking at GSV to see how the tolls were collected at the I-90 and I-95 connection. I see that going EB from I-95 you paid cash on the ramp at a separate plaza  adjacent to the mainline east ticket terminus plaza.  However, I see that that the current Exits 123 A and 123B lie west of of the former eastern ticket plaza, so I assume sure that WB I-90 to I-95 had you obtain a ticket, then exit to surrender it similar to the Delaware Valley Interchange on the PA Turnpike from New Jersey where you got your ticket at the eastern plaza and then proceeded right to Exit 359 to pay your toll.

Unfortunately GSV from 2007 is no help there, but interesting enough I see some old grading near Park Road from Satellite imagery, so it suggests that the original WB ramp might of been elsewhere.

I just looked at the 2013 GSV.  The original interchange was a single ramp and had cash and EZPass lanes adjacent to the ticket barrier on the mainline, so there was no take/immediately surrender the ticket.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on February 16, 2022, 11:41:30 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Weston,+MA+02493/@42.3398402,-71.2730902,223m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e3848889e85687:0xd3d2228281df7282!8m2!3d42.3667625!4d-71.3031132

I also see that there is an asphalt area next to the ramp onto the WB Turnpike from I-95 as well.  It's highly noticeable in the above link, but I assume that was the original Turnpike Mainline and the former Exit 15 plaza was the East Terminus defaulting into a trumpet with Route 128 in the early sixties.


https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3391025,-71.265175,3a,43.7y,329.05h,91.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2YsKHeXznbEyGqwNhuprjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Now I see it.  I was looking at the former ramp imagery which wasn't that good over time to show it.
https://goo.gl/maps/EZrqCQB7YRfFTveZ6 This must be the demolition of the former ramp then.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on February 17, 2022, 04:41:10 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 16, 2022, 11:41:30 PM
but I assume that was the original Turnpike Mainline and the former Exit 15 plaza was the East Terminus defaulting into a trumpet with Route 128 in the early sixties.

Actually, the old Exit 14 plaza was the original East Terminus of the Mass. Pike.  Traffic getting on the turnpike from Rte. 128 would get a ticket, and the ticket had "Exit 14" written on it.  Traffic going west through the mainline toll plaza in this area would get an "Exit 15" ticket (and pay a higher toll upon exiting).  Conversely, traffic exiting the Pike EB onto I-95/Rte. 128 would pay the Exit 14 toll, but traffic continuing into Boston would pay the higher Exit 15 toll in the mainline plaza.

Thankfully electronic tolling and mile-based exits have cleaned up this mess.  You had 2 different exit numbers for the same highway which made no sense, now they're both exit 123.  You also have all electronic tolling so all traffic is now tolled at the gantry in Weston, and you pay the same amount there regardless of whether you got on at 128 or in Newton.

The electronic tolling system also eliminated the free ride between Rte. 16 and Newton Corner, but now there's no toll through parts of Worcester and Springfield.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on February 17, 2022, 05:54:51 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 16, 2022, 11:35:40 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 16, 2022, 11:25:47 PM
Was looking at GSV to see how the tolls were collected at the I-90 and I-95 connection. I see that going EB from I-95 you paid cash on the ramp at a separate plaza  adjacent to the mainline east ticket terminus plaza.  However, I see that that the current Exits 123 A and 123B lie west of of the former eastern ticket plaza, so I assume sure that WB I-90 to I-95 had you obtain a ticket, then exit to surrender it similar to the Delaware Valley Interchange on the PA Turnpike from New Jersey where you got your ticket at the eastern plaza and then proceeded right to Exit 359 to pay your toll.

Unfortunately GSV from 2007 is no help there, but interesting enough I see some old grading near Park Road from Satellite imagery, so it suggests that the original WB ramp might of been elsewhere.

I just looked at the 2013 GSV.  The original interchange was a single ramp and had cash and EZPass lanes adjacent to the ticket barrier on the mainline, so there was no take/immediately surrender the ticket.

Prior to the toll plazas closing in 2016, I think drivers heading to I-95 from WB I-90 paid a cash toll instead of a ticket. The original ramp led to a horrible merge with the eastbound I-90 traffic heading to I-95. That has been rectified.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on February 20, 2022, 01:38:24 AM
What is the purpose of the WB UTurn at Exit 133? I see all guides WB read " U Turn To Boston"  underneath the control cities for Cambridge and such. Also why are trucks prohibited from using the u turn as white warning signs are at the actual u turn on the ramp?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bjcolby50 on February 20, 2022, 08:35:40 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2022, 01:38:24 AM
What is the purpose of the WB UTurn at Exit 133? I see all guides WB read "U Turn To Boston"  underneath the control cities for Cambridge and such. Also why are trucks prohibited from using the u turn as white warning signs are at the actual u turn on the ramp?

This is actually Exit 131, not 133.  Exit 133 is the eastbound exit for Back Bay and the Prudential Center.

If you're heading from the Airport and need to go to Back Bay, for example, you could get off at I-93 and weave through the streets of Back Bay and Chinatown to get there - if you know the city.  If you don't, you would likely get lost.  Also, there are no westbound exits at Back Bay, only westbound entrances (Arlington Street, Back Bay and Mass Ave), so the solution was to build a U-Turn near Brighton (Exit 131) to help drivers get to Back Bay. 

I think it's the height of the trucks and the length of the trailers that are the reason why trucks are banned from the U-Turn (except buses are allowed - this U-turn is most often used by the Logan Airport shuttles to return to Back Bay; since COVID, this shuttle has been suspended).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on February 20, 2022, 08:39:28 AM
Yes. Without the U turn, you would either have to get off at Exit 127 in Newton, or navigate down Soldiers Field Road, which becomes Storrow Drive. Because trucks aren’t allowed on Storrow Drive, the U turn is mainly used by trucks or just people who don’t want to get lost.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on February 20, 2022, 08:57:23 AM
https://www.wcvb.com/article/wilmington-massachusetts-railroad-crossing-safety-gates-fail/39139822

I guess this could be Massachusetts and/or a mass transit failure thread.

Last month, the crossing of the Haverhill MBTA line at MA 62 in Wilmington failed to activate in a timely manner, and a train struck and killed a crossing driver. It happened after Keolis (the company that maintains the lines) did work on the crossing and failed to return the crossing to its normal operating mode.

Fast forward a month, and in the middle of the night the crossing activates and stays stuck on. Keolis comes and fixes it, and six hours later it repeats the process of not activating promptly when a train crossed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on February 21, 2022, 09:35:33 AM
I was noticing how I-290 is basically a glorified ramp between I-90 and I-495. In addition to it being a local freeway I can see it gets people from Springfield and Upstate NY to the NH SeaCoast and all points in ME.

Even in the old map planning days ( when you had to send away for planned routes as who once heard of GPS once upon a time) I remember my dad sent away to Exxon for a trip from Clark, NJ to Bar Harbor, ME, the routing consultant sent us up the GSP, to I-287 East, then I-684 North, to I-84 East.  Then from Sturbridge it sent us I-90 East to I-290 before sending us the rest of the way to I-495 to I-95 and US 1.

It makes sense and I'm sure if it weren't there problems would have occurred at the I-90 and I-495 exchange especially in the ticket toll days.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on February 21, 2022, 10:30:30 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2022, 09:35:33 AM
I was noticing how I-290 is basically a glorified ramp between I-90 and I-495. In addition to it being a local freeway I can see it gets people from Springfield and Upstate NY to the NH SeaCoast and all points in ME.

Even in the old map planning days ( when you had to send away for planned routes as who once heard of GPS once upon a time) I remember my dad sent away to Exxon for a trip from Clark, NJ to Bar Harbor, ME, the routing consultant sent us up the GSP, to I-287 East, then I-684 North, to I-84 East.  Then from Sturbridge it sent us I-90 East to I-290 before sending us the rest of the way to I-495 to I-95 and US 1.

It makes sense and I'm sure if it weren't there problems would have occurred at the I-90 and I-495 exchange especially in the ticket toll days.
So much for access to downtown Worcester?  I-290 is hardly just a pass-through route.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on February 21, 2022, 10:39:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 21, 2022, 10:30:30 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2022, 09:35:33 AM
I was noticing how I-290 is basically a glorified ramp between I-90 and I-495. In addition to it being a local freeway I can see it gets people from Springfield and Upstate NY to the NH SeaCoast and all points in ME.

Even in the old map planning days ( when you had to send away for planned routes as who once heard of GPS once upon a time) I remember my dad sent away to Exxon for a trip from Clark, NJ to Bar Harbor, ME, the routing consultant sent us up the GSP, to I-287 East, then I-684 North, to I-84 East.  Then from Sturbridge it sent us I-90 East to I-290 before sending us the rest of the way to I-495 to I-95 and US 1.

It makes sense and I'm sure if it weren't there problems would have occurred at the I-90 and I-495 exchange especially in the ticket toll days.
So much for access to downtown Worcester?  I-290 is hardly just a pass-through route.

I-290 is 20 miles long. There's usually a very heavy amount of long distance and commuter traffic using it, especially during holiday weekends. How is that just a ramp?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on February 21, 2022, 11:55:04 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 21, 2022, 10:39:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 21, 2022, 10:30:30 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2022, 09:35:33 AM
I was noticing how I-290 is basically a glorified ramp between I-90 and I-495. In addition to it being a local freeway I can see it gets people from Springfield and Upstate NY to the NH SeaCoast and all points in ME.

Even in the old map planning days ( when you had to send away for planned routes as who once heard of GPS once upon a time) I remember my dad sent away to Exxon for a trip from Clark, NJ to Bar Harbor, ME, the routing consultant sent us up the GSP, to I-287 East, then I-684 North, to I-84 East.  Then from Sturbridge it sent us I-90 East to I-290 before sending us the rest of the way to I-495 to I-95 and US 1.

It makes sense and I'm sure if it weren't there problems would have occurred at the I-90 and I-495 exchange especially in the ticket toll days.
So much for access to downtown Worcester?  I-290 is hardly just a pass-through route.

I-290 is 20 miles long. There's usually a very heavy amount of long distance and commuter traffic using it, especially during holiday weekends. How is that just a ramp?

Didn't say it was a ramp.  I said it was a glorified ramp meaning it connects two major routes just as a simple normal ramp would.

Also to Rothman's response, I did not say it was solely a through route either.  Of course it would be localized too, but that doesn't mean it can't be used otherwise.

A few weeks ago in another post someone posted that I-290 was something (I can't remember what) but another responded to the fact that the interstate does serve long distance needs. I was inspired by that post.  When I get home later from work and have the time I will look up when and where and what was said.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on February 21, 2022, 03:28:52 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2022, 11:55:04 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 21, 2022, 10:39:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 21, 2022, 10:30:30 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2022, 09:35:33 AM
I was noticing how I-290 is basically a glorified ramp between I-90 and I-495. In addition to it being a local freeway I can see it gets people from Springfield and Upstate NY to the NH SeaCoast and all points in ME.

Even in the old map planning days ( when you had to send away for planned routes as who once heard of GPS once upon a time) I remember my dad sent away to Exxon for a trip from Clark, NJ to Bar Harbor, ME, the routing consultant sent us up the GSP, to I-287 East, then I-684 North, to I-84 East.  Then from Sturbridge it sent us I-90 East to I-290 before sending us the rest of the way to I-495 to I-95 and US 1.

It makes sense and I'm sure if it weren't there problems would have occurred at the I-90 and I-495 exchange especially in the ticket toll days.
So much for access to downtown Worcester?  I-290 is hardly just a pass-through route.

I-290 is 20 miles long. There's usually a very heavy amount of long distance and commuter traffic using it, especially during holiday weekends. How is that just a ramp?

Didn't say it was a ramp.  I said it was a glorified ramp meaning it connects two major routes just as a simple normal ramp would.

Also to Rothman's response, I did not say it was solely a through route either.  Of course it would be localized too, but that doesn't mean it can't be used otherwise.

A few weeks ago in another post someone posted that I-290 was something (I can't remember what) but another responded to the fact that the interstate does serve long distance needs. I was inspired by that post.  When I get home later from work and have the time I will look up when and where and what was said.
It's a loop not a ramp
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on February 21, 2022, 11:10:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2022, 11:55:04 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 21, 2022, 10:39:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 21, 2022, 10:30:30 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2022, 09:35:33 AM
I was noticing how I-290 is basically a glorified ramp between I-90 and I-495. In addition to it being a local freeway I can see it gets people from Springfield and Upstate NY to the NH SeaCoast and all points in ME.

Even in the old map planning days ( when you had to send away for planned routes as who once heard of GPS once upon a time) I remember my dad sent away to Exxon for a trip from Clark, NJ to Bar Harbor, ME, the routing consultant sent us up the GSP, to I-287 East, then I-684 North, to I-84 East.  Then from Sturbridge it sent us I-90 East to I-290 before sending us the rest of the way to I-495 to I-95 and US 1.

It makes sense and I'm sure if it weren't there problems would have occurred at the I-90 and I-495 exchange especially in the ticket toll days.
So much for access to downtown Worcester?  I-290 is hardly just a pass-through route.

I-290 is 20 miles long. There's usually a very heavy amount of long distance and commuter traffic using it, especially during holiday weekends. How is that just a ramp?

Didn't say it was a ramp.  I said it was a glorified ramp meaning it connects two major routes just as a simple normal ramp would.

Also to Rothman's response, I did not say it was solely a through route either.  Of course it would be localized too, but that doesn't mean it can't be used otherwise.

A few weeks ago in another post someone posted that I-290 was something (I can't remember what) but another responded to the fact that the interstate does serve long distance needs. I was inspired by that post.  When I get home later from work and have the time I will look up when and where and what was said.

"[You] have become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal..."
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Old Dominionite on February 23, 2022, 05:35:45 PM
When I was growing up in CT in the 80s and taking annual family trips to Bar Harbor, my family always took the Mass. Pike to 495. We never took 290 through Worcester.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on February 23, 2022, 06:23:04 PM
Quote from: Old Dominionite on February 23, 2022, 05:35:45 PM
When I was growing up in CT in the 80s and taking annual family trips to Bar Harbor, my family always took the Mass. Pike to 495. We never took 290 through Worcester.
I use I-290 because I'm cheap (:
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on February 23, 2022, 07:32:02 PM
The Google-recommended route from the 395 corridor in Connecticut (or anywhere west of Worcester, really) to 495 north of Boston...is 290. Not only is it 5 miles shorter, you avoid the toll and the mess known as the 90/495 interchange.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on February 23, 2022, 09:21:12 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2022, 09:35:33 AM
I was noticing how I-290 is basically a glorified ramp between I-90 and I-495. In addition to it being a local freeway I can see it gets people from Springfield and Upstate NY to the NH SeaCoast and all points in ME.

Even in the old map planning days ( when you had to send away for planned routes as who once heard of GPS once upon a time) I remember my dad sent away to Exxon for a trip from Clark, NJ to Bar Harbor, ME, the routing consultant sent us up the GSP, to I-287 East, then I-684 North, to I-84 East.  Then from Sturbridge it sent us I-90 East to I-290 before sending us the rest of the way to I-495 to I-95 and US 1.

It makes sense and I'm sure if it weren't there problems would have occurred at the I-90 and I-495 exchange especially in the ticket toll days.
FWIW, an earlier-planned routing of I-290 had the eastern end arc south back to I-90 near where I-495 would ultimately be built.  The below is from a scan of an early-60s vintage Rand McNally (RMN) map
(https://www.interstate-guide.com/wp-content/uploads/maps/i-290-worcester-ma-1962.jpg)

Note how RMN jumped the gun, so to speak by several decades with showing MA 146 as an expressway with an interchange with I-90.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on February 23, 2022, 09:34:44 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 23, 2022, 09:21:12 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2022, 09:35:33 AM
I was noticing how I-290 is basically a glorified ramp between I-90 and I-495. In addition to it being a local freeway I can see it gets people from Springfield and Upstate NY to the NH SeaCoast and all points in ME.

Even in the old map planning days ( when you had to send away for planned routes as who once heard of GPS once upon a time) I remember my dad sent away to Exxon for a trip from Clark, NJ to Bar Harbor, ME, the routing consultant sent us up the GSP, to I-287 East, then I-684 North, to I-84 East.  Then from Sturbridge it sent us I-90 East to I-290 before sending us the rest of the way to I-495 to I-95 and US 1.

It makes sense and I'm sure if it weren't there problems would have occurred at the I-90 and I-495 exchange especially in the ticket toll days.
FWIW, an earlier-planned routing of I-290 had the eastern end arc south back to I-90 near where I-495 would ultimately be built.  The below is from a scan of an early-60s vintage Rand McNally (RMN) map
(https://www.interstate-guide.com/wp-content/uploads/maps/i-290-worcester-ma-1962.jpg)

Note how RMN jumped the gun, so to speak by several decades with showing MA 146 as an expressway with an interchange with I-90.

Isn't Marlboro supposed to be Marlborough?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on February 23, 2022, 11:11:36 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 23, 2022, 09:21:12 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2022, 09:35:33 AM
I was noticing how I-290 is basically a glorified ramp between I-90 and I-495. In addition to it being a local freeway I can see it gets people from Springfield and Upstate NY to the NH SeaCoast and all points in ME.

Even in the old map planning days ( when you had to send away for planned routes as who once heard of GPS once upon a time) I remember my dad sent away to Exxon for a trip from Clark, NJ to Bar Harbor, ME, the routing consultant sent us up the GSP, to I-287 East, then I-684 North, to I-84 East.  Then from Sturbridge it sent us I-90 East to I-290 before sending us the rest of the way to I-495 to I-95 and US 1.

It makes sense and I'm sure if it weren't there problems would have occurred at the I-90 and I-495 exchange especially in the ticket toll days.
FWIW, an earlier-planned routing of I-290 had the eastern end arc south back to I-90 near where I-495 would ultimately be built.  The below is from a scan of an early-60s vintage Rand McNally (RMN) map
(https://www.interstate-guide.com/wp-content/uploads/maps/i-290-worcester-ma-1962.jpg)

Note how RMN jumped the gun, so to speak by several decades with showing MA 146 as an expressway with an interchange with I-90.
All that and no jumping the gun on freeways near or inside 128.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: empirestate on February 24, 2022, 12:43:32 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 23, 2022, 09:34:44 PM
Isn't Marlboro supposed to be Marlborough?

As I recall, the full-length spelling was officialized relatively recently. Before then, it was considered always acceptable to abbreviate "-borough" to "-boro". (See also Pittsburg, PA.)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on February 24, 2022, 08:06:31 AM
Interesting to see I-190 isn't proposed on here either.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on February 24, 2022, 08:12:02 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 24, 2022, 08:06:31 AM
Interesting to see I-190 isn't proposed on here either.

I-190 wasn't built until 1983 due to environmental concerns. Interesting to note also that it was once part of MA 52 as was I-395.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on February 24, 2022, 10:06:20 AM
Imagine what the Pike/495/290 interchange would've looked like considering it would've needed to accommodate the Pike's toll booths.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on February 24, 2022, 12:20:32 PM
Quote from: empirestate on February 24, 2022, 12:43:32 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 23, 2022, 09:34:44 PM
Isn't Marlboro supposed to be Marlborough?

As I recall, the full-length spelling was officialized relatively recently. Before then, it was considered always acceptable to abbreviate "-borough" to "-boro". (See also Pittsburg, PA.)

The "-boro" abbreviation has long been used on highway signs in Massachusetts, with I-90/MassPike being the last holdout prior to the sign replacements of 2018-2019.  It makes sense that a road atlas would also use those abbreviations on their maps.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on February 28, 2022, 11:13:00 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 24, 2022, 08:12:02 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 24, 2022, 08:06:31 AM
Interesting to see I-190 isn't proposed on here either.

I-190 wasn't built until 1983 due to environmental concerns. Interesting to note also that it was once part of MA 52 as was I-395.

Now I remember for the longest time it was only completed through Worcester and incomplete on maps for a long time.   
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on February 28, 2022, 11:22:26 AM
Quote from: roadman on February 24, 2022, 12:20:32 PM
Quote from: empirestate on February 24, 2022, 12:43:32 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 23, 2022, 09:34:44 PM
Isn't Marlboro supposed to be Marlborough?

As I recall, the full-length spelling was officialized relatively recently. Before then, it was considered always acceptable to abbreviate "-borough" to "-boro". (See also Pittsburg, PA.)

The "-boro" abbreviation has long been used on highway signs in Massachusetts, with I-90/MassPike being the last holdout prior to the sign replacements of 2018-2019.  It makes sense that a road atlas would also use those abbreviations on their maps.

However, if the municipality wants the name then it's official. In NJ we have a Marlboro, but it's not spelled Marlborough https://www.marlboro-nj.gov/ but B-O-R-O in the official name. So road signs aren't abbreviating it like they do ( or did with) Triborough Bridge in NYC with Triboro.  BTW spell check wouldn't let me use Boro and corrected it to Borough. They are spelling it that way cause it's spelled that way.


Bottom line the incorporation name and spelling as in Massachusetts it's Marlborough https://www.marlborough-ma.gov not spelled in official capacity.  It be like leaving off the double d "˜s in Jane Addams Tollway for Jane Adams.  Her name is Addams not Adams.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: yakra on February 28, 2022, 11:49:42 AM
WRT the municipalities in general, doesn't NJ have Boros while PA has Boroughs?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: empirestate on February 28, 2022, 11:56:17 AM
Quote from: yakra on February 28, 2022, 11:49:42 AM
WRT the municipalities in general, doesn't NJ have Boros while PA has Boroughs?

No, they both have "boroughs", although NJ may be more likely to abbreviate the word since they are closer to the New England linguistic practice.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on February 28, 2022, 01:14:36 PM
Every "borough" in Massachusetts is abbreviated to "boro" on highway signs.  Except for Attleboro, which never had the "ugh" in its name.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: empirestate on February 28, 2022, 05:58:36 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on February 28, 2022, 01:14:36 PM
Every "borough" in Massachusetts is abbreviated to "boro" on highway signs.  Except for Attleboro, which never had the "ugh" in its name.

But are there any that, at least "officially", are not to be abbreviated? (And does the cartographer have any particular duty to honor that?)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 01, 2022, 05:42:27 AM
I wonder if someone inside MassDOT has figured out how much the Commonwealth saves by not adding the "ugh"  to its signs.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on March 01, 2022, 12:00:29 PM
The only sign in Massachusetts I know of with “ugh” besides the bookleaf town line signs is westbound on the Pike at the Westborough Service Plaza. Unless there’s one somewhere else that I’m missing. Even the paddle signs abbreviate the town names.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 04, 2022, 12:17:35 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 01, 2022, 05:42:27 AM
I wonder if someone inside MassDOT has figured out how much the Commonwealth saves by not adding the "ugh"  to its signs.

For BGS signs on freeways, deleting the 'ugh' reduces the sign width by 2 feet on average (source:  personal experience overseeing sign design).  Using a hypothetical example, a sign that would otherwise be 15 feet by 10 feet (150 square feet) is now 13 feet by 10 feet (130 square feet).  20 square feet times $18.00/square foot (typical bid price for extruded BGS panels) = $360 savings per panel.  Now times that by 6 BGS panels per interchange = $2,160 savings per interchange.  As you see, it adds up pretty quickly.  Although difficult to quantify, there is also a cost savings associated with the support structures - smaller panels equals less loading (dead, wind, ice, and dead-wind-ice combined), which means a simpler design can be used.   Lastly, to my knowledge, there has been no evidence that omitting the 'ugh' on highway signs has resulted in navigational issues for drivers.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: empirestate on March 04, 2022, 09:28:54 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 04, 2022, 12:17:35 PM
Lastly, to my knowledge, there has been no evidence that omitting the 'ugh' on highway signs has resulted in navigational issues for drivers.

Ah, so it ranks up there in importance with which way a state's exits are numbered? :pan: <ducks>
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 06, 2022, 07:10:00 PM
Quote from: empirestate on March 04, 2022, 09:28:54 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 04, 2022, 12:17:35 PM
Lastly, to my knowledge, there has been no evidence that omitting the 'ugh' on highway signs has resulted in navigational issues for drivers.

Ah, so it ranks up there in importance with which way a state's exits are numbered? :pan: <ducks>

:-D :-D   Note that 'Marlboro' and 'Marlborough' are pronounced the same.
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 07, 2022, 05:43:56 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 06, 2022, 07:10:00 PM
Quote from: empirestate on March 04, 2022, 09:28:54 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 04, 2022, 12:17:35 PM
Lastly, to my knowledge, there has been no evidence that omitting the 'ugh' on highway signs has resulted in navigational issues for drivers.

Ah, so it ranks up there in importance with which way a state's exits are numbered? :pan: <ducks>

:-D :-D   Note that 'Marlboro' and 'Marlborough' are pronounced the same.

"Mah-bro."  The last three letters aren't the only disregarded ones!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: empirestate on March 08, 2022, 09:31:39 AM
Quote from: roadman on March 06, 2022, 07:10:00 PM
:-D :-D   Note that 'Marlboro' and 'Marlborough' are pronounced the same.

Would the same be true of Loughborough and Loboro?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 19, 2022, 10:29:36 AM
Advertised this morning by MassDOT, upcoming sign replacement project on I-84, winning bid to be announced May 3:
Location: DISTRICT3
Description: Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement along a Section of Interstate 84
District: 3 Ad Date: 3/19/2022 Section Response: Const Project Value: $687,691.00
CDs, Plans & Specs Available: No
Federal Aid No.: HSI-0843(001)X Project Number: 609056 Project Type: Signing - Structural
No. of Addendums: 0 Date of Last Addendum: N/A
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on March 19, 2022, 11:42:36 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 19, 2022, 10:29:36 AM
Advertised this morning by MassDOT, upcoming sign replacement project on I-84, winning bid to be announced May 3:
Location: DISTRICT3
Description: Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement along a Section of Interstate 84
District: 3 Ad Date: 3/19/2022 Section Response: Const Project Value: $687,691.00
CDs, Plans & Specs Available: No
Federal Aid No.: HSI-0843(001)X Project Number: 609056 Project Type: Signing - Structural
No. of Addendums: 0 Date of Last Addendum: N/A

If they're smart (and consistent), they'll add exit numbers to the Mass Pike ramps.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on March 19, 2022, 12:16:52 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 19, 2022, 11:42:36 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 19, 2022, 10:29:36 AM
Advertised this morning by MassDOT, upcoming sign replacement project on I-84, winning bid to be announced May 3:
Location: DISTRICT3
Description: Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement along a Section of Interstate 84
District: 3 Ad Date: 3/19/2022 Section Response: Const Project Value: $687,691.00
CDs, Plans & Specs Available: No
Federal Aid No.: HSI-0843(001)X Project Number: 609056 Project Type: Signing - Structural
No. of Addendums: 0 Date of Last Addendum: N/A

If they’re smart (and consistent), they’ll add exit numbers to the Mass Pike ramps.

The signs at I-84’s eastern terminus have already been replaced when the Mass Pike went through its sign replacement project. They likely won’t get exit numbers, but they really should.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MoMaRoadDweeb on March 19, 2022, 01:22:10 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 19, 2022, 10:29:36 AM
Advertised this morning by MassDOT, upcoming sign replacement project on I-84, winning bid to be announced May 3:
Location: DISTRICT3
Description: Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement along a Section of Interstate 84
District: 3 Ad Date: 3/19/2022 Section Response: Const Project Value: $687,691.00
CDs, Plans & Specs Available: No
Federal Aid No.: HSI-0843(001)X Project Number: 609056 Project Type: Signing - Structural
No. of Addendums: 0 Date of Last Addendum: N/A

Thought they had already replaced the signs?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on March 19, 2022, 01:34:04 PM
Yes, the signs on I-84 are essentially the current standard (with the full-height exit tabs) and I see nothing wrong with them.  They were among the first signs in the state installed with the current standards, but appear to be in fine shape.  The existing signs feature "pull-throughs", which are becoming more rare as time goes on (except on I-90).... no idea if they will hold strong.  The parking area at the CT/MA state line is signed as a "Picnic Area", which is another relic from the past, as is the "Mass Pike" wording, vs the logo. 

Still, I think the signs could last another 10+ years without issue, but if MassDOT wants to replace them, that's up to them!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 20, 2022, 02:42:30 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 19, 2022, 01:34:04 PM
Yes, the signs on I-84 are essentially the current standard (with the full-height exit tabs) and I see nothing wrong with them.  They were among the first signs in the state installed with the current standards, but appear to be in fine shape.  The existing signs feature "pull-throughs", which are becoming more rare as time goes on (except on I-90).... no idea if they will hold strong.  The parking area at the CT/MA state line is signed as a "Picnic Area", which is another relic from the past, as is the "Mass Pike" wording, vs the logo. 

Still, I think the signs could last another 10+ years without issue, but if MassDOT wants to replace them, that's up to them!

The signs on I-84 were last updated in 2003-2004.  Current MassDOT policy is to replace sign panels about every 18 to 20 years, and replace sign structures about every 36 to 40 years.  Note that the project just advertised for bids is, with a handful of exceptions, for the replacement of panels only.  The existing overhead sign structures and most other ground-mounted posts are being retained.  And, good news for all you "paddle sign" fans.  The new design extruded MA-D1-7 "combined" guide signs with twin steel posts are not being specified for this project.  Rather, new sheet aluminum MA-D1-6/MA-D1-5 assemblies are being mounted to the existing single tubular posts, in the traditional "paddle sign" arrangement.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on March 23, 2022, 10:48:37 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 20, 2022, 02:42:30 PM
The signs on I-84 were last updated in 2003-2004.  Current MassDOT policy is to replace sign panels about every 18 to 20 years, and replace sign structures about every 36 to 40 years.  Note that the project just advertised for bids is, with a handful of exceptions, for the replacement of panels only.  The existing overhead sign structures and most other ground-mounted posts are being retained.  And, good news for all you "paddle sign" fans.  The new design extruded MA-D1-7 "combined" guide signs with twin steel posts are not being specified for this project.  Rather, new sheet aluminum MA-D1-6/MA-D1-5 assemblies are being mounted to the existing single tubular posts, in the traditional "paddle sign" arrangement.

Hooray!!  I have thought ever since they were introduced that the extruded, larger signs commonly used as paddle sign replacements were too large and kinda unsightly on 2-lane roads and other locations where the paddle signs had served well for so long. 

If only they were consistent with the 20 year thing; there are certainly signs that are much older than that hanging around unreplaced that could use it.  (The one BGS for Lowell Street traffic at US 1, for example--installed in 1993 and still there, and still laid out wrong.  The sign it replaced was about 20 years old when it was replaced by the current sign, but it was laid out correctly.  How come the screwy signs manage to last longer?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on March 24, 2022, 08:28:36 AM
Quote from: roadman on March 20, 2022, 02:42:30 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 19, 2022, 01:34:04 PM
Yes, the signs on I-84 are essentially the current standard (with the full-height exit tabs) and I see nothing wrong with them.  They were among the first signs in the state installed with the current standards, but appear to be in fine shape.  The existing signs feature "pull-throughs", which are becoming more rare as time goes on (except on I-90).... no idea if they will hold strong.  The parking area at the CT/MA state line is signed as a "Picnic Area", which is another relic from the past, as is the "Mass Pike" wording, vs the logo. 

Still, I think the signs could last another 10+ years without issue, but if MassDOT wants to replace them, that's up to them!

The signs on I-84 were last updated in 2003-2004.  Current MassDOT policy is to replace sign panels about every 18 to 20 years, and replace sign structures about every 36 to 40 years.  Note that the project just advertised for bids is, with a handful of exceptions, for the replacement of panels only.  The existing overhead sign structures and most other ground-mounted posts are being retained.  And, good news for all you "paddle sign" fans.  The new design extruded MA-D1-7 "combined" guide signs with twin steel posts are not being specified for this project.  Rather, new sheet aluminum MA-D1-6/MA-D1-5 assemblies are being mounted to the existing single tubular posts, in the traditional "paddle sign" arrangement.

I wonder if the state is already giving up on the new guide signs. Such a shame if so, they're a vast improvement given the stupidity of having one sign have to convey less information for no reason other than apparent tradition.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on March 24, 2022, 10:20:28 AM
I think there are too many overheads on I-84 in Mass. I know that MassDOT has a policy for this, but they should have the Brimfield sign and the eastbound Old Sturbridge Village sign ground mounted. Are there any plans to ground mount some of the guide signs like what they did on I-495?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 24, 2022, 12:43:50 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 24, 2022, 10:20:28 AM
I think there are too many overheads on I-84 in Mass. I know that MassDOT has a policy for this, but they should have the Brimfield sign and the eastbound Old Sturbridge Village sign ground mounted. Are there any plans to ground mount some of the guide signs like what they did on I-495?

Under the pending I-84 project, the existing overhead Brimfield and Old Sturbridge Village signs will be replaced with new ground-mounted signs.  I personally have never understood why these signs were overhead mounted int he first place.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on March 24, 2022, 04:14:36 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 24, 2022, 10:20:28 AM
I think there are too many overheads on I-84 in Mass.

There are too many overheads in Massachusetts.  Not sure why the state is obsessed with them.

In my opinion, if the highway is only 2 lanes in each direction, all signs should be ground-mounted.  This used to be the case on Rte. 2 west of Fitchburg, the Mass Pike west of I-84, and even I-495 between Rte. 24 and I-195.  The overheads in these sections of highways ruins the "scenic-ness" of these roads.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on March 24, 2022, 04:39:39 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on March 24, 2022, 04:14:36 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 24, 2022, 10:20:28 AM
I think there are too many overheads on I-84 in Mass.

There are too many overheads in Massachusetts.  Not sure why the state is obsessed with them.

In my opinion, if the highway is only 2 lanes in each direction, all signs should be ground-mounted.  This used to be the case on Rte. 2 west of Fitchburg, the Mass Pike west of I-84, and even I-495 between Rte. 24 and I-195.  The overheads in these sections of highways ruins the "scenic-ness" of these roads.
From MA 9 north to MA 2, I-91 was ground mounted signs.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 24, 2022, 11:22:36 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 24, 2022, 04:39:39 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on March 24, 2022, 04:14:36 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 24, 2022, 10:20:28 AM
I think there are too many overheads on I-84 in Mass.

There are too many overheads in Massachusetts.  Not sure why the state is obsessed with them.

In my opinion, if the highway is only 2 lanes in each direction, all signs should be ground-mounted.  This used to be the case on Rte. 2 west of Fitchburg, the Mass Pike west of I-84, and even I-495 between Rte. 24 and I-195.  The overheads in these sections of highways ruins the "scenic-ness" of these roads.
From MA 9 north to MA 2, I-91 was ground mounted signs.
The new sign replacement project along I-95 between Attleboro and Norwood is replacing the overhead signs for Rest Areas with ground mounted ones. Here are the old and new signs NB in Mansfield:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs1121ff.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 24, 2022, 11:34:29 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on March 24, 2022, 04:14:36 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 24, 2022, 10:20:28 AM
I think there are too many overheads on I-84 in Mass.

There are too many overheads in Massachusetts.  Not sure why the state is obsessed with them.

In my opinion, if the highway is only 2 lanes in each direction, all signs should be ground-mounted.  This used to be the case on Rte. 2 west of Fitchburg, the Mass Pike west of I-84, and even I-495 between Rte. 24 and I-195.  The overheads in these sections of highways ruins the "scenic-ness" of these roads.

I honestly don't think the few overheads in those spots feel especially visually busy. 495 isn't especially distinguished for its scenery, and the few on Route 2 are at fairly attention-critical places on a highway that frankly is full of surprises for the uninitiated.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJ Particle on March 24, 2022, 11:53:49 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 24, 2022, 11:34:29 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on March 24, 2022, 04:14:36 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 24, 2022, 10:20:28 AM
I think there are too many overheads on I-84 in Mass.

There are too many overheads in Massachusetts.  Not sure why the state is obsessed with them.

In my opinion, if the highway is only 2 lanes in each direction, all signs should be ground-mounted.  This used to be the case on Rte. 2 west of Fitchburg, the Mass Pike west of I-84, and even I-495 between Rte. 24 and I-195.  The overheads in these sections of highways ruins the "scenic-ness" of these roads.

I honestly don't think the few overheads in those spots feel especially visually busy. 495 isn't especially distinguished for its scenery, and the few on Route 2 are at fairly attention-critical places on a highway that frankly is full of surprises for the uninitiated.

Or as I like to say...unless you're a roadgeek, no one comes to the coast to look at the pretty freeways.  🤣
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 25, 2022, 12:07:17 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 24, 2022, 11:22:36 PM
The new sign replacement project along I-95 between Attleboro and Norwood is replacing the overhead signs for Rest Areas with ground mounted ones. Here are the old and new signs NB in Mansfield:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs1121ff.jpg)

I wish I were kidding when I say maybe this less conspicuous sign will lead fewer people to see this abject mess that passes for a rest area in Mass.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on March 26, 2022, 05:48:38 PM
So I was on Route 128 today between the MassPike and I-93 in Reading and noticed that most of the Route 128 shields are gone... I only saw one the whole distance northbound, and that was on the C/D road between the MassPike and I-95.  The ones on the reassurance signs are gone (there is a white NORTH left behind but nothing below it), and the ones on I-93 North as you enter I-95/128 are gone as well. 

Were they all stolen?  Being removed on purpose by MassDOT?  Being replaced with... here's an idea... a "HISTORIC 128" shield?  (I know I'm probably really reaching with the last one, but it would explain why the directional placques remain in place. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 26, 2022, 06:17:14 PM
Another Saturday, another sign replacement contract up for bid. This one for the I-95/128 between Lynnfield and Danvers, exact location cited in Special Provisions document as: "The Project is located on Interstate Route 95 and MA State Route 128, from Station 5+00 in Peabody near mile 62.5 at the interchange with US Route 1, to Station 65+00 on Interstate Route 95 in Danvers near mile 68.3; and to Station 157+17.62 on MA State Route 128 in Peabody near mile 38.7."

Bid Opening: 5/10/2022 2:00PM
Location: DANVERS - LYNNFIELD - PEABODY
Description: Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement along a Section of Interstate 95 and Route 128
District: 4 Ad Date: 3/19/2022 Section Response: Const. Project Value: $556,603.00
CDs, Plans & Specs Available: No
Federal Aid No.: HSI-0954(003)X Project Number: 609060 Project Type: Signing - Structural
No. of Addendums: 0 Date of Last Addendum: N/A

Meanwhile, a virtual public hearing will be held on March 31 to discuss the upcoming project to rehabilitate bridges at the I-95/I-90 interchange. Project details:
The proposed project consists of replacing and rehabilitating a series of eight bridges at the Interstate 90/Interstate 95 interchange (I-90/I-95). The bridges include I-90's crossing of I-95 and the Charles River, I-90 Over the Worcester Mainline commuter rail tracks just east of the Charles River, as well as ramp bridges within the I-90/I-95 interchange itself. Of the eight bridges, five will be replaced, one will be rehabilitated, and two will have their superstructure replaced. The proposed project will provide bridge and roadway safety improvements, increase vertical clearance for freight movements, improve seismic resiliency and reduce noise impacts through the installation of noise walls along I-90 in Auburndale to the project's eastern limit of work. MassDOT will use staged construction to maintain existing three lanes of I-90 during construction. The project will also use accelerated bridge replacement and offline construction.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 26, 2022, 06:32:36 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 26, 2022, 05:48:38 PM
So I was on Route 128 today between the MassPike and I-93 in Reading and noticed that most of the Route 128 shields are gone... I only saw one the whole distance northbound, and that was on the C/D road between the MassPike and I-95.  The ones on the reassurance signs are gone (there is a white NORTH left behind but nothing below it), and the ones on I-93 North as you enter I-95/128 are gone as well. 

Were they all stolen?  Being removed on purpose by MassDOT?  Being replaced with... here's an idea... a "HISTORIC 128" shield?  (I know I'm probably really reaching with the last one, but it would explain why the directional placques remain in place. 
Interesting. The latest Street View images from November show the shields were present then, for those who haven't driven the route lately, here's an image from Waltham:
https://goo.gl/maps/951V27131ccniqns5 (https://goo.gl/maps/951V27131ccniqns5)

The 128 shields are rather large. Some possibilities: 1. They were having problems with these types of shields falling of posts of in the Needham and Wellesley stretch, perhaps a problem here too and so they were taken down to be fixed, 2. They are to be replaced by smaller 128 shields in a further effort to deemphasize the concurrency with I-95, or 3. Some highway shield collector is soon to have a blockbuster sale on ebay.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on March 27, 2022, 09:00:00 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 26, 2022, 05:48:38 PM
Were they all stolen?  Being removed on purpose by MassDOT?  Being replaced with... here's an idea... a "HISTORIC 128" shield?  (I know I'm probably really reaching with the last one, but it would explain why the directional placques remain in place.

I have suggested something similar to that. Personally, I think that MA 128 needs to be cut back to Peabody. There's also a missing 128 marker southbound after Exit 51 just before the route 3 junction. Maybe an unsigned 128? I suspect that once signing work is completed from Reading to Lynnfield that they'll remove more of the 128 shields. It still bugs me that people still call it 128 when 95 is the more prominent number.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on March 27, 2022, 10:51:26 AM
I have to ask: was there any major controversy over running Interstate 93 straight through the middle of Middlesex Fells?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 27, 2022, 10:56:58 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 27, 2022, 09:00:00 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 26, 2022, 05:48:38 PM
Were they all stolen?  Being removed on purpose by MassDOT?  Being replaced with... here's an idea... a "HISTORIC 128" shield?  (I know I'm probably really reaching with the last one, but it would explain why the directional placques remain in place.

I have suggested something similar to that. Personally, I think that MA 128 needs to be cut back to Peabody. There's also a missing 128 marker southbound after Exit 51 just before the route 3 junction. Maybe an unsigned 128? I suspect that once signing work is completed from Reading to Lynnfield that they'll remove more of the 128 shields. It still bugs me that people still call it 128 when 95 is the more prominent number.

Understandable that times have changed, and actual Route 128 has been scaled back since the late 80s. But to those of us of a certain age, the Circumferential Highway from Braintree to Gloucester will always be Route 128. 
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 27, 2022, 11:45:07 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 27, 2022, 09:00:00 AMIt still bugs me that people still call it 128 when 95 is the more prominent number.

It persists because it has cultural currency. It's not a mystery why people use 128, and it's not just because of the signs. But we have the never-ending quest of the engineers to prescribe the behavior of the public rather than adapt to it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on March 27, 2022, 07:45:48 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 27, 2022, 11:45:07 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 27, 2022, 09:00:00 AMIt still bugs me that people still call it 128 when 95 is the more prominent number.

It persists because it has cultural currency. It's not a mystery why people use 128, and it's not just because of the signs. But we have the never-ending quest of the engineers to prescribe the behavior of the public rather than adapt to it.

Indeed, it's just always going to be called 128 even though they tried to kill it.  Starting 128's mile markers in Canton so that the exits in Essex County are numbered from there on the mileage system shows a grudging acceptance of that, and I bet they don't go trying to change the exit numbers again anytime soon.

On a facebook comment thread about work in Lafayette, Indiana on Teal Road where US 52 is now routed (which makes no sense but it's been that way for a few years) it is amusing to read how many comments there are that say things to the effect of "no, 52 is the bypass and isn't on Teal; Teal is 25" and stuff which used to be true but is no more--you can move the signs and official designations around but people will call it what they call it.  (The "bypass" name dates to when Sagamore Parkway was a bypass far to the east of downtown; it's now just as congested if not more than downtown as development moved east.)  Old names/numbers die hard.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on March 27, 2022, 07:50:12 PM
I know MassDOT used to have mile 0 at the split in Peabody and they would count up to Gloucester. But I do agree there's no changing it now. No point renumbering exits one year after they were changed before.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on March 27, 2022, 08:09:41 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 27, 2022, 07:50:12 PM
I know MassDOT used to have mile 0 at the split in Peabody and they would count up to Gloucester. But I do agree there's no changing it now. No point renumbering exits one year after they were changed before.

Indeed there are vestiges (not many) of how at one point they did re-milepost it (during the days when they posted a lot of 3-decimal-place markers at bridges and stuff) and Mile 0 was at where 95 exited 128 at onetime Exit 30N, later 44B, for US 1 NB and route 129/Goodwin Circle (to join US 1 through Peabody until the exit for itself south of Lowell Street) until the connection was completed. 
The old milemarker hanging on at the interchange overpass (0.314 mile) corresponds perfectly to the 1600+ feet from the exit.
https://goo.gl/maps/z4aN52F7gea543qL8
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on March 28, 2022, 01:09:54 AM
I like the idea of an Historic Route 128 sign project. It actually is an historic route, because it was famous as a corridor for early high-tech industry, and people from all over who had never driven it had heard of it.

Of course, a road geek might regard all the surface streets that were once called route 128 as even more interesting, though they're certainly not famous.

The same issue could arise on the Southeast Expressway, since it is also a state route that has been overlaid by a more important interstate. That could be decommissioned, and the few miles that connect it to US-3 could be incorporated into US-3, or just left unnumbered. Would anyone notice?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 28, 2022, 11:17:53 AM
Quote from: pderocco on March 28, 2022, 01:09:54 AMThe same issue could arise on the Southeast Expressway, since it is also a state route that has been overlaid by a more important interstate. That could be decommissioned, and the few miles that connect it to US-3 could be incorporated into US-3, or just left unnumbered. Would anyone notice?

I would bet that very few people consider Route 3 between Arlington and Braintree at all.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 28, 2022, 12:24:12 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 28, 2022, 11:17:53 AM
Quote from: pderocco on March 28, 2022, 01:09:54 AMThe same issue could arise on the Southeast Expressway, since it is also a state route that has been overlaid by a more important interstate. That could be decommissioned, and the few miles that connect it to US-3 could be incorporated into US-3, or just left unnumbered. Would anyone notice?

I would bet that very few people consider Route 3 between Arlington and Braintree at all.
I agree, there is really no need, except for local traffic, for the current US 3 route inside 128. The major problem with truncating US 3 to Burlington and restarting the route in Braintree (or renumbering that route as an interstate, as I've stated on my route renumbering ideas website) is what to do with the 3A routes, particularly south of Boston. This makes the idea a bit more complicated than a simple route removal. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on March 29, 2022, 09:16:31 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 26, 2022, 05:48:38 PM
So I was on Route 128 today between the MassPike and I-93 in Reading and noticed that most of the Route 128 shields are gone... I only saw one the whole distance northbound, and that was on the C/D road between the MassPike and I-95.  The ones on the reassurance signs are gone (there is a white NORTH left behind but nothing below it), and the ones on I-93 North as you enter I-95/128 are gone as well. 

Were they all stolen?  Being removed on purpose by MassDOT?  Being replaced with... here's an idea... a "HISTORIC 128" shield?  (I know I'm probably really reaching with the last one, but it would explain why the directional placques remain in place.

There were new reassurance shields installed on that stretch of highway back in 2014/15.  Both 95 and 128 shields were installed at the time.

I was on Rte. 28 in Stoneham/Reading this morning and there were 128 shields at the on-ramps.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 29, 2022, 09:35:40 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 28, 2022, 12:24:12 PM
I agree, there is really no need, except for local traffic, for the current US 3 route inside 128. The major problem with truncating US 3 to Burlington and restarting the route in Braintree (or renumbering that route as an interstate, as I've stated on my route renumbering ideas website) is what to do with the 3A routes, particularly south of Boston. This makes the idea a bit more complicated than a simple route removal.

I don't think there's particular harm or confusion in ending 3 at the Braintree Split and 3A at Neponset Circle. Those routes are pretty parallel, both ending a few miles apart at 93.

I live not far from the northern part of 3 and people do occasionally refer to it as such in Arlington and Winchester where it's Mystic St./Cambridge St./Cambridge Rd., maybe because it's less confusing than three separate names for one street.

But I've never heard anyone use US/Mass. 3 as a reference anywhere else inside 128.* The only logic I can think of to continue signing it is that if you took down some of the signs you'd have to take down all of them, which would be a bigger ordeal.


* A perfect example of a geographical reference "128"  provides that "95"  does not.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on March 29, 2022, 10:02:47 AM
I remember there being a 128 shield on MA 138 in Milton, is it still there? I know the one on I-93 at the Braintree Split was removed, but I haven't been that way in years.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 29, 2022, 12:00:51 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 29, 2022, 10:02:47 AM
I remember there being a 128 shield on MA 138 in Milton, is it still there? I know the one on I-93 at the Braintree Split was removed, but I haven't been that way in years.
There's still a North MA 128 trailblazer at the split of ramps from Washington St. in Braintree, seen in this GMSV image from December, but I saw it last Friday:
https://goo.gl/maps/vNNAkcNjG5PijdpK7 (https://goo.gl/maps/vNNAkcNjG5PijdpK7)

Besides the MA 128 sign be taken down, US 1 shields should be put up at this location and on the exit signs along MA 3 North.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on March 30, 2022, 09:33:01 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 29, 2022, 12:00:51 PM
There's still a North MA 128 trailblazer at the split of ramps from Washington St. in Braintree, seen in this GMSV image from December, but I saw it last Friday:
https://goo.gl/maps/vNNAkcNjG5PijdpK7 (https://goo.gl/maps/vNNAkcNjG5PijdpK7)

That would be a reasonable sign if it said TO over it. A lot of people still think in terms of route 128, and might be a bit confused as to which ramp to take to get there, given that you have to go "south" on I-93 in order to get to 128 north.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJStephens on March 30, 2022, 10:25:08 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 27, 2022, 10:51:26 AM
I have to ask: was there any major controversy over running Interstate 93 straight through the middle of Middlesex Fells?

Would doubt that.  Much of I-93 inside 128 was constructed before 1960.  Grew up in that Boston area (1965-1993) and remembered viewing the dates on the parapets, further south, of that park, and they said "1959".   These parapets have been likely long covered by more recent guardrail extensions/and or end caps.
It took over another dozen years to finish the final section (the double decker viaduct) and open it all the way to US 1.    In hindsight, if they had planned, and finished all the "inside 128" expressways, by 1965, there might have been a complete spoke system of expressways.       
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on March 31, 2022, 01:36:33 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 29, 2022, 12:00:51 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 29, 2022, 10:02:47 AM
I remember there being a 128 shield on MA 138 in Milton, is it still there? I know the one on I-93 at the Braintree Split was removed, but I haven't been that way in years.
There's still a North MA 128 trailblazer at the split of ramps from Washington St. in Braintree, seen in this GMSV image from December, but I saw it last Friday:
https://goo.gl/maps/vNNAkcNjG5PijdpK7 (https://goo.gl/maps/vNNAkcNjG5PijdpK7)

Besides the MA 128 sign be taken down, US 1 shields should be put up at this location and on the exit signs along MA 3 North.
I'm surprised that it hasn't been taken down after so many years.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on March 31, 2022, 08:08:15 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 31, 2022, 01:36:33 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 29, 2022, 12:00:51 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 29, 2022, 10:02:47 AM
I remember there being a 128 shield on MA 138 in Milton, is it still there? I know the one on I-93 at the Braintree Split was removed, but I haven't been that way in years.
There's still a North MA 128 trailblazer at the split of ramps from Washington St. in Braintree, seen in this GMSV image from December, but I saw it last Friday:
https://goo.gl/maps/vNNAkcNjG5PijdpK7 (https://goo.gl/maps/vNNAkcNjG5PijdpK7)

Besides the MA 128 sign be taken down, US 1 shields should be put up at this location and on the exit signs along MA 3 North.
I'm surprised that it hasn't been taken down after so many years.

Well it's still colloquially known as 128 by older locals. Don't forget that at one time, it used to go to Nantasket along MA 3 and MA 228.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on April 19, 2022, 02:20:54 PM
The Simarano Drive exit off I-495 and the Commerce Way exit off I-93 have a lot in common.

Both have tall flyover ramps, both were assigned an exit number with a "C" suffix, then with the switch to mile-based exit numbers, they got whole numbered exits.

And even more crazy, the gore exit signs at these exits are wider than necessary!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on April 19, 2022, 04:49:48 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on April 19, 2022, 02:20:54 PM
The Simarano Drive exit off I-495 and the Commerce Way exit off I-93 have a lot in common.

Both have tall flyover ramps, both were assigned an exit number with a "C" suffix, then with the switch to mile-based exit numbers, they got whole numbered exits.

And even more crazy, the gore exit signs at these exits are wider than necessary!

Also built very close to the same time. Both opened in 2000 if I believe correctly.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on April 19, 2022, 08:46:41 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 19, 2022, 04:49:48 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on April 19, 2022, 02:20:54 PM
The Simarano Drive exit off I-495 and the Commerce Way exit off I-93 have a lot in common.

Both have tall flyover ramps, both were assigned an exit number with a "C" suffix, then with the switch to mile-based exit numbers, they got whole numbered exits.

And even more crazy, the gore exit signs at these exits are wider than necessary!

Also built very close to the same time. Both opened in 2000 if I believe correctly.

Yes, I believe it was around 2000.  I remember when it was under construction in the late 90s.  When the interchange opened, it was signed as "Crane Meadow Road".
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: ne11931 on April 27, 2022, 10:16:48 PM
A few Mass DOT observations I have made --- Number one is Mass DOT seemingly has neglected restriping roads over the past couple of years where in some places it is almost non-existent. I always thought striping was a safety priority.  Secondly I have noticed maintenance of electrical equipment is apparently not performed. I have seen high mast lights just lowered to the ground and left inoperable for years.  RWIS systems overgrown with weeds and seemingly abandoned. On Route 2 in Acton they installed solar powered signs warning of a traffic signal ahead at Piper Rd., again now unmaintained and inactive. Why do they waste money installing this equipment and then neglect it?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DrSmith on April 29, 2022, 09:14:03 PM
Quote from: ne11931 on April 27, 2022, 10:16:48 PM
A few Mass DOT observations I have made --- Number one is Mass DOT seemingly has neglected restriping roads over the past couple of years where in some places it is almost non-existent. I always thought striping was a safety priority.  Secondly I have noticed maintenance of electrical equipment is apparently not performed. I have seen high mast lights just lowered to the ground and left inoperable for years.  RWIS systems overgrown with weeds and seemingly abandoned. On Route 2 in Acton they installed solar powered signs warning of a traffic signal ahead at Piper Rd., again now unmaintained and inactive. Why do they waste money installing this equipment and then neglect it?

As for lines between lanes being faded, I don't think it is a new thing. There are plenty of places where it has been difficult to see the lines during the day. Years back when I heard that self-driving cars were using lane markings I thought to myself good luck with self driving cars in Mass (beyond the temporary vision problems when roads are snow covered).

The other thing to consider is who has jurisdiction for the road. A lot of the state roads are actually town maintained so it is up to the towns to do the maintenance including line painting.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on April 29, 2022, 09:41:05 PM
Some state maintained highways don't even have lines at all. For example, this is MA 114 east in Peabody just after MA 128. Notice how there's heavy traffic and it appears that the lane lines are missing. Given that this is one of the only routes into Salem, tourists from out of state are likely to get confused and block both lanes without realizing it.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5368808,-70.9340598,3a,75y,131.38h,66.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swlHOWAhVQIwp3bwON0WFHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on April 30, 2022, 08:18:15 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on April 29, 2022, 09:41:05 PM
Some state maintained highways don't even have lines at all. For example, this is MA 114 east in Peabody just after MA 128. Notice how there's heavy traffic and it appears that the lane lines are missing. Given that this is one of the only routes into Salem, tourists from out of state are likely to get confused and block both lanes without realizing it.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5368808,-70.9340598,3a,75y,131.38h,66.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swlHOWAhVQIwp3bwON0WFHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I wonder if this is like 3A in Burlington, as in "the locals" assume it's two lanes each side because there is just one giant wide lane. I mean, if I pull out of a side street because someone stopped and waved me out, and I'm hit by someone in the same direction passing by that stopped car, I'm not going to be at fault because there aren't markings for multiple lanes. Legally it's one lane each side. That GSV goes back to 2008 and there isn't even a trace of lane markings on it from then.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on April 30, 2022, 08:35:50 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 30, 2022, 08:18:15 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on April 29, 2022, 09:41:05 PM
Some state maintained highways don't even have lines at all. For example, this is MA 114 east in Peabody just after MA 128. Notice how there's heavy traffic and it appears that the lane lines are missing. Given that this is one of the only routes into Salem, tourists from out of state are likely to get confused and block both lanes without realizing it.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5368808,-70.9340598,3a,75y,131.38h,66.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swlHOWAhVQIwp3bwON0WFHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I wonder if this is like 3A in Burlington, as in "the locals" assume it's two lanes each side because there is just one giant wide lane. I mean, if I pull out of a side street because someone stopped and waved me out, and I'm hit by someone in the same direction passing by that stopped car, I'm not going to be at fault because there aren't markings for multiple lanes. Legally it's one lane each side. That GSV goes back to 2008 and there isn't even a trace of lane markings on it from then.
Pfft.  Making two lanes out of one wide one is a proud New England tradition.  See also Northampton, MA and a host of other communities. :D
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on April 30, 2022, 08:56:14 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 30, 2022, 08:35:50 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 30, 2022, 08:18:15 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on April 29, 2022, 09:41:05 PM
Some state maintained highways don't even have lines at all. For example, this is MA 114 east in Peabody just after MA 128. Notice how there's heavy traffic and it appears that the lane lines are missing. Given that this is one of the only routes into Salem, tourists from out of state are likely to get confused and block both lanes without realizing it.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5368808,-70.9340598,3a,75y,131.38h,66.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swlHOWAhVQIwp3bwON0WFHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I wonder if this is like 3A in Burlington, as in "the locals" assume it's two lanes each side because there is just one giant wide lane. I mean, if I pull out of a side street because someone stopped and waved me out, and I'm hit by someone in the same direction passing by that stopped car, I'm not going to be at fault because there aren't markings for multiple lanes. Legally it's one lane each side. That GSV goes back to 2008 and there isn't even a trace of lane markings on it from then.
Pfft.  Making two lanes out of one wide one is a proud New England tradition.  See also Northampton, MA and a host of other communities. :D

Does this not happen everywhere?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on April 30, 2022, 09:20:55 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 30, 2022, 08:56:14 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 30, 2022, 08:35:50 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 30, 2022, 08:18:15 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on April 29, 2022, 09:41:05 PM
Some state maintained highways don't even have lines at all. For example, this is MA 114 east in Peabody just after MA 128. Notice how there's heavy traffic and it appears that the lane lines are missing. Given that this is one of the only routes into Salem, tourists from out of state are likely to get confused and block both lanes without realizing it.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5368808,-70.9340598,3a,75y,131.38h,66.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swlHOWAhVQIwp3bwON0WFHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I wonder if this is like 3A in Burlington, as in "the locals" assume it's two lanes each side because there is just one giant wide lane. I mean, if I pull out of a side street because someone stopped and waved me out, and I'm hit by someone in the same direction passing by that stopped car, I'm not going to be at fault because there aren't markings for multiple lanes. Legally it's one lane each side. That GSV goes back to 2008 and there isn't even a trace of lane markings on it from then.
Pfft.  Making two lanes out of one wide one is a proud New England tradition.  See also Northampton, MA and a host of other communities. :D

Does this not happen everywhere?

Probably, but it's notable in New England because our roads are old and any kind of widening is neither easy or cheap.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on April 30, 2022, 11:34:18 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 30, 2022, 08:56:14 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 30, 2022, 08:35:50 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 30, 2022, 08:18:15 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on April 29, 2022, 09:41:05 PM
Some state maintained highways don't even have lines at all. For example, this is MA 114 east in Peabody just after MA 128. Notice how there's heavy traffic and it appears that the lane lines are missing. Given that this is one of the only routes into Salem, tourists from out of state are likely to get confused and block both lanes without realizing it.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5368808,-70.9340598,3a,75y,131.38h,66.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swlHOWAhVQIwp3bwON0WFHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I wonder if this is like 3A in Burlington, as in "the locals" assume it's two lanes each side because there is just one giant wide lane. I mean, if I pull out of a side street because someone stopped and waved me out, and I'm hit by someone in the same direction passing by that stopped car, I'm not going to be at fault because there aren't markings for multiple lanes. Legally it's one lane each side. That GSV goes back to 2008 and there isn't even a trace of lane markings on it from then.
Pfft.  Making two lanes out of one wide one is a proud New England tradition.  See also Northampton, MA and a host of other communities. :D

Does this not happen everywhere?

It seems to happen much more in Massachusetts. Handling auto claims I never had a single claim outside of Massachusetts involving an accident due to stuff like this, but handled a few in Massachusetts. A LOT of people learn the hard way that no lane markings means no multiple lanes.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on April 30, 2022, 11:37:35 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 30, 2022, 11:34:18 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 30, 2022, 08:56:14 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 30, 2022, 08:35:50 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 30, 2022, 08:18:15 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on April 29, 2022, 09:41:05 PM
Some state maintained highways don't even have lines at all. For example, this is MA 114 east in Peabody just after MA 128. Notice how there's heavy traffic and it appears that the lane lines are missing. Given that this is one of the only routes into Salem, tourists from out of state are likely to get confused and block both lanes without realizing it.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5368808,-70.9340598,3a,75y,131.38h,66.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swlHOWAhVQIwp3bwON0WFHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I wonder if this is like 3A in Burlington, as in "the locals" assume it's two lanes each side because there is just one giant wide lane. I mean, if I pull out of a side street because someone stopped and waved me out, and I'm hit by someone in the same direction passing by that stopped car, I'm not going to be at fault because there aren't markings for multiple lanes. Legally it's one lane each side. That GSV goes back to 2008 and there isn't even a trace of lane markings on it from then.
Pfft.  Making two lanes out of one wide one is a proud New England tradition.  See also Northampton, MA and a host of other communities. :D

Does this not happen everywhere?

It seems to happen much more in Massachusetts. Handling auto claims I never had a single claim outside of Massachusetts involving an accident due to stuff like this, but handled a few in Massachusetts. A LOT of people learn the hard way that no lane markings means no multiple lanes.
Meh.  Been working fine in western MA since streetcars were dismantled. :D
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on April 30, 2022, 10:55:07 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 30, 2022, 08:18:15 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on April 29, 2022, 09:41:05 PM
Some state maintained highways don't even have lines at all. For example, this is MA 114 east in Peabody just after MA 128. Notice how there's heavy traffic and it appears that the lane lines are missing. Given that this is one of the only routes into Salem, tourists from out of state are likely to get confused and block both lanes without realizing it.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5368808,-70.9340598,3a,75y,131.38h,66.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swlHOWAhVQIwp3bwON0WFHg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I wonder if this is like 3A in Burlington, as in "the locals" assume it's two lanes each side because there is just one giant wide lane. I mean, if I pull out of a side street because someone stopped and waved me out, and I'm hit by someone in the same direction passing by that stopped car, I'm not going to be at fault because there aren't markings for multiple lanes. Legally it's one lane each side. That GSV goes back to 2008 and there isn't even a trace of lane markings on it from then.

Further east past Buttonwood, there are two lanes marked in each direction (probably by Peabody, as it is east of the State Highway Ends sign) so the no-mans-land between Buttonwood and 128 is nuttier still--it is wide enough for two lanes, not marked as two lanes, often has traffic heavy enough to form two lanes even if not marked....growing up in Peabody, I can get how it just stays that way.  It took long enough for them to start using double yellow lines and stop using single ones on many streets; marking dashed stripes may be too much to ask for.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on May 01, 2022, 02:35:52 AM
Boy, this brings back memories. When I lived in Watertown in the late 90s, Belmont St between Trapelo Rd and Mt Auburn was a two-lane road that everyone pretended was four lanes. (Except when it snowed, and there was unplowed snow next to the parked cars narrowing the lane.) You can still see that in the early 2000s Google Earth imagery. That, of course, wasn't a state highway. But I also remember that in the 70s and perhaps into the 80s, the five-way intersection on route 37 just south of the Braintree Mall was a free-for-all. West St may have had stop signs, but the other three legs had nothing, no lights or signs or turn lanes.

The philosophy seemed to be to let local drivers organically evolve unwritten rules that adapted to the actual conditions. And most of the time it worked, although it could get scary. And I'm sure there were more frequent accidents.

When I moved to California in 2000, I found myself in the land of very precise, detailed lane striping, signage, and signals. I surmised that was more necessary here, given how many more drivers were probably stoned.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 02, 2022, 10:36:41 AM
According to every historic photo I've looked at, the Bourne/Sagamore Bridges have always been four lanes. That just blows my mind, because there's barely enough for two abreast as it is. Granted, cars were once skinny in the 30s, got wider in the 50s-70s, taller in the 90s-2000s, and now we have cars/trucks of all shapes and sizes.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: storm2k on May 02, 2022, 11:56:43 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 02, 2022, 10:36:41 AM
According to every historic photo I've looked at, the Bourne/Sagamore Bridges have always been four lanes. That just blows my mind, because there's barely enough for two abreast as it is. Granted, cars were once skinny in the 30s, got wider in the 50s-70s, taller in the 90s-2000s, and now we have cars/trucks of all shapes and sizes.

The original McCarter Highway viaduct in Newark comes to mind. That thing was  4 lanes and undivided and even more claustrophobic than the Pulaski Skyway, which is saying something.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on May 02, 2022, 06:38:17 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 02, 2022, 10:36:41 AM
According to every historic photo I've looked at, the Bourne/Sagamore Bridges have always been four lanes. That just blows my mind, because there's barely enough for two abreast as it is. Granted, cars were once skinny in the 30s, got wider in the 50s-70s, taller in the 90s-2000s, and now we have cars/trucks of all shapes and sizes.

Anyone driving to Cape Cod, especially in warm months, would grimly nod in agreement with you. Nothing comes easy in Massachusetts. Only recently have there even been plans for replacements.

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/the-cape-cod-bridges-program-details#a-new-gateway-for-the-cape-

The Commonwealth has finally awoken to the fact that the bridges finally need replacement.  Of course, it will take a very long time to actually get it done.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on May 04, 2022, 12:27:13 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 02, 2022, 10:36:41 AM
According to every historic photo I've looked at, the Bourne/Sagamore Bridges have always been four lanes. That just blows my mind, because there's barely enough for two abreast as it is.

I think it's pretty typical of old bridges to be just barely wide enough for the vehicles they intended to carry. They pinched pennies pretty effectively in those days.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on May 04, 2022, 09:01:55 AM
When I last visited the Cape last summer, I went via MA 3 across the Sagamore Bridge and I've always wondered why the southbound side narrows down to just one lane. Was there ever any thought back then in widening that segment to two lanes?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on May 04, 2022, 05:57:21 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on May 04, 2022, 09:01:55 AM
When I last visited the Cape last summer, I went via MA 3 across the Sagamore Bridge and I've always wondered why the southbound side narrows down to just one lane. Was there ever any thought back then in widening that segment to two lanes?

You've got a pretty heavy merge there where US 6 East joins the party to cross the Canal.  And that's the route from Providence, New York, all points west/southwest of Boston onto the cape.  Back when it was a rotary, everyone was entering the Sagamore at the same location/same ramp, which then widened to 2 lanes to cross the bridge. 

Ideally (and hopefully), any Sagamore Bridge replacement would include an "operational" lane to provide a dedicated lane for US 6 East traffic entering.  Even if it is a true "operational" lane and becomes an exit only for MA 6A, it will still add capacity over the bridge and help with the merge factor.  Then MA 3 South into the bridge could remain 2 lanes. 

Now, if a 3rd bridge was built between the Bourne and Sagamore, that could potentially handle the traffic coming down from 195/495 to have a direct shot to the Mid Cape Hwy. 
that could avoid having to exit, having to go around the Buzzards Bay rotary, then dealing with merging onto the Sag.  Of course the likelihood of a new expressway connector being built on the cape is about as likely as the Northeast Expressway being brought back to life (thru Saugus, Lynn, etc). 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJ Particle on May 04, 2022, 11:32:22 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 04, 2022, 05:57:21 PM
Ideally (and hopefully), any Sagamore Bridge replacement would include an "operational" lane to provide a dedicated lane for US 6 East traffic entering.  Even if it is a true "operational" lane and becomes an exit only for MA 6A, it will still add capacity over the bridge and help with the merge factor.  Then MA 3 South into the bridge could remain 2 lanes. 

I believe that is the plan for the new bridges.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on May 05, 2022, 07:11:18 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on May 04, 2022, 09:01:55 AM
When I last visited the Cape last summer, I went via MA 3 across the Sagamore Bridge and I've always wondered why the southbound side narrows down to just one lane. Was there ever any thought back then in widening that segment to two lanes?

Basically, the state chose to have a one-lane MA 3/US 6 merge instead of the ritualistic game of chicken that was the Sagamore rotary when the latter was replaced. I imagine the merge queues would be worse if the mainline was two lanes instead of one, annoying as one lane often is. Glad to see the new plan will address this. .
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 06, 2022, 07:21:57 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on May 04, 2022, 09:01:55 AM
When I last visited the Cape last summer, I went via MA 3 across the Sagamore Bridge and I've always wondered why the southbound side narrows down to just one lane. Was there ever any thought back then in widening that segment to two lanes?
There wouldn't be enough room for US 6 EB to merge before the bridge. If MA 3 SB were two lanes there you would probably have to have a parkway-style merge where US 6 traffic has a stop sign. With the lanes joining at least traffic can continue moving over the bridge without stopping.

The SB bridge over Meetinghouse Ln. is wide enough for two lanes and the southern abutment as wide, so when the new Sagamore Bridge is built it will be at least three lanes each way.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on May 12, 2022, 08:50:24 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 04, 2022, 05:57:21 PM
You've got a pretty heavy merge there where US 6 East joins the party to cross the Canal.  And that's the route from Providence, New York, all points west/southwest of Boston onto the cape.  Back when it was a rotary, everyone was entering the Sagamore at the same location/same ramp, which then widened to 2 lanes to cross the bridge. 

Are you saying that everyone who goes to the Cape uses the Sagamore bridge and not the Bourne?  From areas like Raynham and Middleborough, if I enter in an address in Hyannis on Google Maps, the directions have me crossing the canal on the Bourne Bbridge, then taking the road along the south side of the canal, then getting on US 6 at Exit 55.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on May 13, 2022, 12:17:58 PM
According to MassDOT's ProjectInfo site, the sign replacement project along I-290 between I-90 and I-190 and that replacing the remaining signs not replaced previously along MA 24 and I-195 in vicinity of their interchanges have been completed (though the I-290 project has been listed as complete before and the information had to be revised).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on May 13, 2022, 06:07:31 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 13, 2022, 12:17:58 PM
According to MassDOT's ProjectInfo site, the sign replacement project along I-290 between I-90 and I-190 and that replacing the remaining signs not replaced previously along MA 24 and I-195 in vicinity of their interchanges have been completed (though the I-290 project has been listed as complete before before the information was revised).

Shrewsbury Street has something to say....

"What about me?"
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52064711428_44b21d8c2d_5k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2njMfNq)290EB-Exit19 (https://flic.kr/p/2njMfNq) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on May 13, 2022, 11:44:35 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on May 13, 2022, 06:07:31 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 13, 2022, 12:17:58 PM
According to MassDOT's ProjectInfo site, the sign replacement project along I-290 between I-90 and I-190 and that replacing the remaining signs not replaced previously along MA 24 and I-195 in vicinity of their interchanges have been completed (though the I-290 project has been listed as complete before before the information was revised).

Shrewsbury Street has something to say....

"What about me?"
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52064711428_44b21d8c2d_5k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2njMfNq)290EB-Exit19 (https://flic.kr/p/2njMfNq) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr
what about those mileposts, says i
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on May 14, 2022, 10:22:28 AM
Having spent a week in Texas, I think Massachusetts needs to learn to love frontage roads. The first place I'd put them is on I-93 between the I-95 interchange in Canton and the Braintree Split.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on May 14, 2022, 12:12:09 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 14, 2022, 10:22:28 AM
Having spent a week in Texas, I think Massachusetts needs to learn to love frontage roads. The first place I'd put them is on I-93 between the I-95 interchange in Canton and the Braintree Split.

A good candidate for a Massachusetts highway having frontage roads would be US 1 between Saugus and Peabody. The high number of accidents caused by people pulling out of store parking lots onto a highway where people go 70+ absolutely warrants such a thing, although it might cause a ruckus for the businesses plus redesigning interchanges along the way.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on May 14, 2022, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on May 14, 2022, 12:12:09 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 14, 2022, 10:22:28 AM
Having spent a week in Texas, I think Massachusetts needs to learn to love frontage roads. The first place I'd put them is on I-93 between the I-95 interchange in Canton and the Braintree Split.

A good candidate for a Massachusetts highway having frontage roads would be US 1 between Saugus and Peabody. The high number of accidents caused by people pulling out of store parking lots onto a highway where people go 70+ absolutely warrants such a thing, although it might cause a ruckus for the businesses plus redesigning interchanges along the way.

That stretch of US 1 is the poster child for frontage roads. Of course, this being Massachusetts, of course, such change would never some cheaply or easily.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on May 27, 2022, 11:06:58 AM
Does MassDOT ever plan to rid the clusterfuck ramps between I-90 ( the Mass Pike), I-290, I-395, US 20, and MA 12?

Now with AET the need for a one plaza connection is no longer, so why not upgrade it all and eliminate the I-290/395 and US 20 cloverleaf as well.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on May 27, 2022, 03:39:45 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 27, 2022, 11:06:58 AM
Does MassDOT ever plan to rid the clusterfuck ramps between I-90 ( the Mass Pike), I-290, I-395, US 20, and MA 12?

Now with AET the need for a one plaza connection is no longer, so why not upgrade it all and eliminate the I-290/395 and US 20 cloverleaf as well.

I think the only one planned for now is the 90/495 junction in Westboro.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on May 27, 2022, 03:58:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 27, 2022, 11:06:58 AM
Does MassDOT ever plan to rid the clusterfuck ramps between I-90 ( the Mass Pike), I-290, I-395, US 20, and MA 12?

Now with AET the need for a one plaza connection is no longer, so why not upgrade it all and eliminate the I-290/395 and US 20 cloverleaf as well.

I would guess it's a combination of (1) cost (inflation), (2) complexity in the current ramp configuration, (3) geography (not in metro Boston), and (4) NIMBYism (a lot of residences/businesses nearby). Perhaps if people keep getting priced out of Boston and move to central Mass. it may become a priority.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 27, 2022, 04:32:30 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 27, 2022, 11:06:58 AM
Does MassDOT ever plan to rid the clusterfuck ramps between I-90 ( the Mass Pike), I-290, I-395, US 20, and MA 12?

Now with AET the need for a one plaza connection is no longer, so why not upgrade it all and eliminate the I-290/395 and US 20 cloverleaf as well.
A traditional interchange with I-290 would probably be tighter than it is now.
But I would endorse a freeway-to-freeway connection for MA 146.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 27, 2022, 04:33:11 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on May 27, 2022, 03:39:45 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 27, 2022, 11:06:58 AM
Does MassDOT ever plan to rid the clusterfuck ramps between I-90 ( the Mass Pike), I-290, I-395, US 20, and MA 12?

Now with AET the need for a one plaza connection is no longer, so why not upgrade it all and eliminate the I-290/395 and US 20 cloverleaf as well.

I think the only one planned for now is the 90/495 junction in Westboro.
Because there's actually space available to do it
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DrSmith on May 28, 2022, 11:23:36 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on May 27, 2022, 03:58:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 27, 2022, 11:06:58 AM
Does MassDOT ever plan to rid the clusterfuck ramps between I-90 ( the Mass Pike), I-290, I-395, US 20, and MA 12?

Now with AET the need for a one plaza connection is no longer, so why not upgrade it all and eliminate the I-290/395 and US 20 cloverleaf as well.

I would guess it's a combination of (1) cost (inflation), (2) complexity in the current ramp configuration, (3) geography (not in metro Boston), and (4) NIMBYism (a lot of residences/businesses nearby). Perhaps if people keep getting priced out of Boston and move to central Mass. it may become a priority.

That interchange is fit into a tight space between both residential/business and also geography. There are rock cuts already fro the ramps. Not an impossible stopping point, although adds more to rebuilding. There is also the lake/reservoir right there which adds complexity in redesign.

Without the toll plaza, it seems to me when going through that there is more weaving with heavier traffic that actually slows it down even more. The toll plaza had several lanes and helped to stagger traffic heading into the rest of the interchange.

A modest shorter term solution might be to reconfigure and even remove some of the ramps for Route 12. It would alleviate the constant ramp traffic in a tight space. Instead of separate N and S access to/from Route 12, it could potentially be converted to single on and off set there. Some movements could even be re-routed via Route 20 with some other local improvements to the surface streets.

With the removal of some Route 12 ramps, that might also provide room to improve the radius on some of the curves on the ramps between the Pike and 290, although that would be a little bigger effort and include more new bridges and such.

There are probably some smaller improvements that could help it before any type major rebuild is considered. Beyond the 495 interchange, there is also the rebuild of the Allston-Brighton interchange and viaducts upcoming too.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on June 03, 2022, 12:15:29 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 19, 2022, 12:16:52 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 19, 2022, 11:42:36 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 19, 2022, 10:29:36 AM
Advertised this morning by MassDOT, upcoming sign replacement project on I-84, winning bid to be announced May 3:
Location: DISTRICT3
Description: Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement along a Section of Interstate 84
District: 3 Ad Date: 3/19/2022 Section Response: Const Project Value: $687,691.00
CDs, Plans & Specs Available: No
Federal Aid No.: HSI-0843(001)X Project Number: 609056 Project Type: Signing - Structural
No. of Addendums: 0 Date of Last Addendum: N/A

If they're smart (and consistent), they'll add exit numbers to the Mass Pike ramps.

The signs at I-84's eastern terminus have already been replaced when the Mass Pike went through its sign replacement project. They likely won't get exit numbers, but they really should.
According to MassDOT's ProjectInfo site, the I-84 project was given the notice to proceed yesterday (6/2). The listing does not include a completion date but I will assume, even given the small number of exits, that it will take at least until 2024.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on June 12, 2022, 06:54:01 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 24, 2022, 11:22:36 PM
The new sign replacement project along I-95 between Attleboro and Norwood is replacing the overhead signs for Rest Areas with ground mounted ones. Here are the old and new signs NB in Mansfield:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs1121ff.jpg)
It's interesting that NEXT RIGHT is being used on the new sign here rather than the listed distance (1/2 mile on the overhead sign.  Seems a bit old school/retro.

Quote from: pderocco on March 28, 2022, 01:09:54 AM
The same issue could arise on the Southeast Expressway, since it is also a state route that has been overlaid by a more important interstate. That could be decommissioned, and the few miles that connect it to US-3 could be incorporated into US-3, or just left unnumbered. Would anyone notice?
To a degree, you're correct; but a historical explanation is in order here (granted, many elements have probably been mentioned both here & other related-threads).

One big difference is that, unlike 128, the Southeast Expressway originally had no route number assigned to it when it first opened in 1959; the Route 3 assignment came in stages over time. 

The Expressway south of Neponset Circle first became MA 3 circa 1962 following the full completion of the Pilgrim's Highway stretch (Braintree to Plymouth).  Prior to that, MA 3 followed the current MA 203 & 3A corridors and the northern portion of the Pilgrim's Highway was designated as an extension of the 'new' MA 128.

The remainder of the Southeast Expressway, followed by the Pulaski Skway (between the Mass Ave. & the South Station Tunnel), South Station Tunnel & most of the Central Artery didn't receive the MA 3 designation until 1971.  Such a change coincided with the phase-out of Boston's C-route system as well as the creation of MA 203 (along former-MA 3) & MA 99; much of the latter was formerly US 1. 

In hindsight, especially given the fact that the proposed Southwest Expressway leg of I-95 was already cancelled at this point & time; MA 3 IMHO should've remained in its pre-1971 alignment.  The initial de-facto I-95 routing, sans the Southwest Expressway, would've had it run along the Southeast Expressway and the later leg of MA 128 between Braintree and Canton.  The current Canton trumpet interchange was (re)designed with such a routing in mind. 

However (& as most of us here know), the cancellation of the unbuilt I-95 leg from Saugus (US 1/MA 60) to Peabody (MA 128) some 2 years after its southern leg was cancelled triggered the current routing of I-95 onto most of 128 and I-93 extending through Boston via the Expressway and the latter piece of 128 (Yankee Division Highway) to the Canton I-95 interchange.  Note & side bar: a redesign of the Canton interchange is in the works.

Long story short; since the Southeast Expressway had no route number & was referred to as such since its inception, it could theoretically change route numbers several times over and nobody would really notice.

Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on May 14, 2022, 12:22:44 PM
That stretch of US 1 is the poster child for frontage roads. Of course, this being Massachusetts, of course, such change would never some cheaply or easily.
Another historic tid-bit: one alternate proposal for I-95, after the Saugus/Lynn leg was cancelled circa 1972, was to create a dual-carriageway along US 1 from the I-95 interchange at the Peabody/Danvers line (current Exit 66/former Exit 46) to the MA 60/Copeland Circle interchange.  The inner-express lanes would've been I-95 while the outer-local lanes (frontage roads could've done similar here) would've been US 1.  Needless to say, such a proposal went nowhere.  The fore-mentioned Exit 66 interchange would've been the only hint of such an idea (at least for the southbound direction) because the original plan for that interchange was to have the opposite movements (I-95 NB to US 1 NB/US 1 SB to I-95 SB) of what's there presently.  Trace of where a ramp from US 1 SB would've connected to I-95 SB on the left side of the roadbed (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5391529,-70.9845986,3a,60y,3.56h,80.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si7R1xRuHaertFngMBp-rAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on June 12, 2022, 07:03:15 PM
Quote
The signs at I-84's eastern terminus have already been replaced when the Mass Pike went through its sign replacement project. They likely won't get exit numbers, but they really should.

That issue was reviewed during the I-84 project design.  Due to structural limtations (yes, even with the big APL signs), MassDOT determined that, in this case, if exit number tabs were installed while allowing for an acceptable safety margin for loading, they would be too small to be effective.  Unlike other states (Texas for one), Massachusetts' specifications only give general guidance to sign structure fabricators, and does not have either "standard" design plans for overhead sign structures nor a "design for certain percentage over area of signs being installed" requirement.
Quote
According to MassDOT's ProjectInfo site, the I-84 project was given the notice to proceed yesterday (6/2). The listing does not include a completion date but I will assume, even given the small number of exits, that it will take at least until 2024.
As I noted in my response to a similar comment on the I-95 Signing Project thread, the I-84 Holland to Sturbridge and I-95/128 Lynnfield to Danvers sign replacement projects are mainly to replace the sign panels only, and will reuse the existing structures and posts - which were replaced during the previous sign replacement projects on these roads, and are are still in serviceable condition.  With a handful of exceptions in those projects to be let for bids between now and 2026, this will be the normal practice for MassDOT sign replacements going forward for about the next eighteen to twenty years.  The duration for so-called "panels only" projects is typically between twelve and eighteen months, as there is no structural work involved, just fabricating and installing signs.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on June 14, 2022, 03:27:21 PM
Why is Route 3 along the South Shore always jammed on Sunday afternoons passing the Rte. 228 and Derby St. exits??????

It seems so baffling that a stretch of highway that is expected to have congestion on a weekday morning would also be clogged on a weekend afternoon!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on June 14, 2022, 03:47:41 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on June 14, 2022, 03:27:21 PM
Why is Route 3 along the South Shore always jammed on Sunday afternoons passing the Rte. 228 and Derby St. exits??????

It seems so baffling that a stretch of highway that is expected to have congestion on a weekday morning would also be clogged on a weekend afternoon!

It must be Cape traffic coming home on Sundays. That and the fact that MA 3 should probably be widened at some point to accommodate all the summer traffic.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on June 14, 2022, 04:27:58 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on June 14, 2022, 03:47:41 PM
It must be Cape traffic coming home on Sundays. That and the fact that MA 3 should probably be widened at some point to accommodate all the summer traffic.

But the highway traffic on Rte. 3 North moves just fine through Plymouth and Kingston, some 15 miles north of the Sagamore Bridge.  So why would there be an extra load 35 miles north of the Cape?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on June 14, 2022, 04:38:03 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on June 14, 2022, 04:27:58 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on June 14, 2022, 03:47:41 PM
It must be Cape traffic coming home on Sundays. That and the fact that MA 3 should probably be widened at some point to accommodate all the summer traffic.

But the highway traffic on Rte. 3 North moves just fine through Plymouth and Kingston, some 15 miles north of the Sagamore Bridge.  So why would there be an extra load 35 miles north of the Cape?
Probably other shore traffic adding onto the post-queue traffic volume and hitting a new maximum capacity
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on June 14, 2022, 05:39:34 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on June 14, 2022, 03:27:21 PM
Why is Route 3 along the South Shore always jammed on Sunday afternoons passing the Rte. 228 and Derby St. exits??????

It seems so baffling that a stretch of highway that is expected to have congestion on a weekday morning would also be clogged on a weekend afternoon!

I suspect a few things:

The area is closer  to Boston than Plymouth. Lots of higher population communities.

Route 228 (18, 53) are major connector from Route 3A and the coast to Route 3.

The aforementioned summer Cape traffic.

Southbound Route 3 has that awful lane drop that just appears seconds before it happens.

Northbound Route 3 with 3 lanes still has traffic coming from other areas of the south shore and southeast Mass. heading to the Boston area.

Route 3, in addition to widening, also needs better accel./decel. lanes.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 15, 2022, 02:48:41 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on June 14, 2022, 03:27:21 PM
Why is Route 3 along the South Shore always jammed on Sunday afternoons passing the Rte. 228 and Derby St. exits??????

It seems so baffling that a stretch of highway that is expected to have congestion on a weekday morning would also be clogged on a weekend afternoon!
I've only driven that stretch a handful of times, but I can guess it's due to traffic entering MA 3 to bypass Whiting St.

If that's truly the case, then just add an aux lane between the two exits and call it a day. Funny though, MassDOT allows breakdown lane travel in that stretch on weekdays.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on June 15, 2022, 07:57:21 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on June 15, 2022, 02:48:41 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on June 14, 2022, 03:27:21 PM
Why is Route 3 along the South Shore always jammed on Sunday afternoons passing the Rte. 228 and Derby St. exits??????

It seems so baffling that a stretch of highway that is expected to have congestion on a weekday morning would also be clogged on a weekend afternoon!
I've only driven that stretch a handful of times, but I can guess it's due to traffic entering MA 3 to bypass Whiting St.

If that's truly the case, then just add an aux lane between the two exits and call it a day. Funny though, MassDOT allows breakdown lane travel in that stretch on weekdays.
The lane drop on Rte 3 South occurs right before Exit 36 (Former Exit 15).  It would help (but not totally eliminate the backups there) if they extended the three lanes to Exit 36 and made the exit ramp an EXIT ONLY, making a cleaner lane drop.  Conversely, adding the third lane at the Exit 36 on-ramp onto Rte 3 North would help in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on June 15, 2022, 09:18:53 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 12, 2022, 06:54:01 PM
Another historic tid-bit: one alternate proposal for I-95, after the Saugus/Lynn leg was cancelled circa 1972, was to create a dual-carriageway along US 1 from the I-95 interchange at the Peabody/Danvers line (current Exit 66/former Exit 46) to the MA 60/Copeland Circle interchange.  The inner-express lanes would've been I-95 while the outer-local lanes (frontage roads could've done similar here) would've been US 1.  Needless to say, such a proposal went nowhere.  The fore-mentioned Exit 66 interchange would've been the only hint of such an idea (at least for the southbound direction) because the original plan for that interchange was to have the opposite movements (I-95 NB to US 1 NB/US 1 SB to I-95 SB) of what's there presently.  Trace of where a ramp from US 1 SB would've connected to I-95 SB on the left side of the roadbed (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5391529,-70.9845986,3a,60y,3.56h,80.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si7R1xRuHaertFngMBp-rAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
I'm confused about how that grade (and the matching northbound one) would have been part of this plan. Wouldn't 95 have used 1 south of here, meaning the part of 95 southeast to 128 would not have been built?
I do see on a 1978 aerial how they probably would have only had these two unbuilt ramps, with the temporary ramps carrying 95 not rebuilt into their current status. There was even a bridge on 1 northbound over the unbuilt ramp to 95 south.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on June 15, 2022, 09:39:19 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 12, 2022, 06:54:01 PM
Another historic tid-bit: one alternate proposal for I-95, after the Saugus/Lynn leg was cancelled circa 1972, was to create a dual-carriageway along US 1 from the I-95 interchange at the Peabody/Danvers line (current Exit 66/former Exit 46) to the MA 60/Copeland Circle interchange.  The inner-express lanes would've been I-95 while the outer-local lanes (frontage roads could've done similar here) would've been US 1.  Needless to say, such a proposal went nowhere.  The fore-mentioned Exit 66 interchange would've been the only hint of such an idea (at least for the southbound direction) because the original plan for that interchange was to have the opposite movements (I-95 NB to US 1 NB/US 1 SB to I-95 SB) of what's there presently. 

I remember hearing about that proposal from a now-former MassDPW engineer shortly after I started working there in the 1980s.   As it was explained to me, the plan was not to widen US 1 through Saugus and Lynnfield, but to depress the main roadway (which would become I-95) and then cantilever additional lanes out over the main roadway, which would be US 1 and allow for access to and from the businesses.  Years later, a fellow member at our model railroad club claimed to have a set of preliminary engineering drawings for the project.  He never showed them to me before he passed away, and my research through the MassDOT Highway Division Plans and Records files has failed to turn up any evidence that the proposal went beyond the "hey, here's an idea for you' stage.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on June 15, 2022, 10:01:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 15, 2022, 09:39:19 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 12, 2022, 06:54:01 PM
Another historic tid-bit: one alternate proposal for I-95, after the Saugus/Lynn leg was cancelled circa 1972, was to create a dual-carriageway along US 1 from the I-95 interchange at the Peabody/Danvers line (current Exit 66/former Exit 46) to the MA 60/Copeland Circle interchange.  The inner-express lanes would've been I-95 while the outer-local lanes (frontage roads could've done similar here) would've been US 1.  Needless to say, such a proposal went nowhere.  The fore-mentioned Exit 66 interchange would've been the only hint of such an idea (at least for the southbound direction) because the original plan for that interchange was to have the opposite movements (I-95 NB to US 1 NB/US 1 SB to I-95 SB) of what's there presently. 

I remember hearing about that proposal from a now-former MassDPW engineer shortly after I started working there in the 1980s.   As it was explained to me, the plan was not to widen US 1 through Saugus and Lynnfield, but to depress the main roadway (which would become I-95) and then cantilever additional lanes out over the main roadway, which would be US 1 and allow for access to and from the businesses.  Years later, a fellow member at our model railroad club claimed to have a set of preliminary engineering drawings for the project.  He never showed them to me before he passed away, and my research through the MassDOT Highway Division Plans and Records files has failed to turn up any evidence that the proposal went beyond the "hey, here's an idea for you' stage.

Yeah, that's going to cost too much, and be a nightmare to maintain with all the road salt we use.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on June 16, 2022, 01:23:36 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 15, 2022, 10:01:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 15, 2022, 09:39:19 PM
I remember hearing about that proposal from a now-former MassDPW engineer shortly after I started working there in the 1980s.   As it was explained to me, the plan was not to widen US 1 through Saugus and Lynnfield, but to depress the main roadway (which would become I-95) and then cantilever additional lanes out over the main roadway, which would be US 1 and allow for access to and from the businesses.  Years later, a fellow member at our model railroad club claimed to have a set of preliminary engineering drawings for the project.  He never showed them to me before he passed away, and my research through the MassDOT Highway Division Plans and Records files has failed to turn up any evidence that the proposal went beyond the "hey, here's an idea for you' stage.

Yeah, that's going to cost too much, and be a nightmare to maintain with all the road salt we use.
Plus, how would you build it without having to completely shut down Route 1 for a period of time?  The businesses would LOVE that.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on June 16, 2022, 02:51:14 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 16, 2022, 01:23:36 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 15, 2022, 10:01:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 15, 2022, 09:39:19 PM
I remember hearing about that proposal from a now-former MassDPW engineer shortly after I started working there in the 1980s.   As it was explained to me, the plan was not to widen US 1 through Saugus and Lynnfield, but to depress the main roadway (which would become I-95) and then cantilever additional lanes out over the main roadway, which would be US 1 and allow for access to and from the businesses.  Years later, a fellow member at our model railroad club claimed to have a set of preliminary engineering drawings for the project.  He never showed them to me before he passed away, and my research through the MassDOT Highway Division Plans and Records files has failed to turn up any evidence that the proposal went beyond the "hey, here's an idea for you' stage.

Yeah, that's going to cost too much, and be a nightmare to maintain with all the road salt we use.
Plus, how would you build it without having to completely shut down Route 1 for a period of time?  The businesses would LOVE that.

They did the Big Dig while keeping the Central Artery open
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on June 16, 2022, 03:01:18 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 16, 2022, 02:51:14 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 16, 2022, 01:23:36 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 15, 2022, 10:01:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 15, 2022, 09:39:19 PM
I remember hearing about that proposal from a now-former MassDPW engineer shortly after I started working there in the 1980s.   As it was explained to me, the plan was not to widen US 1 through Saugus and Lynnfield, but to depress the main roadway (which would become I-95) and then cantilever additional lanes out over the main roadway, which would be US 1 and allow for access to and from the businesses.  Years later, a fellow member at our model railroad club claimed to have a set of preliminary engineering drawings for the project.  He never showed them to me before he passed away, and my research through the MassDOT Highway Division Plans and Records files has failed to turn up any evidence that the proposal went beyond the "hey, here's an idea for you' stage.

Yeah, that's going to cost too much, and be a nightmare to maintain with all the road salt we use.
Plus, how would you build it without having to completely shut down Route 1 for a period of time?  The businesses would LOVE that.

They did the Big Dig while keeping the Central Artery open

I'd imagine US 1 traffic would probably be diverted off at either the Ferncroft Rotary in Danvers or MA 62 to I-95, then down to Exit 63 to rejoin US 1 south.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 17, 2022, 05:36:17 PM
Is there anything in the pipeline for bridges over I-93 north of Boston? The 129 and 62 overpasses are looking a little rough. 129 had temporary steel shoring under it for a long time and I believe had some recent work done, but I don't recall if the shoring was still there afterward. Regardless, there's a lot of rust and spalling.

Also, there's still a giant bite out of Roosevelt Circle in Medford where it was hit a year ago. There was talk of 8 months of repairs after that, but they haven't materialized.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on June 17, 2022, 07:21:32 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 17, 2022, 05:36:17 PM
Is there anything in the pipeline for bridges over I-93 north of Boston? The 129 and 62 overpasses are looking a little rough. 129 had temporary steel shoring under it for a long time and I believe had some recent work done, but I don't recall if the shoring was still there afterward. Regardless, there's a lot of rust and spalling.

Also, there's still a giant bite out of Roosevelt Circle in Medford where it was hit a year ago. There was talk of 8 months of repairs after that, but they haven't materialized.

The state mad a big deal about concurrent rapid fixes to a bunch of bridges on 93 north of the city a number of years ago. But I think they were closer to Boston.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on June 18, 2022, 03:53:24 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 17, 2022, 07:21:32 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 17, 2022, 05:36:17 PM
Is there anything in the pipeline for bridges over I-93 north of Boston? The 129 and 62 overpasses are looking a little rough. 129 had temporary steel shoring under it for a long time and I believe had some recent work done, but I don't recall if the shoring was still there afterward. Regardless, there's a lot of rust and spalling.

Also, there's still a giant bite out of Roosevelt Circle in Medford where it was hit a year ago. There was talk of 8 months of repairs after that, but they haven't materialized.

The state mad a big deal about concurrent rapid fixes to a bunch of bridges on 93 north of the city a number of years ago. But I think they were closer to Boston.

That was the Fast 14 Project that happened in 2011.  They replaced 7 mainline bridges (separate NB and SB spans, so a total of 14 structures) on I-93 through Medford.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on June 18, 2022, 06:42:56 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 17, 2022, 05:36:17 PM
Also, there's still a giant bite out of Roosevelt Circle in Medford where it was hit a year ago. There was talk of 8 months of repairs after that, but they haven't materialized.

That's so overdue that it's visible in Google aerial imagery and 3D imagery.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on June 29, 2022, 09:05:13 AM
Did MA-80 and MA-127 share drinks or trade personalities some time ago?

What I mean by this is that MA-80 travels north from Plymouth into Kingston but is signed east-west.  MA-127 travels east from Beverly into Manchester-by-the-Sea and Gloucester but is signed north-south.

Why!?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on June 29, 2022, 10:37:05 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on June 29, 2022, 09:05:13 AM
Did MA-80 and MA-127 share drinks or trade personalities some time ago?

What I mean by this is that MA-80 travels north from Plymouth into Kingston but is signed east-west.  MA-127 travels east from Beverly into Manchester-by-the-Sea and Gloucester but is signed north-south.

Why!?

MA 80 is just weird in general. I don’t get why it just dead ends at an unnumbered road in Plymouth rather than just following Samoset Street to end at MA 3A. As to MA 127, I’m guessing that because it runs parallel to MA 128, which is also signed north-south, that they just wanted it to match so that people wouldn’t get confused by two parallel roads having different cardinal directions. Although I don’t like how MA 127 basically does a fishhook in Gloucester nearly intersecting with itself.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJ Particle on June 29, 2022, 11:41:24 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on June 29, 2022, 10:37:05 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on June 29, 2022, 09:05:13 AM
Did MA-80 and MA-127 share drinks or trade personalities some time ago?

What I mean by this is that MA-80 travels north from Plymouth into Kingston but is signed east-west.  MA-127 travels east from Beverly into Manchester-by-the-Sea and Gloucester but is signed north-south.

Why!?

MA 80 is just weird in general. I don't get why it just dead ends at an unnumbered road in Plymouth rather than just following Samoset Street to end at MA 3A. As to MA 127, I'm guessing that because it runs parallel to MA 128, which is also signed north-south, that they just wanted it to match so that people wouldn't get confused by two parallel roads having different cardinal directions. Although I don't like how MA 127 basically does a fishhook in Gloucester nearly intersecting with itself.

Is Samoset still managed by the state?  If not, that may be why MA-80 still ends there.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on June 30, 2022, 04:00:46 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on June 29, 2022, 11:41:24 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on June 29, 2022, 10:37:05 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on June 29, 2022, 09:05:13 AM
Did MA-80 and MA-127 share drinks or trade personalities some time ago?

What I mean by this is that MA-80 travels north from Plymouth into Kingston but is signed east-west.  MA-127 travels east from Beverly into Manchester-by-the-Sea and Gloucester but is signed north-south.

Why!?

MA 80 is just weird in general. I don't get why it just dead ends at an unnumbered road in Plymouth rather than just following Samoset Street to end at MA 3A. As to MA 127, I'm guessing that because it runs parallel to MA 128, which is also signed north-south, that they just wanted it to match so that people wouldn't get confused by two parallel roads having different cardinal directions. Although I don't like how MA 127 basically does a fishhook in Gloucester nearly intersecting with itself.

Is Samoset still managed by the state?  If not, that may be why MA-80 still ends there.

I think MA 80 was impacted by the removal/relocation of US 44 to the freeway.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on June 30, 2022, 09:01:07 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on June 29, 2022, 10:37:05 PM
MA 80 is just weird in general. I don't get why it just dead ends at an unnumbered road in Plymouth...

MA 80 used to end at US 44 before it was relocated.  Similarly, MA 109 and MA 203 now end abruptly when both routes used to end at US 1.

QuoteAs to MA 127, I'm guessing that because it runs parallel to MA 128, which is also signed north-south, that they just wanted it to match so that people wouldn't get confused by two parallel roads having different cardinal directions. Although I don't like how MA 127 basically does a fishhook in Gloucester nearly intersecting with itself.

Bull-****!  I-495 and MA 110 run parallel to each other from Littleton to Salisbury.  I-495 is signed north-south while MA 110 is signed east-west.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on July 01, 2022, 02:35:55 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on June 29, 2022, 11:41:24 PM
Is Samoset still managed by the state?  If not, that may be why MA-80 still ends there.

Massachusetts isn't like California, where state route signs are only allowed on state maintained highways. I recall places in Massachusetts where, going into the more populated part of a town, there would be an End State Highway sign in one direction and a Begin State Highway in the other. That makes sense to me, since it's more important that route signs guide drivers than that they tell drivers who maintains the road.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on July 01, 2022, 08:10:10 AM
Quote from: pderocco on July 01, 2022, 02:35:55 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on June 29, 2022, 11:41:24 PM
Is Samoset still managed by the state?  If not, that may be why MA-80 still ends there.

Massachusetts isn't like California, where state route signs are only allowed on state maintained highways. I recall places in Massachusetts where, going into the more populated part of a town, there would be an End State Highway sign in one direction and a Begin State Highway in the other. That makes sense to me, since it's more important that route signs guide drivers than that they tell drivers who maintains the road.

There are entire multi-mile stretches of certain state routes that are town/city-maintained. MA 133 from Lowell to Ipswich is almost completely maintained by the towns it travels through.

Handy-dandy state map that shows who runs what, https://gis.massdot.state.ma.us/roadinventory/

Samoset Rd is a town-maintained road, with state-maintained 80 ending at it.

Keen eyes can find the unnumbered roads that are state-maintained as well on this one.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on July 01, 2022, 08:20:50 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 01, 2022, 08:10:10 AM
Keen eyes can find the unnumbered roads that are state-maintained as well on this one.

I found a couple in Mansfield!  There's also this sign that designates where a state-maintained highway ends:  https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0189235,-71.2142342,3a,24.8y,40.63h,90.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7dzzD6oHaItb-IyDabVTLg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DrSmith on July 01, 2022, 09:11:22 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 01, 2022, 08:10:10 AM
Quote from: pderocco on July 01, 2022, 02:35:55 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on June 29, 2022, 11:41:24 PM
Is Samoset still managed by the state?  If not, that may be why MA-80 still ends there.

Massachusetts isn't like California, where state route signs are only allowed on state maintained highways. I recall places in Massachusetts where, going into the more populated part of a town, there would be an End State Highway sign in one direction and a Begin State Highway in the other. That makes sense to me, since it's more important that route signs guide drivers than that they tell drivers who maintains the road.

There are entire multi-mile stretches of certain state routes that are town/city-maintained. MA 133 from Lowell to Ipswich is almost completely maintained by the towns it travels through.

Handy-dandy state map that shows who runs what, https://gis.massdot.state.ma.us/roadinventory/

Samoset Rd is a town-maintained road, with state-maintained 80 ending at it.

Keen eyes can find the unnumbered roads that are state-maintained as well on this one.

A lot of numbered routes (both state and US) are town maintained. I wouldn't be surprised if it is 50/50 mix or more town-maintained. There are large areas of towns with no state maintained routes, yet there are numbered routes through there. You can also see where routes switch between maintenance responsibilities on the map.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on July 01, 2022, 12:32:17 PM
Quote from: pderocco on July 01, 2022, 02:35:55 AM
Quote from: DJ Particle on June 29, 2022, 11:41:24 PM
Is Samoset still managed by the state?  If not, that may be why MA-80 still ends there.

Massachusetts isn't like California, where state route signs are only allowed on state maintained highways. I recall places in Massachusetts where, going into the more populated part of a town, there would be an End State Highway sign in one direction and a Begin State Highway in the other. That makes sense to me, since it's more important that route signs guide drivers than that they tell drivers who maintains the road.

In Massachusetts, I think "end state highway"  means the end of the state's responsibility to maintain the road, not the end of the route. It definitely means slow down.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on July 02, 2022, 04:51:17 PM
Yes, that was my point. (Well, not the bit about slowing down. The "END SPEED LIMIT 55MPH" signs are another post altogether.)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bluecountry on July 03, 2022, 11:08:34 AM
So driving for the first time in awhile in Mass on 95 from RI, my observations:

1.  93 at the 95 junction in Canton, co-signed with 128, needs to be local/through from 95 to 24 if not route 3.
2. 93 at the interchange with 128 where it goes due North, really needs to be expanded to at least a 3-2-3 setup with full shoulders.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on July 03, 2022, 11:23:15 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 03, 2022, 11:08:34 AM
So driving for the first time in awhile in Mass on 95 from RI, my observations:

1.  93 at the 95 junction in Canton, co-signed with 128, needs to be local/through from 95 to 24 if not route 3.
2. 93 at the interchange with 128 where it goes due North, really needs to be expanded to at least a 3-2-3 setup with full shoulders.

Are you referring to the Southeast Expressway portion of 93 or the 93/95 interchange in Woburn/Reading? 128 hasn’t been co-signed with I-93 since 1997.

I do agree that I-93 from the Braintree Split up to the tunnels needs to be expanded, but it would be very hard to do and would require a major reconstruction project that would be very expensive. The tunnel in Milton makes widening through there next to impossible not to mention the Red Line and Commuter Rail tracks. It would be nice though if MassDOT would expand the HOV lanes on the Southeast Expressway down to at least the Squantum Street exit.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: CapeCodder on July 05, 2022, 12:09:46 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on June 29, 2022, 10:37:05 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on June 29, 2022, 09:05:13 AM
Did MA-80 and MA-127 share drinks or trade personalities some time ago?

What I mean by this is that MA-80 travels north from Plymouth into Kingston but is signed east-west.  MA-127 travels east from Beverly into Manchester-by-the-Sea and Gloucester but is signed north-south.

Why!?

MA 80 is just weird in general. I don't get why it just dead ends at an unnumbered road in Plymouth rather than just following Samoset Street to end at MA 3A. As to MA 127, I'm guessing that because it runs parallel to MA 128, which is also signed north-south, that they just wanted it to match so that people wouldn't get confused by two parallel roads having different cardinal directions. Although I don't like how MA 127 basically does a fishhook in Gloucester nearly intersecting with itself.

Hanging end for MA 80. I've been down 80, and got the sense that it's quiet there.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bluecountry on July 05, 2022, 01:53:27 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on July 03, 2022, 11:23:15 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 03, 2022, 11:08:34 AM
So driving for the first time in awhile in Mass on 95 from RI, my observations:

1.  93 at the 95 junction in Canton, co-signed with 128, needs to be local/through from 95 to 24 if not route 3.
2. 93 at the interchange with 128 where it goes due North, really needs to be expanded to at least a 3-2-3 setup with full shoulders.

Are you referring to the Southeast Expressway portion of 93 or the 93/95 interchange in Woburn/Reading? 128 hasn't been co-signed with I-93 since 1997.

I do agree that I-93 from the Braintree Split up to the tunnels needs to be expanded, but it would be very hard to do and would require a major reconstruction project that would be very expensive. The tunnel in Milton makes widening through there next to impossible not to mention the Red Line and Commuter Rail tracks. It would be nice though if MassDOT would expand the HOV lanes on the Southeast Expressway down to at least the Squantum Street exit.
Both the SE Expwy and 93 from Canton.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bluecountry on July 05, 2022, 01:54:15 PM
Does anybody have the ADT for the Mass Pike?
I want to see the volume from 84 to 290, 495, 128.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on July 05, 2022, 07:15:23 PM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 05, 2022, 12:09:46 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on June 29, 2022, 10:37:05 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on June 29, 2022, 09:05:13 AM
Did MA-80 and MA-127 share drinks or trade personalities some time ago?

What I mean by this is that MA-80 travels north from Plymouth into Kingston but is signed east-west.  MA-127 travels east from Beverly into Manchester-by-the-Sea and Gloucester but is signed north-south.

Why!?

MA 80 is just weird in general. I don't get why it just dead ends at an unnumbered road in Plymouth rather than just following Samoset Street to end at MA 3A. As to MA 127, I'm guessing that because it runs parallel to MA 128, which is also signed north-south, that they just wanted it to match so that people wouldn't get confused by two parallel roads having different cardinal directions. Although I don't like how MA 127 basically does a fishhook in Gloucester nearly intersecting with itself.

Hanging end for MA 80. I've been down 80, and got the sense that it's quiet there.
80 really doesn't need to exist.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 05, 2022, 10:33:33 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 05, 2022, 07:15:23 PM
Quote from: CapeCodder on July 05, 2022, 12:09:46 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on June 29, 2022, 10:37:05 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on June 29, 2022, 09:05:13 AM
Did MA-80 and MA-127 share drinks or trade personalities some time ago?

What I mean by this is that MA-80 travels north from Plymouth into Kingston but is signed east-west.  MA-127 travels east from Beverly into Manchester-by-the-Sea and Gloucester but is signed north-south.

Why!?

MA 80 is just weird in general. I don't get why it just dead ends at an unnumbered road in Plymouth rather than just following Samoset Street to end at MA 3A. As to MA 127, I'm guessing that because it runs parallel to MA 128, which is also signed north-south, that they just wanted it to match so that people wouldn't get confused by two parallel roads having different cardinal directions. Although I don't like how MA 127 basically does a fishhook in Gloucester nearly intersecting with itself.

Hanging end for MA 80. I've been down 80, and got the sense that it's quiet there.
80 really doesn't need to exist.
Keep it. I would make it a north-south route and extend it to MA 3:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma80extmap.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 09, 2022, 03:27:09 PM
Still there!

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52200932518_85b630f71a_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on July 09, 2022, 04:14:59 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 09, 2022, 03:27:09 PM
Still there!

It is amazing how much older the signs look than the gantry they are on. 

It is also amazing how signage for 30 West disappears at the critical moments and unless you know what you are doing, you will probably end back up on Route 9.  The only assembly for the first turn is missing an arrow and has been for a while (and has even been carbon-copy replaced missing the arrow).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: highwaytuna on July 13, 2022, 07:18:13 PM
Pre-Big Dig map of Boston at the Boston Common (Beacon & Charles Streets), dated 1997. Note the old 90/93 interchange, Central Artery, and Leverett Circle. Interestingly, the Sumner and Callahan Tunnels are not shown.

(https://i.imgur.com/p4I2WiG.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on July 13, 2022, 08:26:17 PM
Quote from: highwaytuna on July 13, 2022, 07:18:13 PM
Pre-Big Dig map of Boston at the Boston Common (Beacon & Charles Streets), dated 1997. Note the old 90/93 interchange, Central Artery, and Leverett Circle. Interestingly, the Sumner and Callahan Tunnels are not shown.

(https://i.imgur.com/p4I2WiG.jpg)

No tunnels at all. The Ted was under construction/allowed some commercial vehicles by that time.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
Are these signs Mass DOT or RI DOT?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8948092,-71.3757905,3a,45.1y,219.35h,92.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZwrZvA5SHSYI1jgnNcZygQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

And what is the "rule of thumb" for exit signage close to state lines?  I've noticed Massachusetts has signed exits that are in CT and NH.  In the NH case, they're using the MA state shield!
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8769023,-70.8846704,3a,75y,46.63h,87.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFLsst4S4WWsEdtn1-W6QdA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on July 15, 2022, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
Are these signs Mass DOT or RI DOT?

Probably RI.  I don't see the telltale construction notations on the lower left-hand side of the signs that MA builds.  Also, MA hasn't used centered exit tabs in a very long time.

Quote from: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
And what is the "rule of thumb" for exit signage close to state lines?  I've noticed Massachusetts has signed exits that are in CT and NH.  In the NH case, they're using the MA state shield!

I've seen it done both ways, so if there's a rule somewhere, it doesn't appear to be enforced.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on July 15, 2022, 11:39:07 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 15, 2022, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
Are these signs Mass DOT or RI DOT?

Probably RI.  I don't see the telltale construction notations on the lower left-hand side of the signs that MA builds.  Also, MA hasn't used centered exit tabs in a very long time.

I thought those signs were MassDOT, based off a notation off of bob7374's Interstate 95 in Massachusetts Photo Gallery (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood):

Quote from: Interstate 95 in Massachusetts Photo GallerySIGN PLANS

Sign Plan Photos courtesy of  Charlene White at MassDOT:

The sign replacement project will update the exits signs for the first 2 Rhode Island exits which haven't been updated since the 1970s:


which also raises another question, since RIDOT JUST annouced they are finally changing the I-95 numbers to mile based numbers (http://www.dot.ri.gov/projects/ExitNumbers/) - if those signs mentioned above (may) be delayed with Exits 43/42 already fabricated, or if the signs will still have the old Exit 30/29 numbers and then overlaid with Exit 43/42 once RI's projects commences, based off of this note later down the page:

Quote from: Interstate 95 in Massachusetts Photo GalleryThe sign detail plans came with this interesting note: Is MassDOT planning to revive its Milepost Exit Conversion Project before the I-95 project is over? Or was this note that first appears with the sign plans for the Rhode Island exits due to the numbers possibly changing next year that was mistakenly carried over to all the Massachusetts exit plans?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on July 15, 2022, 12:44:17 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 15, 2022, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
Are these signs Mass DOT or RI DOT?

Probably RI.  I don't see the telltale construction notations on the lower left-hand side of the signs that MA builds.  Also, MA hasn't used centered exit tabs in a very long time.

Quote from: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
And what is the "rule of thumb" for exit signage close to state lines?  I've noticed Massachusetts has signed exits that are in CT and NH.  In the NH case, they're using the MA state shield!

I've seen it done both ways, so if there's a rule somewhere, it doesn't appear to be enforced.

Somehow Mass seems to end up signing other states' exits (the RI ones pictured; NH 107 [and NH Welcome Center] on I-95; CT's Wilsonville Rd. on I-395, CT 171 on I-84; US 5 on I-91).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 15, 2022, 12:55:42 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 15, 2022, 12:44:17 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 15, 2022, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
Are these signs Mass DOT or RI DOT?

Probably RI.  I don't see the telltale construction notations on the lower left-hand side of the signs that MA builds.  Also, MA hasn't used centered exit tabs in a very long time.

Quote from: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
And what is the "rule of thumb" for exit signage close to state lines?  I've noticed Massachusetts has signed exits that are in CT and NH.  In the NH case, they're using the MA state shield!

I've seen it done both ways, so if there's a rule somewhere, it doesn't appear to be enforced.

Somehow Mass seems to end up signing other states' exits (the RI ones pictured; NH 107 [and NH Welcome Center] on I-95; CT's Wilsonville Rd. on I-395, CT 171 on I-84; US 5 on I-91).

Because when RIDOT does it, you get RI shields for CT state routes, such as the one on I-95 in Hopkinton for Exit 93 in North Stonington.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 15, 2022, 12:59:52 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 15, 2022, 12:44:17 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 15, 2022, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
Are these signs Mass DOT or RI DOT?

Probably RI.  I don't see the telltale construction notations on the lower left-hand side of the signs that MA builds.  Also, MA hasn't used centered exit tabs in a very long time.

Quote from: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
And what is the "rule of thumb" for exit signage close to state lines?  I've noticed Massachusetts has signed exits that are in CT and NH.  In the NH case, they're using the MA state shield!

I've seen it done both ways, so if there's a rule somewhere, it doesn't appear to be enforced.

Somehow Mass seems to end up signing other states' exits (the RI ones pictured; NH 107 [and NH Welcome Center] on I-95; CT's Wilsonville Rd. on I-395, CT 171 on I-84; US 5 on I-91).
The I-91 one is necessary because the interchange happens a few hundred feet past the border.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on July 15, 2022, 01:46:03 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 15, 2022, 12:59:52 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 15, 2022, 12:44:17 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 15, 2022, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
Are these signs Mass DOT or RI DOT?

Probably RI.  I don't see the telltale construction notations on the lower left-hand side of the signs that MA builds.  Also, MA hasn't used centered exit tabs in a very long time.

Quote from: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
And what is the "rule of thumb" for exit signage close to state lines?  I've noticed Massachusetts has signed exits that are in CT and NH.  In the NH case, they're using the MA state shield!

I've seen it done both ways, so if there's a rule somewhere, it doesn't appear to be enforced.

Somehow Mass seems to end up signing other states' exits (the RI ones pictured; NH 107 [and NH Welcome Center] on I-95; CT's Wilsonville Rd. on I-395, CT 171 on I-84; US 5 on I-91).
The I-91 one is necessary because the interchange happens a few hundred feet past the border.

On 395 you get no more than 1/2 mile of advance notice for the first Mass exit even though Mass signs outside exits up to a mile away, and NH signs the MA 286/Welcome Center exit a mile out (with the current sign showing an oddball 2-digit width shield) while the closer advance is all Mass work while in NH.  It seems odd that Mass posts signs in NH for an exit right by the border, while RI lets Mass sign a RI exit.  Probably it's all about some agreement/payment vs. a blanket thing.  The famous Indiana button copy (now gone) well within Kentucky on US 41 NB is another example of where it was probably just as well to have the state where the exit actually is do the signage.  Otherwise we get RI shields for CT routes, MA shields for NH routes (i.e., 107).....
The RI 216 and 184 shields always irked me.  How hard is it to just put numerals in a rectangle?  They probably would claim that the only shield blanks they had were RI ones, but come on.......
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 15, 2022, 09:22:44 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 15, 2022, 01:46:03 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 15, 2022, 12:59:52 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 15, 2022, 12:44:17 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 15, 2022, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
Are these signs Mass DOT or RI DOT?

Probably RI.  I don't see the telltale construction notations on the lower left-hand side of the signs that MA builds.  Also, MA hasn't used centered exit tabs in a very long time.

Quote from: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
And what is the "rule of thumb" for exit signage close to state lines?  I've noticed Massachusetts has signed exits that are in CT and NH.  In the NH case, they're using the MA state shield!

I've seen it done both ways, so if there's a rule somewhere, it doesn't appear to be enforced.

Somehow Mass seems to end up signing other states' exits (the RI ones pictured; NH 107 [and NH Welcome Center] on I-95; CT's Wilsonville Rd. on I-395, CT 171 on I-84; US 5 on I-91).
The I-91 one is necessary because the interchange happens a few hundred feet past the border.

On 395 you get no more than 1/2 mile of advance notice for the first Mass exit even though Mass signs outside exits up to a mile away, and NH signs the MA 286/Welcome Center exit a mile out (with the current sign showing an oddball 2-digit width shield) while the closer advance is all Mass work while in NH.  It seems odd that Mass posts signs in NH for an exit right by the border, while RI lets Mass sign a RI exit.  Probably it's all about some agreement/payment vs. a blanket thing.  The famous Indiana button copy (now gone) well within Kentucky on US 41 NB is another example of where it was probably just as well to have the state where the exit actually is do the signage.  Otherwise we get RI shields for CT routes, MA shields for NH routes (i.e., 107).....
The RI 216 and 184 shields always irked me.  How hard is it to just put numerals in a rectangle?  They probably would claim that the only shield blanks they had were RI ones, but come on.......
The RI 216 one is somewhat protected by the fact that the road crosses back into RI less than a mile south of there.  Route 184 (as Route 84) hasn't crossed into RI since I-95 was built and dead ended New London Turnpike a few hundred feet into RI.  It's called Extension 184 on Google Maps, but CT 184 ends at CT 216.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on July 16, 2022, 12:28:45 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 15, 2022, 09:22:44 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 15, 2022, 01:46:03 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 15, 2022, 12:59:52 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 15, 2022, 12:44:17 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 15, 2022, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
Are these signs Mass DOT or RI DOT?

Probably RI.  I don't see the telltale construction notations on the lower left-hand side of the signs that MA builds.  Also, MA hasn't used centered exit tabs in a very long time.

Quote from: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
And what is the "rule of thumb" for exit signage close to state lines?  I've noticed Massachusetts has signed exits that are in CT and NH.  In the NH case, they're using the MA state shield!

I've seen it done both ways, so if there's a rule somewhere, it doesn't appear to be enforced.

Somehow Mass seems to end up signing other states' exits (the RI ones pictured; NH 107 [and NH Welcome Center] on I-95; CT's Wilsonville Rd. on I-395, CT 171 on I-84; US 5 on I-91).
The I-91 one is necessary because the interchange happens a few hundred feet past the border.

On 395 you get no more than 1/2 mile of advance notice for the first Mass exit even though Mass signs outside exits up to a mile away, and NH signs the MA 286/Welcome Center exit a mile out (with the current sign showing an oddball 2-digit width shield) while the closer advance is all Mass work while in NH.  It seems odd that Mass posts signs in NH for an exit right by the border, while RI lets Mass sign a RI exit.  Probably it's all about some agreement/payment vs. a blanket thing.  The famous Indiana button copy (now gone) well within Kentucky on US 41 NB is another example of where it was probably just as well to have the state where the exit actually is do the signage.  Otherwise we get RI shields for CT routes, MA shields for NH routes (i.e., 107).....
The RI 216 and 184 shields always irked me.  How hard is it to just put numerals in a rectangle?  They probably would claim that the only shield blanks they had were RI ones, but come on.......
The RI 216 one is somewhat protected by the fact that the road crosses back into RI less than a mile south of there.  Route 184 (as Route 84) hasn't crossed into RI since I-95 was built and dead ended New London Turnpike a few hundred feet into RI.  It's called Extension 184 on Google Maps, but CT 184 ends at CT 216.
My gosh, the sign's been there since at least 2007 per Google Maps and I never noticed the RI issue. I have the OLD version up:
(https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ri/i-95/s93.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on July 19, 2022, 10:53:57 AM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on July 15, 2022, 11:39:07 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 15, 2022, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
Are these signs Mass DOT or RI DOT?

Probably RI.  I don't see the telltale construction notations on the lower left-hand side of the signs that MA builds.  Also, MA hasn't used centered exit tabs in a very long time.

I thought those signs were MassDOT, based off a notation off of bob7374's Interstate 95 in Massachusetts Photo Gallery (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#attleboronorwood):

Quote from: Interstate 95 in Massachusetts Photo GallerySIGN PLANS

Sign Plan Photos courtesy of  Charlene White at MassDOT:

The sign replacement project will update the exits signs for the first 2 Rhode Island exits which haven't been updated since the 1970s:


which also raises another question, since RIDOT JUST annouced they are finally changing the I-95 numbers to mile based numbers (http://www.dot.ri.gov/projects/ExitNumbers/) - if those signs mentioned above (may) be delayed with Exits 43/42 already fabricated, or if the signs will still have the old Exit 30/29 numbers and then overlaid with Exit 43/42 once RI's projects commences, based off of this note later down the page:

Quote from: Interstate 95 in Massachusetts Photo GalleryThe sign detail plans came with this interesting note: Is MassDOT planning to revive its Milepost Exit Conversion Project before the I-95 project is over? Or was this note that first appears with the sign plans for the Rhode Island exits due to the numbers possibly changing next year that was mistakenly carried over to all the Massachusetts exit plans?


The signs and structure in question were installed by MassDPW in the mid 1970s - the location is right at the MA/RI border.  Because of this, the designer of the 2000 Attleboro to Canton I-95 sign replacement project erroneously presumed the signs were RIDOT, and not MassHighway, and called for the panels and structure to be retained under that project.  Neither MassHighway HQ or District staff caught the error at that time.

Note that the typical Massachusetts panel identification notation found in the lower left corner of overhead BGS panels wasn't introduced until the late 1980s.

The "verify exit numbers prior to fabrication note" is included on the I-95 project plans because, at the time the project was designed and let for bids, it was still uncertain when MassDOT would convert to milepost-based numbers - the original 2016 project having been cancelled.  As such, the original design showed sequential numbers, but these were changed to the present milepost numbers during sign fabrication.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bluecountry on July 20, 2022, 10:28:50 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 05, 2022, 01:54:15 PM
Does anybody have the ADT for the Mass Pike?
I want to see the volume from 84 to 290, 495, 128.
Bump?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on July 20, 2022, 01:58:34 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 19, 2022, 10:53:57 AM
The "verify exit numbers prior to fabrication note" is included on the I-95 project plans because, at the time the project was designed and let for bids, it was still uncertain when MassDOT would convert to milepost-based numbers - the original 2016 project having been cancelled.  As such, the original design showed sequential numbers, but these were changed to the present milepost numbers during sign fabrication.

True, almost forgot about the original 2016 project having been cancelled. Even with that message (and the original intent) - would that also apply to the RIDOT numbering as well on 95? I would imagine RIDOT would have to coordinate with MassDOT about those two signs once these numbers on RI I-95 are in place...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on July 21, 2022, 08:02:21 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
Are these signs Mass DOT or RI DOT?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8948092,-71.3757905,3a,45.1y,219.35h,92.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZwrZvA5SHSYI1jgnNcZygQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

RIP to these signs with center exit tabs.

I traveled this stretch of I-95 yesterday.  These signs have been taken down and replaced with two separate single-sign posts.  Right after exit 1 is a 1-mile sign for RI exit 29 (soon to be renumbered to 42), which uses a MA 114 shield.  Then right before the border (where the old signs stood) is an "at-exit" sign (including an arrow) for RI exit 30 (soon to become exit 43).

These are definitely Mass DOT signs from the look of them, and they're fabricated with the soon-to-be-obsolete exit numbers.   :confused: :confused: :confused:
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on July 21, 2022, 10:24:24 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 21, 2022, 08:02:21 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
Are these signs Mass DOT or RI DOT?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8948092,-71.3757905,3a,45.1y,219.35h,92.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZwrZvA5SHSYI1jgnNcZygQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

RIP to these signs with center exit tabs.

I traveled this stretch of I-95 yesterday.  These signs have been taken down and replaced with two separate single-sign posts.  Right after exit 1 is a 1-mile sign for RI exit 29 (soon to be renumbered to 42), which uses a MA 114 shield.  Then right before the border (where the old signs stood) is an "at-exit" sign (including an arrow) for RI exit 30 (soon to become exit 43).

These are definitely Mass DOT signs from the look of them, and they're fabricated with the soon-to-be-obsolete exit numbers.   :confused: :confused: :confused:

The burning question is whether RIDOT's contractor will be thorough enough to overlay numbers on new signs in MA when updating RI numbering. You would hope so, since I believe it is the same contractor, but maybe don't bet on it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 21, 2022, 11:43:03 AM
Quote from: spooky on July 21, 2022, 10:24:24 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 21, 2022, 08:02:21 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 15, 2022, 08:59:12 AM
Are these signs Mass DOT or RI DOT?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8948092,-71.3757905,3a,45.1y,219.35h,92.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZwrZvA5SHSYI1jgnNcZygQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

RIP to these signs with center exit tabs.

I traveled this stretch of I-95 yesterday.  These signs have been taken down and replaced with two separate single-sign posts.  Right after exit 1 is a 1-mile sign for RI exit 29 (soon to be renumbered to 42), which uses a MA 114 shield.  Then right before the border (where the old signs stood) is an "at-exit" sign (including an arrow) for RI exit 30 (soon to become exit 43).

These are definitely Mass DOT signs from the look of them, and they're fabricated with the soon-to-be-obsolete exit numbers.   :confused: :confused: :confused:

The burning question is whether RIDOT's contractor will be thorough enough to overlay numbers on new signs in MA when updating RI numbering. You would hope so, since I believe it is the same contractor, but maybe don't bet on it.
They are the same contractor, Liddell Bros. Apparently MassDOT didn't know about the I-95 exit renumbering in RI when the signs were being fabricated, since, as the plans above note, the contractor was supposed to contact them before installing the numbers on the new signs. Will be interesting to see how quickly the numbers on the MA signs change after July 31.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on July 22, 2022, 03:31:50 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 05, 2022, 01:54:15 PM
Does anybody have the ADT for the Mass Pike?
I want to see the volume from 84 to 290, 495, 128.

Maybe try MassDOT's interactive map (https://mhd.public.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Mhd&mod= )? Had to pull some turning movement counts earlier today - the ones on the Mass. Pike are at the gantries from 2021.

On an unreleted note, is that 1-mile advance sign for Exit 90 (old 60) (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8951998,-70.8800275,3a,20.6y,189.69h,91.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0jJgDA2vYIvcw2UGvcrkEw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0jJgDA2vYIvcw2UGvcrkEw%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D244.09366%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) on I-95 SB in Seebrook NH a NHDOT or a MassDOT sign? The previous one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.895201,-70.8799826,3a,15y,190.37h,90.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDt0tGw8DtaOs_0i5WbDnxQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) looked like it was a NHDOT-spec'd sign but I'm not sure who put up the new sign with Exit 1 was reconstucted.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on July 22, 2022, 04:43:45 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on July 22, 2022, 03:31:50 PM
On an unreleted note, is that 1-mile advance sign for Exit 90 (old 60) (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8951998,-70.8800275,3a,20.6y,189.69h,91.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0jJgDA2vYIvcw2UGvcrkEw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0jJgDA2vYIvcw2UGvcrkEw%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D244.09366%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) on I-95 SB in Seebrook NH a NHDOT or a MassDOT sign? The previous one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.895201,-70.8799826,3a,15y,190.37h,90.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDt0tGw8DtaOs_0i5WbDnxQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) looked like it was a NHDOT-spec'd sign but I'm not sure who put up the new sign with Exit 1 was reconstucted.

That definitely looks like a NHDOT install. It looks like the numbers on the MA 286 shield are squished together which is how 3 digit state routes are signed in New Hampshire. The ones further down for Exit 90 and Exit 89 just before the state line are MassDOT though.
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 23, 2022, 04:21:48 PM
Is there a regular interval for cleaning the signs in the Big Dig tunnels, or is it just done as needed? So many of the overhead signs are so caked with soot at this point that they are barely visible even when lighted. Reflectivity is all but gone.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on July 24, 2022, 08:50:20 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 23, 2022, 04:21:48 PM
Is there a regular interval for cleaning the signs in the Big Dig tunnels, or is it just done as needed? So many of the overhead signs are so caked with soot at this point that they are barely visible even went lighted. Reflectivity is all but gone.

I am guessing the answer is no on both counts given they've been caked in crud for a while now.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on July 25, 2022, 09:24:55 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 23, 2022, 04:21:48 PM
Is there a regular interval for cleaning the signs in the Big Dig tunnels, or is it just done as needed? So many of the overhead signs are so caked with soot at this point that they are barely visible even when lighted. Reflectivity is all but gone.

There was a schedule for such cleanings, I think once a month with alternating months by direction; however that was a number of years ago, and knowing MassDOT, they likely dropped the routine.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on July 25, 2022, 11:30:33 AM
Quote from: spooky on July 25, 2022, 09:24:55 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 23, 2022, 04:21:48 PM
Is there a regular interval for cleaning the signs in the Big Dig tunnels, or is it just done as needed? So many of the overhead signs are so caked with soot at this point that they are barely visible even when lighted. Reflectivity is all but gone.

There was a schedule for such cleanings, I think once a month with alternating months by direction; however that was a number of years ago, and knowing MassDOT, they likely dropped the routine.
It's hard to imagine it was that often.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 25, 2022, 12:47:06 PM
What is the significance of this VMS on the Mass Pike westbound before Exit 3 (former Exit 1)?
Its the only one of this design that I've ever seen.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3068695,-73.3493313,3a,15.4y,313.49h,93.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-MBpopKlD9Smvjatf_ag1g!2e0!5s20220601T000000!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3068695,-73.3493313,3a,15.4y,313.49h,93.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-MBpopKlD9Smvjatf_ag1g!2e0!5s20220601T000000!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on July 25, 2022, 01:12:19 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 25, 2022, 12:47:06 PM
What is the significance of this VMS on the Mass Pike westbound before Exit 3 (former Exit 1)?
Its the only one of this design that I've ever seen.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3068695,-73.3493313,3a,15.4y,313.49h,93.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-MBpopKlD9Smvjatf_ag1g!2e0!5s20220601T000000!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3068695,-73.3493313,3a,15.4y,313.49h,93.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-MBpopKlD9Smvjatf_ag1g!2e0!5s20220601T000000!7i16384!8i8192)

I'm kind of surprised it wasn't an overhead VMS as MassDOT seems to be obsessed with overhead signs and VMSs. Could it be from when the Pike was still maintained by the former Turnpike Authority since most of the signs from before the 2015-2020 sign replacement project were pre-2009 ground mount?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on July 25, 2022, 05:34:10 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 25, 2022, 12:47:06 PM
What is the significance of this VMS on the Mass Pike westbound before Exit 3 (former Exit 1)?
Its the only one of this design that I've ever seen.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3068695,-73.3493313,3a,15.4y,313.49h,93.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-MBpopKlD9Smvjatf_ag1g!2e0!5s20220601T000000!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3068695,-73.3493313,3a,15.4y,313.49h,93.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-MBpopKlD9Smvjatf_ag1g!2e0!5s20220601T000000!7i16384!8i8192)

Could it either have been warning backups for the toll plaza (surrender ticket/pay toll), or tied into the NY Thruway system for any alerts further west into New York?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DrSmith on July 25, 2022, 06:13:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 25, 2022, 11:30:33 AM
Quote from: spooky on July 25, 2022, 09:24:55 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 23, 2022, 04:21:48 PM
Is there a regular interval for cleaning the signs in the Big Dig tunnels, or is it just done as needed? So many of the overhead signs are so caked with soot at this point that they are barely visible even when lighted. Reflectivity is all but gone.

There was a schedule for such cleanings, I think once a month with alternating months by direction; however that was a number of years ago, and knowing MassDOT, they likely dropped the routine.
It's hard to imagine it was that often.

The signs in the Pru tunnel on the Pike are unreadable, except for a bright new exit number that glows, or at least is how it was the last time I was through there a few months ago.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 25, 2022, 09:04:54 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 25, 2022, 05:34:10 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 25, 2022, 12:47:06 PM
What is the significance of this VMS on the Mass Pike westbound before Exit 3 (former Exit 1)?
Its the only one of this design that I've ever seen.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3068695,-73.3493313,3a,15.4y,313.49h,93.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-MBpopKlD9Smvjatf_ag1g!2e0!5s20220601T000000!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3068695,-73.3493313,3a,15.4y,313.49h,93.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-MBpopKlD9Smvjatf_ag1g!2e0!5s20220601T000000!7i16384!8i8192)

Could it either have been warning backups for the toll plaza (surrender ticket/pay toll), or tied into the NY Thruway system for any alerts further west into New York?
I think it's one of those old front-lit VMSs where there are little square elements that can flip between black and green, like the old ConnDOT VMSs.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jpdailey14 on July 26, 2022, 08:45:57 AM
I remember seeing it lit up once on a trip west to New York in a snowstorm back in the late 90s/early 2000s.  It was some sort of caution of weather conditions approaching the toll plaza.

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 25, 2022, 12:47:06 PM
What is the significance of this VMS on the Mass Pike westbound before Exit 3 (former Exit 1)?
Its the only one of this design that I've ever seen.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3068695,-73.3493313,3a,15.4y,313.49h,93.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-MBpopKlD9Smvjatf_ag1g!2e0!5s20220601T000000!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3068695,-73.3493313,3a,15.4y,313.49h,93.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-MBpopKlD9Smvjatf_ag1g!2e0!5s20220601T000000!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 04, 2022, 10:34:06 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on July 25, 2022, 01:12:19 PM

I’m kind of surprised it wasn’t an overhead VMS as MassDOT seems to be obsessed with overhead signs and VMSs. Could it be from when the Pike was still maintained by the former Turnpike Authority since most of the signs from before the 2015-2020 sign replacement project were pre-2009 ground mount?

Yes, this VMS panel was installed by the Turnpike Authority well before they were absorbed by MassDOT.  I believe it was provided as part of a RWIS (Roadway Weather Information System) installation, but I'm not 100% certain.  And, although they are few and far between, MassDOT has installed similar ground-mounted CMS panels on some highways (I-93 south just after the New Hampshire state line immediately comes to mind).  Such panels are provided in those locations where a full overhead CMS panel is deemed to not be practical because commercial power is not available, would not be cost effective to provide, or the installation would negatively impact environmental resource areas such as wetlands.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on August 06, 2022, 01:30:03 AM
Did they drop the speed limit on parts of MA 24 from 65 to 60. Was stunned when I saw 60 on MA 24, thought that was only on MA 3.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on August 06, 2022, 06:49:23 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 06, 2022, 01:30:03 AM
Did they drop the speed limit on parts of MA 24 from 65 to 60. Was stunned when I saw 60 on MA 24, thought that was only on MA 3.

I hadn't heard of that. 60 MPH speed limits are uncommon in MA. I wonder if traffic volume and design of both MA-3 and MA-24 warrant 60 MPH instead of 55 or 65.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on August 06, 2022, 07:47:02 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 06, 2022, 01:30:03 AM
Did they drop the speed limit on parts of MA 24 from 65 to 60. Was stunned when I saw 60 on MA 24, thought that was only on MA 3.

Where on 24? I only recall 65 and maybe some southern portions are briefly 55. Did you check Street View?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on August 06, 2022, 09:34:34 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on August 06, 2022, 07:47:02 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 06, 2022, 01:30:03 AM
Did they drop the speed limit on parts of MA 24 from 65 to 60. Was stunned when I saw 60 on MA 24, thought that was only on MA 3.

Where on 24? I only recall 65 and maybe some southern portions are briefly 55. Did you check Street View?
Street view says 65, it was in Fall River just north of I-195. It was a couple of weeks ago. Might it have been a construction zone?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on August 09, 2022, 12:55:33 PM
An "exhausted" sign structure came toppling down on I-190 SB this morning:
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/highway-sign-worcester-190/?fbclid=IwAR3QQMyCudvp4sntwQoTdWuJ_eU-GdTq1b_xo8Sa5ynPJXj0titYR_qLjgI
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 10, 2022, 11:37:20 AM
I wonder how the sign fell over on Interstate 190? I suppose it is too soon to know for sure. In an unrelated matter, according to the Interstate 190 (MA) page at bostonroads.com, there were conceptual plans in the 1970's to extend 190 to Manchester, NH (possibly to end at the Interstate 293/NH 101/Everett Turnpike interchange). Nothing ever came of this proposal, but if it had been constructed (details: http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/I-190_MA/), would it have been a boon or a boondoggle? If you ask me, it would have been a road extension worthy of Fictional Highways.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on August 15, 2022, 11:16:10 AM
Why was only the part of MA 25 between MA 24 and I-195 only upgraded to become I-495?

Wouldn't it have made more sense to extend I-495 the entire length of MA 25?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on August 15, 2022, 11:28:18 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 15, 2022, 11:16:10 AM
Why was only the part of MA 25 between MA 24 and I-195 only upgraded to become I-495?

Wouldn't it have made more sense to extend I-495 the entire length of MA 25?

I-495 begins and ends at an interstate. It would not if it extended to the Bourne Bridge.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on August 15, 2022, 11:31:30 AM
So?  Interstates can end at other roads. Look at I-195 in NJ.

I-190 in SD.
I-35 In Laredo, TX.


Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on August 15, 2022, 12:40:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 15, 2022, 11:31:30 AM
So?  Interstates can end at other roads. Look at I-195 in NJ.

I-190 in SD.
I-35 In Laredo, TX.


I-190 in Mass, I-384 in CT, and I-393 in NH are other nearby examples of ending without meeting another Interstate.  If there was worry about 495 ending alone with an even first digit, they could have extended 195 to the bridge instead (although doing so would have it TOTSO westbound) but it would still be logical to extend an Interstate number instead of 25 still being left over.

The grand champion is probably I-495 NY which ends at a non-Interstate and probably always will.  Even with an even first digit.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on August 15, 2022, 02:59:35 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 15, 2022, 11:31:30 AM
So?  Interstates can end at other roads. Look at I-195 in NJ.

I-190 in SD.
I-35 In Laredo, TX.




You asked why, that's probably the reason why. I do think it would make more sense to extend I-495 and eliminate MA 25.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 15, 2022, 06:34:15 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on August 15, 2022, 12:40:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 15, 2022, 11:31:30 AM
So?  Interstates can end at other roads. Look at I-195 in NJ.

I-190 in SD.
I-35 In Laredo, TX.


I-190 in Mass, I-384 in CT, and I-393 in NH are other nearby examples of ending without meeting another Interstate.  If there was worry about 495 ending alone with an even first digit, they could have extended 195 to the bridge instead (although doing so would have it TOTSO westbound) but it would still be logical to extend an Interstate number instead of 25 still being left over.

The grand champion is probably I-495 NY which ends at a non-Interstate and probably always will.  Even with an even first digit.

Seems more odd 3di's are open ended than even ones, with I-495 being a lone exception.  It explains why I-691 ends at its parent rather than just extending to the end of the expressway.  Also explains why I-690 and I-890 become state routes at their western junctions with their parent; but I-390, I-790, I-990, each have an end that doesn't end at an interstate (or in the case of I-787, it ends at a non-interstate and becomes a state route).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 15, 2022, 06:36:07 PM
I-390 becomes NY 390 at I-490 so I-390 does end at an interstate on both ends.   :nod: 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on August 16, 2022, 01:08:29 PM
Is there a rule that a 3-digit Interstate starting with an even number *must* end at another Interstate highway?

And is there also a rule that a 3-digit Interstate starting with an odd number is *forbidden* from having both its ends at Interstate highways?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on August 16, 2022, 01:14:51 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on August 16, 2022, 01:08:29 PM
Is there a rule that a 3-digit Interstate starting with an even number *must* end at another Interstate highway?

And is there also a rule that a 3-digit Interstate starting with an odd number is *forbidden* from having both its ends at Interstate highways?

This is often the standard for 3dis yes. Although some do break the rules like I-520 in GA/SC or I-495 in New York.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 16, 2022, 05:37:58 PM
What about Interstate 540 in North Carolina? True, the portion from Exit 26 to Exit 69 is (or will be) NC 540, but I think this one applies to the situation.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on August 17, 2022, 02:53:59 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on August 16, 2022, 01:14:51 PM
This is often the standard for 3dis yes. Although some do break the rules like I-520 in GA/SC or I-495 in New York.

Then I would extend I-195 to the Bourne Bridge, and have MA 25 replace MA 28 on the Cape from Falmouth to Orleans, signing it east-west.  Another route number could be used for MA 28 from Falmouth to the Bourne Bridge (signed north-south).

I would replace I-395 in CT/MA and I-290 with I-695, which would also eliminate the exit number/dual milepost confusion on I-290.  But what to do with I-190?  Give it a different route number, like I-595?  If it's a 3-di Interstate, it doesn't meet its parent.  Maybe assign it a new MA state route number.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on August 17, 2022, 09:47:06 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 15, 2022, 11:16:10 AM
Why was only the part of MA 25 between MA 24 and I-195 only upgraded to become I-495?

Wouldn't it have made more sense to extend I-495 the entire length of MA 25?
One thing to keep in mind.  Prior to 1988, MA 25 ended about 1 mile beyond I-195 in Wareham at US 6/MA 28.  When it was decided to have I-495 take over MA 25 from MA 24 to I-195 during the late 70s (after the extension between I-95 & MA 24 was completed circa 1982); many believed that the eastern extension of MA 25 to the Bourne Bridge would never happen.  How the extension would go through/around the cranberry bogs Grazing Fields Farm was the main issue that delayed the extension.  One early proposal that never came to fruition had MA 25 extend all the way to MA 3 in Plymouth.

Quote from: kramie13 on August 17, 2022, 02:53:59 PM
Then I would extend I-195 to the Bourne Bridge, and have MA 25 replace MA 28 on the Cape from Falmouth to Orleans, signing it east-west.  Another route number could be used for MA 28 from Falmouth to the Bourne Bridge (signed north-south).

I would replace I-395 in CT/MA and I-290 with I-695, which would also eliminate the exit number/dual milepost confusion on I-290.  But what to do with I-190?  Give it a different route number, like I-595?  If it's a 3-di Interstate, it doesn't meet its parent.  Maybe assign it a new MA state route number.
While noteworthy, the above is clearly Fictional territory.  :biggrin: Nonetheless, if I-290/395 became I-695; I would simply redesignate I-190 as I-395.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on August 17, 2022, 10:06:59 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 17, 2022, 09:47:06 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 15, 2022, 11:16:10 AM
Why was only the part of MA 25 between MA 24 and I-195 only upgraded to become I-495?

Wouldn't it have made more sense to extend I-495 the entire length of MA 25?
One thing to keep in mind.  Prior to 1988, MA 25 ended about 1 mile beyond I-195 in Wareham at US 6/MA 28.  When it was decided to have I-495 take over MA 25 from MA 24 to I-195 during the late 70s (after the extension between I-95 & MA 24 was completed circa 1982); many believed that the eastern extension of MA 25 to the Bourne Bridge would never happen.  How the extension would go through/around the cranberry bogs was the main issue that delayed the extension.  One early proposal that never came to fruition had MA 25 extend all the way to MA 3 in Plymouth.

Quote from: kramie13 on August 17, 2022, 02:53:59 PM
Then I would extend I-195 to the Bourne Bridge, and have MA 25 replace MA 28 on the Cape from Falmouth to Orleans, signing it east-west.  Another route number could be used for MA 28 from Falmouth to the Bourne Bridge (signed north-south).

I would replace I-395 in CT/MA and I-290 with I-695, which would also eliminate the exit number/dual milepost confusion on I-290.  But what to do with I-190?  Give it a different route number, like I-595?  If it's a 3-di Interstate, it doesn't meet its parent.  Maybe assign it a new MA state route number.
While noteworthy, the above is clearly Fictional territory.  :biggrin: Nonetheless, if I-290/395 became I-695; I would simply redesignate I-190 as I-395.

This is one reason why it took so long:

https://www.wgbh.org/news/2017/10/02/local-news/how-grazing-fields-farm-changed-how-we-build-highways
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on August 17, 2022, 10:53:40 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on August 17, 2022, 02:53:59 PM
Then I would extend I-195 to the Bourne Bridge, and have MA 25 replace MA 28 on the Cape from Falmouth to Orleans, signing it east-west.  Another route number could be used for MA 28 from Falmouth to the Bourne Bridge (signed north-south).

I give up: what would be gained by renumbering 28?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on August 18, 2022, 07:55:21 AM
Quote from: pderocco on August 17, 2022, 10:53:40 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on August 17, 2022, 02:53:59 PM
Then I would extend I-195 to the Bourne Bridge, and have MA 25 replace MA 28 on the Cape from Falmouth to Orleans, signing it east-west.  Another route number could be used for MA 28 from Falmouth to the Bourne Bridge (signed north-south).

I give up: what would be gained by renumbering 28?

Starting from US 6 in Orleans, the first ten miles of 28 go south, then the the next thirty or so go west, all while the route is telling you you're going north. It's a solid candidate for renumbering given that.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: wytout on August 18, 2022, 09:53:13 AM
Does anyone know why there is concurrent mileage signing of I-395 and I-290 for I-290's entire length, when the roads don't overlap?

https://flic.kr/p/2nF6w6R
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 18, 2022, 10:17:37 AM
Quote from: wytout on August 18, 2022, 09:53:13 AM
Does anyone know why there is concurrent mileage signing of I-395 and I-290 for I-290's entire length, when the roads don't overlap?

https://flic.kr/p/2nF6w6R

It was the only way MassDOT could continue I-395's exit numbers in a mileage based system.  MassDOT wanted to continue the tradition.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on August 18, 2022, 12:56:46 PM
^ I wouldn't say it's the only way.  I still don't get why they couldn't just have I-290 continue I-395's mileage.  It's not like there aren't plenty of other examples of such things around the country.  For a state that was willing to fudge numbers and not convert certain sections of roads, choosing this as the thing they wanted to be obstinate about is odd - especially since they still had to fudge I-395's mileage by a couple tenths of a mile or so to get it to line up with I-290's.

I wouldn't be surprised if the idea of absorbing I-290 into I-395 is already a done deal, and MassDOT just figured they needed to prime the pump a little to get the public to accept it.  It would explain why they decided to handle this in the most confusing way possible.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on August 18, 2022, 02:39:20 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on August 09, 2022, 12:55:33 PMAn "exhausted" sign structure came toppling down on I-190 SB this morning:
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/highway-sign-worcester-190/?fbclid=IwAR3QQMyCudvp4sntwQoTdWuJ_eU-GdTq1b_xo8Sa5ynPJXj0titYR_qLjgI

They figured out why it came down.  The anchor bolts holding the upright to the concrete pad broke.  The failure prompted a review of all signs on 190, and they supposedly found one more they need to take down, for the same reason.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on August 18, 2022, 04:15:11 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 18, 2022, 12:56:46 PM
^ I wouldn't say it's the only way.  I still don't get why they couldn't just have I-290 continue I-395's mileage.  It's not like there aren't plenty of other examples of such things around the country.  For a state that was willing to fudge numbers and not convert certain sections of roads, choosing this as the thing they wanted to be obstinate about is odd - especially since they still had to fudge I-395's mileage by a couple tenths of a mile or so to get it to line up with I-290's.

I wouldn't be surprised if the idea of absorbing I-290 into I-395 is already a done deal, and MassDOT just figured they needed to prime the pump a little to get the public to accept it.  It would explain why they decided to handle this in the most confusing way possible.

They indeed chose the worst of all the options.  290 could have begun at the state line (not unprecedented) so as to have the same mile posts as 395 all along, or 290 could just start at a nonzero mileage post (like I-17) but instead they did what they did.  It seems that eliminating 290 is probably the plan and it is being excruciatingly slow-walked.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on August 19, 2022, 07:44:40 AM
https://www.wcvb.com/article/unprecedented-30-day-shutdown-of-mbtas-orange-line-begins-friday-night/40939102

Don't know if anyone outside of the state has heard of this news, but there will be road chaos around Boston for a month as the MBTA Orange Line goes into a complete shutdown ordered by the feds.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on August 19, 2022, 07:46:07 AM
Are they replacing it with buses (as they typically do for closures on short segments) or not?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on August 19, 2022, 08:53:06 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 19, 2022, 07:46:07 AM
Are they replacing it with buses (as they typically do for closures on short segments) or not?

Shuttle buses are being used. But it's not necessarily easier because they will add to the already terrible congestion on local roads, and will add more time to people's commutes; riders and non-riders alike.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on August 22, 2022, 03:27:38 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on August 19, 2022, 08:53:06 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 19, 2022, 07:46:07 AM
Are they replacing it with buses (as they typically do for closures on short segments) or not?

Shuttle buses are being used. But it's not necessarily easier because they will add to the already terrible congestion on local roads, and will add more time to people's commutes; riders and non-riders alike.

Shuttle buses are not the only remediations.  Anyone with an electronic fare card (usually used on subway lines) can get a free ride on commuter rail, some of whose routes parallel the Orange Line and even share a few stations.  Boston's Bikeshare system is offering free bicycle rentals for the time of the shutdown.  Some local roads that will handle the shuttle buses are being reconfigured with dedicated bus lanes.

But...alongside the Orange Line shutdown, the Green Line is being shuttered beginning today between Government Center and Union Square/Somerville, scheduled to reopen on the same day as the Orange Line (9/19).  That line serves much of the same geographic area as the Orange Line in Boston's northern suburbs.  The MBTA claims it needs the Green Line closure to complete the final leg of the extension into Medford.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on August 22, 2022, 04:34:57 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on August 22, 2022, 03:27:38 PM
The MBTA claims it needs the Green Line closure to complete the final leg of the extension into Medford.

Does the MBTA really need to close the Government Center - Haymarket - North Station segment of the Green Line in order to extend it to Medford?  I don't think it does, since it's below ground.   If anyone knows why these Green Line stations (paralleling the Orange Line) are also shut down, that would be very useful to know.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on August 22, 2022, 10:36:55 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on August 22, 2022, 04:34:57 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on August 22, 2022, 03:27:38 PM
The MBTA claims it needs the Green Line closure to complete the final leg of the extension into Medford.

Does the MBTA really need to close the Government Center - Haymarket - North Station segment of the Green Line in order to extend it to Medford?  I don't think it does, since it's below ground.   If anyone knows why these Green Line stations (paralleling the Orange Line) are also shut down, that would be very useful to know.

The reason they are shutting down the Government Center to North Station segment of the Green Line is so a contractor can finish demolishing the existing Government Center Garage, which sits above the Haymarket Green, Orange Line, and bus stations.  Because ot the location and structural makeup of the garage - parts of which impact the Green and Orange Line tunnels, they can't use traditional controlled demolition methods on the garage.  This is the same garage that a worker was killed at back on March 26th when a portion of the structure being removed fell underneath him.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on August 23, 2022, 05:24:34 AM
Quote from: roadman on August 22, 2022, 10:36:55 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on August 22, 2022, 04:34:57 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on August 22, 2022, 03:27:38 PM
The MBTA claims it needs the Green Line closure to complete the final leg of the extension into Medford.

Does the MBTA really need to close the Government Center - Haymarket - North Station segment of the Green Line in order to extend it to Medford?  I don't think it does, since it's below ground.   If anyone knows why these Green Line stations (paralleling the Orange Line) are also shut down, that would be very useful to know.

The reason they are shutting down the Government Center to North Station segment of the Green Line is so a contractor can finish demolishing the existing Government Center Garage, which sits above the Haymarket Green, Orange Line, and bus stations.  Because ot the location and structural makeup of the garage - parts of which impact the Green and Orange Line tunnels, they can't use traditional controlled demolition methods on the garage.  This is the same garage that a worker was killed at back on March 26th when a portion of the structure being removed fell underneath him.

IIRC, the T also closed those areas of the Green/Orange lines to inspect the tunnels nearest the Garage to check for damage. That was after the tragic death of the worker but before the decision to shut the affected lines.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on September 01, 2022, 01:33:08 PM
This seems to happen every year around this time:

https://www.universalhub.com/2022/winna-winna-u-haul-dinna
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on September 06, 2022, 03:22:30 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on September 01, 2022, 01:33:08 PM
This seems to happen every year around this time:

https://www.universalhub.com/2022/winna-winna-u-haul-dinna

Note the use of the term "storrowed" on the Universal Hub page.  Yes, it happens so often that they made the name of Storrow Drive into a verb.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on September 06, 2022, 04:08:29 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on September 06, 2022, 03:22:30 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on September 01, 2022, 01:33:08 PM
This seems to happen every year around this time:

https://www.universalhub.com/2022/winna-winna-u-haul-dinna

Note the use of the term "storrowed" on the Universal Hub page.  Yes, it happens so often that they made the name of Storrow Drive into a verb.

It's a rite of passage of sorts for the uninitiated, and now there;s this:

https://whdh.com/news/local-toy-company-makes-storrowed-inspired-toy-ornament/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on September 11, 2022, 06:39:06 PM
So, Mass just can't seem to standardize on its state route shield reassurance markers.  I observed these on MA 16 near Webster/Douglas over the weekend:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52349171072_dfcc8ebbb0_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nKVbK3)20220910_120106 (https://flic.kr/p/2nKVbK3) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Okay, well, this isn't terrible.  The large numerals is a little much.

But then, we get to this....

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52349170697_a4e8c2c37a_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nKVbCz)20220910_155818 (https://flic.kr/p/2nKVbCz) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Now, I can see perhaps this being on a town road pointing the way to the state route, but in use as a reassurance shield right on a state route?  Now, that's just lazy!  And this isn't a one-off, either... there's another heading east.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on September 11, 2022, 07:15:24 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 11, 2022, 06:39:06 PM
So, Mass just can't seem to standardize on its state route shield reassurance markers.  I observed these on MA 16 near Webster/Douglas over the weekend:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52349171072_dfcc8ebbb0_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nKVbK3)20220910_120106 (https://flic.kr/p/2nKVbK3) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Okay, well, this isn't terrible.  The large numerals is a little much.

But then, we get to this....

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52349170697_a4e8c2c37a_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nKVbCz)20220910_155818 (https://flic.kr/p/2nKVbCz) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

Now, I can see perhaps this being on a town road pointing the way to the state route, but in use as a reassurance shield right on a state route?  Now, that's just lazy!  And this isn't a one-off, either... there's another heading east.
Meh.  Exceptions to the rule.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on September 11, 2022, 07:21:55 PM
Those are town-installed assemblies.   Route 16 through Douglas and Webster is locally maintained and they both do a horrible job of signage.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on September 11, 2022, 07:43:21 PM
There's a similar sign on Jefferson Ave in Salem approaching MA 1A.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5004337,-70.8977966,3a,37.5y,164.9h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8jB0Q3pLKhEnJaWn9tRPQw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Also, what is up with this very bizarre MA 38 shield in Woburn? There's another leading south from I-95 too. Not sure if this one is town maintained as well.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5020757,-71.1584705,3a,75y,8.18h,90.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFFjeMQrxFYqCcDCbxXppIQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: storm2k on September 12, 2022, 02:46:19 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on September 11, 2022, 07:43:21 PM
There's a similar sign on Jefferson Ave in Salem approaching MA 1A.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5004337,-70.8977966,3a,37.5y,164.9h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8jB0Q3pLKhEnJaWn9tRPQw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Also, what is up with this very bizarre MA 38 shield in Woburn? There's another leading south from I-95 too. Not sure if this one is town maintained as well.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5020757,-71.1584705,3a,75y,8.18h,90.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFFjeMQrxFYqCcDCbxXppIQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The Woburn one is def on a piece of roadway that is claimed to be state maintenance (there's a "Begin State Highway" sign a bit north of there going SB, which should include this bit of roadway), but I'm pretty sure that's just a contractor special that was done when that stretch of roadway into the Rotary at the 95 interchange was redone. If you look at the historic GSV back to 2007, those signs aren't there (for the one south of the 95 interchange, it has a much more standard issue MassDOT assembly than what's there now.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on September 12, 2022, 08:35:43 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on September 11, 2022, 07:43:21 PM
There's a similar sign on Jefferson Ave in Salem approaching MA 1A.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5004337,-70.8977966,3a,37.5y,164.9h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8jB0Q3pLKhEnJaWn9tRPQw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Also, what is up with this very bizarre MA 38 shield in Woburn? There's another leading south from I-95 too. Not sure if this one is town maintained as well.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5020757,-71.1584705,3a,75y,8.18h,90.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFFjeMQrxFYqCcDCbxXppIQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
1A has a font never used before or after
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on September 13, 2022, 09:31:46 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 12, 2022, 08:35:43 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on September 11, 2022, 07:43:21 PM
There's a similar sign on Jefferson Ave in Salem approaching MA 1A.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5004337,-70.8977966,3a,37.5y,164.9h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8jB0Q3pLKhEnJaWn9tRPQw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Also, what is up with this very bizarre MA 38 shield in Woburn? There's another leading south from I-95 too. Not sure if this one is town maintained as well.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5020757,-71.1584705,3a,75y,8.18h,90.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFFjeMQrxFYqCcDCbxXppIQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
1A has a font never used before or after

Salem uses that font all over.

MA 114 near Marblehead, https://goo.gl/maps/z6m44SCcpUdVT7Jm6

May St (with bonus subscript), https://goo.gl/maps/WmFdoErxd4AxTkcm9

There are many other street blades in the city like May St, that was the only one I recall off the top of my head. I've seen more than a few on various bike rides thru the city.

Oddly enough, Massachusetts does use the font for one particular sign, https://goo.gl/maps/DfvttFyuhgt4guaAA
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on September 13, 2022, 12:01:40 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on August 18, 2022, 02:39:20 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on August 09, 2022, 12:55:33 PMAn "exhausted" sign structure came toppling down on I-190 SB this morning:
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/highway-sign-worcester-190/?fbclid=IwAR3QQMyCudvp4sntwQoTdWuJ_eU-GdTq1b_xo8Sa5ynPJXj0titYR_qLjgI

They figured out why it came down.  The anchor bolts holding the upright to the concrete pad broke.  The failure prompted a review of all signs on 190, and they supposedly found one more they need to take down, for the same reason.
As promised in the response to the sign falling on I-190, MassDOT accelerated the advertising to this past Saturday (9/10) for a sign replacement project along the route. The winning bid is to be announced on 10/25/2022. The estimated cost is $3,817,305.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on September 26, 2022, 04:25:01 PM
Is there a reason why the Mass Pike mile markers are in the median instead of on the right like other highways?

Also, why do the I-495 signs on the Pike read Portsmouth NH, Taunton?  Other on-ramps for 495 in that area sign it as Lowell, Cape Cod!  That makes a lot more sense!

And to add to all the chaos, I was on this stretch of highway recently and the I-495 exit from the Pike EB has a damaged gore sign that still reads "Exit 11A", when it should read "Exit 106".
Google Maps Street View also shows this error. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2635568,-71.5710484,3a,75y,77.98h,99.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sm--BoeoSLETNSY1_x6R68w!2e0!5s20220701T000000!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on September 26, 2022, 07:59:05 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on September 26, 2022, 04:25:01 PM
Is there a reason why the Mass Pike mile markers are in the median instead of on the right like other highways?

Also, why do the I-495 signs on the Pike read Portsmouth NH, Taunton?  Other on-ramps for 495 in that area sign it as Lowell, Cape Cod!  That makes a lot more sense!

And to add to all the chaos, I was on this stretch of highway recently and the I-495 exit from the Pike EB has a damaged gore sign that still reads "Exit 11A", when it should read "Exit 106".
Google Maps Street View also shows this error. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2635568,-71.5710484,3a,75y,77.98h,99.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sm--BoeoSLETNSY1_x6R68w!2e0!5s20220701T000000!7i16384!8i8192)

MassPike had the center milemarkers back when it was its own agency and the DPW/MassHighway did their own thing.  It probably goes with that tradition. 

The 495 gore sign was updated to Exit 106 (view from across the road: https://goo.gl/maps/mT83VzHRoDk5pHEP8 ) but got hit and the top and bottom of the panel came off and what was left was mounted on one post. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on September 27, 2022, 11:19:54 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on September 26, 2022, 07:59:05 PM
The 495 gore sign was updated to Exit 106 (view from across the road: https://goo.gl/maps/mT83VzHRoDk5pHEP8 ) but got hit and the top and bottom of the panel came off and what was left was mounted on one post.

This is at least the 3rd "knocked down" gore sign I've seen this calendar year, all occurring after the exits were renumbered.  The other 2 are exit 28B on I-93 north (for I-95/MA 128 south) and exit 97B on I-495 north (for I-93 north).

The exit 28B sign was re-posted with the previously knocked down sign, but with very small "28B" lettering (and you can see the outline of the old exit, 37B).  The exit 97B sign was also re-posted with the previously knocked down sign, yet it still looks good, presentation-wise.

Is there a way exit gore signs can be protected from damage?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on September 27, 2022, 04:51:49 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on September 27, 2022, 11:19:54 AM
Is there a way exit gore signs can be protected from damage?

Yes, but they are probably likelier to kill the person hitting it. You would need something that rapidly decelerates a vehicle, and that G-load is not good for the human body. Crash attenuators are possible, like where they are used at exit gores, but that's usually to protect a vehicle from hitting something far worse than an exit sign.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on September 27, 2022, 08:16:32 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on September 27, 2022, 11:19:54 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on September 26, 2022, 07:59:05 PM
The 495 gore sign was updated to Exit 106 (view from across the road: https://goo.gl/maps/mT83VzHRoDk5pHEP8 (https://goo.gl/maps/mT83VzHRoDk5pHEP8) ) but got hit and the top and bottom of the panel came off and what was left was mounted on one post.

This is at least the 3rd "knocked down" gore sign I've seen this calendar year, all occurring after the exits were renumbered.  The other 2 are exit 28B on I-93 north (for I-95/MA 128 south) and exit 97B on I-495 north (for I-93 north).

The exit 28B sign was re-posted with the previously knocked down sign, but with very small "28B" lettering (and you can see the outline of the old exit, 37B).  The exit 97B sign was also re-posted with the previously knocked down sign, yet it still looks good, presentation-wise.

Is there a way exit gore signs can be protected from damage?
At least Mass seems to make an effort to replace knocked-down gore signs.  My experience in Ohio indicates that many knocked-down ones seem never to be replaced or put back up.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on September 27, 2022, 08:25:30 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on September 27, 2022, 11:19:54 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on September 26, 2022, 07:59:05 PM
The 495 gore sign was updated to Exit 106 (view from across the road: https://goo.gl/maps/mT83VzHRoDk5pHEP8 ) but got hit and the top and bottom of the panel came off and what was left was mounted on one post.

This is at least the 3rd "knocked down" gore sign I've seen this calendar year, all occurring after the exits were renumbered.  The other 2 are exit 28B on I-93 north (for I-95/MA 128 south) and exit 97B on I-495 north (for I-93 north).

The exit 28B sign was re-posted with the previously knocked down sign, but with very small "28B" lettering (and you can see the outline of the old exit, 37B).  The exit 97B sign was also re-posted with the previously knocked down sign, yet it still looks good, presentation-wise.

Is there a way exit gore signs can be protected from damage?

Speaking of which, the Exit 111 overhead sign eastbound on I-90 which was knocked down in an accident a few months ago still hasn’t been replaced yet although the support and the Old Exit 12 sign still remain. I wonder what MassDOT will do with that since sign replacement on the Mass Pike was done 4-5 years ago.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on September 28, 2022, 03:58:31 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on September 27, 2022, 08:25:30 PM
Speaking of which, the Exit 111 overhead sign eastbound on I-90 which was knocked down in an accident a few months ago still hasn't been replaced yet although the support and the Old Exit 12 sign still remain. I wonder what MassDOT will do with that since sign replacement on the Mass Pike was done 4-5 years ago.

Looks like the sign is still on the ground (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2848969,-71.4993034,3a,27.2y,110.7h,88.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIQh5-hQ_GdciKpoyZ9CZeQ!2e0!5s20220701T000000!7i16384!8i8192) as of Aug. 2022.

Also, the Exit 111 gore sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2930097,-71.4838881,3a,25y,41.97h,87.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sL6wSMzDw-UVxF_-78Ku2Kw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) is standing awkwardly with the "old exit 12" sign knocked down.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DrSmith on September 28, 2022, 06:55:42 PM
Gore exit signs get knocked down all the time. The signs are located in a spot where if people aren't paying attention they can easily hit it. Sometimes there isn't significant damage and it can be set back up easily enough. Other times the brackets can be damaged or the sign destroyed. Some of the ones that look a more ragged have been knocked down before.

Between the curves and exit location, the 91 South Exit 1 sign is repeatedly knocked down. Sometimes it isn't up too long before it's down again. And it's been a temporary exit sign for a while now. If you look back in time you can see it leaning or propped up.
https://goo.gl/maps/X9vQRxkmkxmp7Hym6

During the exit renumbering on 91 there were some missing and so temporary sheet metal signs were fabricated with the new number https://goo.gl/maps/hQ9ex385AN6dH94t7

And for the Chicopee exit off the Pike, there was a temporary sign there without a number, only had an arrow. When the renumbering occurred, the put the number over the arrow so now there is still this one up
https://goo.gl/maps/g1pcX4GQwCKAvZzS9

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on September 29, 2022, 05:46:13 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on September 28, 2022, 03:58:31 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on September 27, 2022, 08:25:30 PM
Speaking of which, the Exit 111 overhead sign eastbound on I-90 which was knocked down in an accident a few months ago still hasn't been replaced yet although the support and the Old Exit 12 sign still remain. I wonder what MassDOT will do with that since sign replacement on the Mass Pike was done 4-5 years ago.

Looks like the sign is still on the ground (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2848969,-71.4993034,3a,27.2y,110.7h,88.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIQh5-hQ_GdciKpoyZ9CZeQ!2e0!5s20220701T000000!7i16384!8i8192) as of Aug. 2022.

Also, the Exit 111 gore sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2930097,-71.4838881,3a,25y,41.97h,87.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sL6wSMzDw-UVxF_-78Ku2Kw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) is standing awkwardly with the "old exit 12" sign knocked down.

I wonder if part of the problem could be caused by drivers who swerve to access the exit because they're unfamiliar (or too distracted to notice) with the lane configuration and hit the sign. On my way home on Sunday, I saw a couple of drivers exit at 495 by cutting over two lanes.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 30, 2022, 10:00:28 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on September 11, 2022, 07:43:21 PM
...what is up with this very bizarre MA 38 shield in Woburn? There's another leading south from I-95 too. Not sure if this one is town maintained as well.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5020757,-71.1584705,3a,75y,8.18h,90.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFFjeMQrxFYqCcDCbxXppIQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Wisconsin wanna-be.  :biggrin:

Quote from: SectorZ on September 13, 2022, 09:31:46 AM
Salem uses that font all over.

MA 114 near Marblehead, https://goo.gl/maps/z6m44SCcpUdVT7Jm6

May St (with bonus subscript), https://goo.gl/maps/WmFdoErxd4AxTkcm9

There are many other street blades in the city like May St, that was the only one I recall off the top of my head. I've seen more than a few on various bike rides thru the city.

Oddly enough, Massachusetts does use the font for one particular sign, https://goo.gl/maps/DfvttFyuhgt4guaAA
The font on that state sign is not the same font as those Salem installs.

Quote from: kramie13 on September 26, 2022, 04:25:01 PM
Also, why do the I-495 signs on the Pike read Portsmouth NH, Taunton?  Other on-ramps for 495 in that area sign it as Lowell, Cape Cod!  That makes a lot more sense!
Since Cape Cod is a region and not an actual city; MassDOT was simply following the MUTCD standard for using actual cities or towns for its control city listings.  The selection of Portsmouth, NH instead of Lowell at this location was due to:

1. Previous signage actually used NH-Maine; see above-MUTCD reasoning for listing actual cities rather than state names and/or regions.

2. MassDOT, and the Turnpike Authority before it, was considering long-distance travelers in mind.

It is worth noting that Lowell & Cape Cod are listed on supplemental signage.

About 1-1/2 miles in advance of the interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2477715,-71.5881827,3a,75y,48.51h,90.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWerczD6Dwn-uYLbguTmgOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and just after exiting I-90 eastbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2635305,-71.5711607,3a,75y,77.45h,81.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb8_MgdujV8tPcbytXhxmRw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on October 10, 2022, 05:46:47 AM
Is this the segment end of Route 1A in Dedham?
https://goo.gl/maps/6ke85KWTUUMeL8KRA

I see no MA 1A shield telling motorists to turn here to complete connection to both US 1 and I-95. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on October 10, 2022, 06:46:52 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 10, 2022, 05:46:47 AM
Is this the segment end of Route 1A in Dedham?
https://goo.gl/maps/6ke85KWTUUMeL8KRA

I see no MA 1A shield telling motorists to turn here to complete connection to both US 1 and I-95.
Heh.  Relying upon MassDOT to properly shield a route or mark it on their SGSes is not advised.  That said, someone'll have to look at a log to figure this out.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bjcolby50 on October 10, 2022, 12:02:01 PM
If I remember correctly, MA 1A is a silent concurrency between Dedham and East Boston, following I-95, I-93 and US 1 to Boston, and isn't signed.

Where this segment of MA 1A actually ends, however, is a mystery.  By rights, it should end at Elm St and Boston-Providence Hwy, right at the entrance of I-95/US 1 north.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on October 10, 2022, 09:57:14 PM
Quote from: bjcolby50 on October 10, 2022, 12:02:01 PM
If I remember correctly, MA 1A is a silent concurrency between Dedham and East Boston, following I-95, I-93 and US 1 to Boston, and isn't signed.

Where this segment of MA 1A actually ends, however, is a mystery.  By rights, it should end at Elm and Providence - Boston Hwy, right at the entrance of I-95/US 1 north.
Or not a concurrency but the mileage is counted anyway. That's been my take.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on October 10, 2022, 11:35:29 PM
MA 1A is terribly signed, esp. on the Boston/Prov Highway.  There is conflicting signage that says Elm St. is definitely Rte. 1A, and then signage later down the road that says "To 1A" near Eastern Ave, implying that Eastern Ave. will take you to 1A.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on October 11, 2022, 09:50:25 AM
If MA 1A is supposed to be a silent concurrency with its parent (US 1) between segments, that means that 1A north now travels south from the intersection with Elm St and Boston/Providence Highway in Dedham, then makes a 270 degree loop to join its parent (and a wrong-way concurrency with I-95 and MA 128)!

Also, because of the Big Dig, MA 1A is discontinuous in downtown Boston.  The Callahan and Sumner Tunnels are 1A north and south but there's no longer a direct connection from 93/1 north to the Callahan Tunnel, or from the Sumner Tunnel to 93/1 south!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on October 16, 2022, 02:45:44 PM
Something I've noticed today in Peabody, I found this maintenance facility built into the overpass at Lowell Street at MA 128.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5336361,-70.9504968,3a,75y,279.74h,83.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj5xHn_QTIVaKfR9rFMbqmA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

How common is this in Massachusetts? I've never seen this sort of thing anywhere else.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on October 16, 2022, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on October 16, 2022, 02:45:44 PM
Something I've noticed today in Peabody, I found this maintenance facility built into the overpass at Lowell Street at MA 128.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5336361,-70.9504968,3a,75y,279.74h,83.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj5xHn_QTIVaKfR9rFMbqmA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

How common is this in Massachusetts? I've never seen this sort of thing anywhere else.

I've been meaning to post that for years and anytime I've gone by I've forgotten by the time I got home. I don't even know if it's active anymore since the doors have always been closed anytime I've gone by.

In my travels, that's the sole one I've ever seen, Massachusetts or anywhere else.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on October 16, 2022, 06:01:38 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on October 16, 2022, 05:29:26 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on October 16, 2022, 02:45:44 PM
Something I've noticed today in Peabody, I found this maintenance facility built into the overpass at Lowell Street at MA 128.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5336361,-70.9504968,3a,75y,279.74h,83.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj5xHn_QTIVaKfR9rFMbqmA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

How common is this in Massachusetts? I've never seen this sort of thing anywhere else.

I've been meaning to post that for years and anytime I've gone by I've forgotten by the time I got home. I don't even know if it's active anymore since the doors have always been closed anytime I've gone by.

In my travels, that's the sole one I've ever seen, Massachusetts or anywhere else.

Grew up in Peabody; did a lot of Lowell Street back in the day; had a school bus that went through there twice a day for 2 years in the 80s; never saw the doors open although there was sometimes evidence that they had been open.

The more recent street view showing new doors between 2015 and 2019 suggests they at least know of them still. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on October 16, 2022, 08:34:28 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on October 16, 2022, 02:45:44 PM
Something I've noticed today in Peabody, I found this maintenance facility built into the overpass at Lowell Street at MA 128.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5336361,-70.9504968,3a,75y,279.74h,83.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj5xHn_QTIVaKfR9rFMbqmA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

How common is this in Massachusetts? I've never seen this sort of thing anywhere else.

That's unusual for being embedded in the embankment. I've seen quite a few urban locations where road departments use space under elevated roads for their parking lots and storage areas.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DrSmith on October 22, 2022, 09:34:39 PM
The old hard left turn off the Mass Pike onto I-291 is gone. Final lane markings weren't down as of Friday and some signage doesn't look to be up yet. The new traffic light and geometry has a more gentle left turn onto 291 and looks like 2 lanes from 291 to the ramps for the Pike as well.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on November 03, 2022, 12:48:15 PM
I was traveling along I-95 south yesterday evening.  MassDOT has finally replaced the gore signs for the MA 140 exit in Foxborough!  The only problem is... they're flip-flopped going south.  The gore sign for 140 North reads Exit 13A when it should be exit 13B, and the gore sign for 140 south reads Exit 13B.

Here is a picture of one of the incorrect signs:
https://imgur.com/a/CIay0QU

How do I report this to MassDOT?  Someone could get lost or confused.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on November 03, 2022, 01:30:16 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on November 03, 2022, 12:48:15 PM
How do I report this to MassDOT?  Someone could get lost or confused.

Here you go...

https://www.mass.gov/forms/contact-massdot
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on November 07, 2022, 06:03:06 PM
Could someone please explain to me the purpose of a "Truck Turnout" ramp?  There's one on MA 128 (I-95) SB in Dedham.  Here's a shot I got yesterday:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/52482479958/in/datetaken/

There's no parking and the ramp is wide enough for one vehicle to briefly exit the interstate, then immediately reenter. 

What purpose does it serve?  (I may have asked this years ago, and with the add-a-lane project happening a few years back, I thought for sure it would fall by the wayside, but there it is, still open to the public).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on November 07, 2022, 10:39:20 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 07, 2022, 06:03:06 PM
Could someone please explain to me the purpose of a "Truck Turnout" ramp?  There's one on MA 128 (I-95) SB in Dedham.  Here's a shot I got yesterday:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/52482479958/in/datetaken/

There's no parking and the ramp is wide enough for one vehicle to briefly exit the interstate, then immediately reenter. 

What purpose does it serve?  (I may have asked this years ago, and with the add-a-lane project happening a few years back, I thought for sure it would fall by the wayside, but there it is, still open to the public).
Sometimes a truck driver is running out of time and they can use this for the mandatory stop. There's a reason I-287 NB truck area at MP 32 exists and is overcrowded at night with trucks all over the shoulders (same along I-80 and other highways in NJ).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on November 08, 2022, 09:37:35 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 07, 2022, 06:03:06 PM
Could someone please explain to me the purpose of a "Truck Turnout" ramp?  There's one on MA 128 (I-95) SB in Dedham.  Here's a shot I got yesterday:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/52482479958/in/datetaken/

There's no parking and the ramp is wide enough for one vehicle to briefly exit the interstate, then immediately reenter. 

What purpose does it serve?  (I may have asked this years ago, and with the add-a-lane project happening a few years back, I thought for sure it would fall by the wayside, but there it is, still open to the public).

Norfolk County jail escapee pickup ramp.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on November 08, 2022, 01:20:44 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on November 08, 2022, 09:37:35 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 07, 2022, 06:03:06 PM
Could someone please explain to me the purpose of a "Truck Turnout" ramp?  There's one on MA 128 (I-95) SB in Dedham.  Here's a shot I got yesterday:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/52482479958/in/datetaken/

There's no parking and the ramp is wide enough for one vehicle to briefly exit the interstate, then immediately reenter. 

What purpose does it serve?  (I may have asked this years ago, and with the add-a-lane project happening a few years back, I thought for sure it would fall by the wayside, but there it is, still open to the public).

Norfolk County jail escapee pickup ramp.

Wouldn't escapees have to cross 4 lanes of 55 MPH (or more) traffic? Seems a bit risky.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on November 08, 2022, 07:15:30 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 07, 2022, 06:03:06 PM
Could someone please explain to me the purpose of a "Truck Turnout" ramp?  There's one on MA 128 (I-95) SB in Dedham.  Here's a shot I got yesterday:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/52482479958/in/datetaken/

There's no parking and the ramp is wide enough for one vehicle to briefly exit the interstate, then immediately reenter. 

What purpose does it serve?  (I may have asked this years ago, and with the add-a-lane project happening a few years back, I thought for sure it would fall by the wayside, but there it is, still open to the public).

The 2008 streetview of it shows that there is just enough room for parking on the right and getting by on the left of the Turnout--a small but useful parking area for trucks.  Growing up around Boston with family on the South Shore and stuff, we used to go by there relatively often and even back in the 80s it was the Truck Turnout, a name the younger me always found interesting.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on November 09, 2022, 12:50:32 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 07, 2022, 10:39:20 PM
Sometimes a truck driver is running out of time and they can use this for the mandatory stop. There's a reason I-287 NB truck area at MP 32 exists and is overcrowded at night with trucks all over the shoulders (same along I-80 and other highways in NJ).

What do you mean by a truck driver "running out of time"?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on November 09, 2022, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on November 09, 2022, 12:50:32 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 07, 2022, 10:39:20 PM
Sometimes a truck driver is running out of time and they can use this for the mandatory stop. There's a reason I-287 NB truck area at MP 32 exists and is overcrowded at night with trucks all over the shoulders (same along I-80 and other highways in NJ).

What do you mean by a truck driver "running out of time"?
Truck drivers are only allowed to be actively driving so many hours a day, and must spend the remainder resting. It's to make sure truckers get the required sleep and they're not out driving for 20 hours a day.

SM-A515U

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on November 17, 2022, 07:38:51 PM
MassDOT just unveiled design concepts for replacing the Bourne and Sagamore Bridges. They seem to be leaning towards the arch style design.

https://www.nantucketcurrent.com/state-unveils-potential-designs-for-new-cape-cod-canal-bridges
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on November 18, 2022, 12:41:53 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on November 17, 2022, 07:38:51 PM
MassDOT just unveiled design concepts for replacing the Bourne and Sagamore Bridges. They seem to be leaning towards the arch style design.

https://www.nantucketcurrent.com/state-unveils-potential-designs-for-new-cape-cod-canal-bridges
as am I
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on November 21, 2022, 09:05:48 PM
May I ask how is the missing movements between I-93 SB to US 1 NB and from US 1 SB to I-93 NB are made since the reconstruction of what was once a simple 3 wye interchange is now a complex interchange in Boston?

Also I noticed that the Tobin Bridge Boston approach has both levels on its Boston side drop below grade and into a stacked tunnel thus creating the two stacked roadways to become un-stacked underground.   

WTF did that Big Dig do? It seemed like it added more ramps and made a mess out of a simple wye?  Not to mention added three times the original acreage the 3 wye used.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on November 21, 2022, 09:17:36 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 21, 2022, 09:05:48 PM
May I ask how is the missing movements between I-93 SB to US 1 NB and from US 1 SB to I-93 NB are made since the reconstruction of what was once a simple 3 wye interchange is now a complex interchange in Boston?

Those movements are made via indirect connections via surface streets.

From I-93 SB to US 1 NB (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/I-93,+Somerville,+MA+02145,+USA/42.3736079,-71.0586667/@42.384712,-71.0844968,15.86z/data=!4m8!4m7!1m5!1m1!1s0x89e37129d42c2e55:0x37028bf405fcee3!2m2!1d-71.0888623!2d42.3957933!1m0), I believe you have to get off Exit 20, continue onto Mystic Ave, take the ramp to "Sullivan Sq / Charlestown" (also says Tobin Br Truck Detour), then follow Maffa Way onto MA Route 99 (Rutherford Ave) to the US 1 North [Toll] ramp to the Tobin Br.

For the US 1 South to I-93 North (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/42.374583,-71.0576209/42.4007631,-71.0944854/@42.3899568,-71.083432,18z/am=t/data=!4m5!4m4!6m3!1i0!2i0!3i1) movement, I believe you have to get off on the Somerville / Charlestown ramp before the City Sq Tunnel, take a left off the ramp, follow Rutherford Av to the rotary, then take the Main St (which turns into Mystic Av at the Somerville line) exit and keep following that road for about 800 m to the I-93 North ramp.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on November 21, 2022, 10:15:59 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on November 21, 2022, 09:17:36 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 21, 2022, 09:05:48 PM
May I ask how is the missing movements between I-93 SB to US 1 NB and from US 1 SB to I-93 NB are made since the reconstruction of what was once a simple 3 wye interchange is now a complex interchange in Boston?

The leftovers from the short time that there was a direct, new-construction US 1 SB to I-93 NB ramp (with access from City Square as well) are still there in the stubs branching off the exit ramp to City Square and the one from City Square, and the diagrammatic sign on the Tobin ahead of the exit now showing an incorrect lane configuration (a 3 = 2+2 split which it has not been for a long time, if ever), with a capital H left from NORTH while everything else for that prong of the diagrammatic arrow was pried off.  Only the BGS at the exit still has a mention of 93 northbound.
Those movements are made via indirect connections via surface streets.

From I-93 SB to US 1 NB (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/I-93,+Somerville,+MA+02145,+USA/42.3736079,-71.0586667/@42.384712,-71.0844968,15.86z/data=!4m8!4m7!1m5!1m1!1s0x89e37129d42c2e55:0x37028bf405fcee3!2m2!1d-71.0888623!2d42.3957933!1m0), I believe you have to get off Exit 20, continue onto Mystic Ave, take the ramp to "Sullivan Sq / Charlestown" (also says Tobin Br Truck Detour), then follow Maffa Way onto MA Route 99 (Rutherford Ave) to the US 1 North [Toll] ramp to the Tobin Br.

For the US 1 South to I-93 North (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/42.374583,-71.0576209/42.4007631,-71.0944854/@42.3899568,-71.083432,18z/am=t/data=!4m5!4m4!6m3!1i0!2i0!3i1) movement, I believe you have to get off on the Somerville / Charlestown ramp before the City Sq Tunnel, take a left off the ramp, follow Rutherford Av to the rotary, then take the Main St (which turns into Mystic Av at the Somerville line) exit and keep following that road for about 800 m to the I-93 North ramp.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on November 22, 2022, 06:05:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 21, 2022, 09:05:48 PM
May I ask how is the missing movements between I-93 SB to US 1 NB and from US 1 SB to I-93 NB are made since the reconstruction of what was once a simple 3 wye interchange is now a complex interchange in Boston?

Also I noticed that the Tobin Bridge Boston approach has both levels on its Boston side drop below grade and into a stacked tunnel thus creating the two stacked roadways to become un-stacked underground.   

WTF did that Big Dig do? It seemed like it added more ramps and made a mess out of a simple wye?  Not to mention added three times the original acreage the 3 wye used.

The Big Dig, for all of the controversies and cost overruns, eliminated the unsafe merge between I-93/US-1, created valuable open space (Rose Kennedy Greenway), and reconnected Charlestown with its waterfront (City Park).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on November 22, 2022, 09:47:21 AM
Yeah but that loop over the rail lines is totally unnecessary.   If I-95 had gone as planned, that three wye exchange would have had to remain.

Yes, the separate bridge adjacent to the Bunker Hill Bridge is needed as the old Charlestown Truss Bridge was similar to the Fort Pitt Bridge in Pittsburgh with very unsafe weaving concerns.  I'm sure whatever way they would have chosen if I-95 was aligned through Boston, is the way it should have gone IMO.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on November 22, 2022, 10:20:32 AM


Quote from: Rothman on October 10, 2022, 06:46:52 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 10, 2022, 05:46:47 AM
Is this the segment end of Route 1A in Dedham?
https://goo.gl/maps/6ke85KWTUUMeL8KRA

I see no MA 1A shield telling motorists to turn here to complete connection to both US 1 and I-95.
Heh.  Relying upon MassDOT to properly shield a route or mark it on their SGSes is not advised.  That said, someone'll have to look at a log to figure this out.

Checked the MassDOT GIS site. 1A officially (on paper/computer anyway) does use Elm St to make the connection to US1 and continue its silent concurrency with 95 and 93 to Boston.

Quote from: kramie13 on October 11, 2022, 09:50:25 AM
Also, because of the Big Dig, MA 1A is discontinuous in downtown Boston.  The Callahan and Sumner Tunnels are 1A north and south but there's no longer a direct connection from 93/1 north to the Callahan Tunnel, or from the Sumner Tunnel to 93/1 south!

Interestingly, 1A officially uses the Ted Williams Tunnel now, not the Sumner and Callahan. Signage in the field obviously doesn't reflect this change at all, but that's how MassDOT has it logged.

I went to Logan Airport about a month ago and the signs exciting the airport read 1A South to 93 North and 90 West to 93 South. I think it would be worthwhile for the state to update the signage to reflect this.

Link to the GIS site (doesn't appear to work on mobile)
https://gis.massdot.state.ma.us/mrla/



SM-A515U

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on November 22, 2022, 10:44:19 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 22, 2022, 09:47:21 AM
Yeah but that loop over the rail lines is totally unnecessary.   If I-95 had gone as planned, that three wye exchange would have had to remain.

Yes, the separate bridge adjacent to the Bunker Hill Bridge is needed as the old Charlestown Truss Bridge was similar to the Fort Pitt Bridge in Pittsburgh with very unsafe weaving concerns.  I'm sure whatever way they would have chosen if I-95 was aligned through Boston, is the way it should have gone IMO.
The loop ramp was necessary to eliminate the very dangerous weaving between the Tobin bridge ramps and the Leverett Circle ramps, which were spaced only 1/4 mile apart and connected on different sides of the highway. If you wanted to get to the Tobin bridge from Storrow Drive, you had 1/4 mile to cut across 3 lane of heavy I-93 through traffic.  The old wye interchanges were horribly inefficient, low speed, tight curves, no acceleration or deceleration lanes, etc. Traffic would be an unfathomable nightmare of they were retained.

SM-A515U

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on November 22, 2022, 02:17:29 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on November 22, 2022, 10:44:19 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 22, 2022, 09:47:21 AM
Yeah but that loop over the rail lines is totally unnecessary.   If I-95 had gone as planned, that three wye exchange would have had to remain.

Yes, the separate bridge adjacent to the Bunker Hill Bridge is needed as the old Charlestown Truss Bridge was similar to the Fort Pitt Bridge in Pittsburgh with very unsafe weaving concerns.  I'm sure whatever way they would have chosen if I-95 was aligned through Boston, is the way it should have gone IMO.
The loop ramp was necessary to eliminate the very dangerous weaving between the Tobin bridge ramps and the Leverett Circle ramps, which were spaced only 1/4 mile apart and connected on different sides of the highway. If you wanted to get to the Tobin bridge from Storrow Drive, you had 1/4 mile to cut across 3 lane of heavy I-93 through traffic.  The old wye interchanges were horribly inefficient, low speed, tight curves, no acceleration or deceleration lanes, etc. Traffic would be an unfathomable nightmare of they were retained.

SM-A515U



Thank goodness that crazy weave is gone, as is the one the other direction that used to be right above it (Leverett Circle going up to get to Tobin).  The only saving grace back then was how slow the traffic usually was so there was plenty of time to try to muscle your way over. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on November 23, 2022, 01:34:27 AM
Not saying it should or shouldn't be done this way, but just curious to know why the so many complex ramps over a lot of area as supposed to the previous configurations.

Answer satisfied.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on November 23, 2022, 02:15:37 AM
The presence of the Leverett Circle Connector Bridge, a basic concrete box girder bridge, right next to the cable-stayed Zakim Bridge kind of proves that the cable-stayed design is primarily decorative. Not that I'm complaining. I'd have preferred that they were both cable-stayed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on November 23, 2022, 06:03:51 PM
Quote from: pderocco on November 23, 2022, 02:15:37 AM
The presence of the Leverett Circle Connector Bridge, a basic concrete box girder bridge, right next to the cable-stayed Zakim Bridge kind of proves that the cable-stayed design is primarily decorative. Not that I'm complaining. I'd have preferred that they were both cable-stayed.

According to the site master of a former road site, that I believe was NE2, said the Zakim Bridge was made cablestayed because of its width unlike the one adjacent that is only four lanes and could self support.

This was in a private email in 2003 right after my Boston visit, and I asked about the dig, and the site master answers me real polite and told me about what I wanted to know.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on November 23, 2022, 09:00:34 PM


Quote from: roadman65 on November 23, 2022, 01:34:27 AM
Not saying it should or shouldn't be done this way, but just curious to know why the so many complex ramps over a lot of area as supposed to the previous configurations.

Answer satisfied.

The more complex ramp setup was due to the fact that the new Leverett connector created a continuous direct connection between the Tobin bridge and Leverett Circle. Cars traveling between the two no longer have to get on to 93 at all like they did with the original wye interchanges. The extra ramps provide the connections to and from 93.

SM-A515U

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on November 24, 2022, 12:52:36 PM
When I first started going into Boston, the loop ramps between I-93 and the Tobin had just opened.  I could only imagine the traffic nightmare of trying to merge the old way, especially if you were trying to stay on US 1 (remember US 1 was routed onto Storrow Drive, so you had to merge over in 1/4 mile to stay on).  One has to wonder if I-95 was still routed through Boston and up the Tobin how different the ramp configuration would be, or whether a future Tobin Bridge replacement would keep the ramps as is, or attempt to straighten out the connection to the northeast. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on November 24, 2022, 01:20:14 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on November 24, 2022, 12:52:36 PM
When I first started going into Boston, the loop ramps between I-93 and the Tobin had just opened.  I could only imagine the traffic nightmare of trying to merge the old way, especially if you were trying to stay on US 1 (remember US 1 was routed onto Storrow Drive, so you had to merge over in 1/4 mile to stay on).  One has to wonder if I-95 was still routed through Boston and up the Tobin how different the ramp configuration would be, or whether a future Tobin Bridge replacement would keep the ramps as is, or attempt to straighten out the connection to the northeast.

It was indeed a nightmare to merge and to cross over. Not only that, the old ramps were aging and needed to be replaced by the time of the Big Dig. I think 95 was routed through Boston at one point, missing segments and all. At least on maps it was. As for future improvements, I doubt there would be much change from the status quo. The lasting effect of the Big Dig (besides the improved (and imperfect) highway network and bridges) was cost overruns that have significantly reduced the appetite for big projects.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on November 30, 2022, 02:49:30 AM
Where is the official end ( southern terminus) of US 3?


The Boston University Bridge or Harvard Bridge?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on November 30, 2022, 05:33:56 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 30, 2022, 02:49:30 AM
Where is the official end ( southern terminus) of US 3?


The Boston University Bridge or Harvard Bridge?

Not surprisingly, there's a conflict between Internet sources.  Google Maps says it's the BU bridge, whereas Wikipedia states it;s actually at the Longfellow Bridge. It's probably somewhere in between. The Commonwealth itself isn't clear, at least from the signage on Memorial Drive.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on November 30, 2022, 06:09:25 AM
I don't even think MA 2 is even well signed as it does use the BU Bridge and end at some place in Boston.

That's the confusing part, is signage in Boston is terrible.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on November 30, 2022, 06:09:43 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on November 30, 2022, 05:33:56 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 30, 2022, 02:49:30 AM
Where is the official end ( southern terminus) of US 3?


The Boston University Bridge or Harvard Bridge?

Not surprisingly, there's a conflict between Internet sources.  Google Maps says it's the BU bridge, whereas Wikipedia states it;s actually at the Longfellow Bridge. It's probably somewhere in between. The Commonwealth itself isn't clear, at least from the signage on Memorial Drive.
According to the MassDOT GIS Route Log, it ends (and MA 3 begins) at the Harvard Bridge intersection on Memorial Drive.

Check the logs here
https://gis.massdot.state.ma.us/mrla/

SM-A515U

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on November 30, 2022, 06:54:29 AM
Quote from: 5foot14 on November 30, 2022, 06:09:43 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on November 30, 2022, 05:33:56 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 30, 2022, 02:49:30 AM
Where is the official end ( southern terminus) of US 3?


The Boston University Bridge or Harvard Bridge?

Not surprisingly, there's a conflict between Internet sources.  Google Maps says it's the BU bridge, whereas Wikipedia states it;s actually at the Longfellow Bridge. It's probably somewhere in between. The Commonwealth itself isn't clear, at least from the signage on Memorial Drive.
According to the MassDOT GIS Route Log, it ends (and MA 3 begins) at the Harvard Bridge intersection on Memorial Drive.

Check the logs here
https://gis.massdot.state.ma.us/mrla/

SM-A515U

Now if only the signage would reflect that.......
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on November 30, 2022, 06:55:59 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 30, 2022, 06:09:25 AM
I don't even think MA 2 is even well signed as it does use the BU Bridge and end at some place in Boston.

That's the confusing part, is signage in Boston is terrible.

The signage on Memorial/Storrow Drive/Soldiers Field Road is lackluster in general. For a long time, there were still signs for US 1 on Storrow long after it had been rerouted to I-93.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on November 30, 2022, 12:34:56 PM
I remember in 2003 the left exit on Storrow for Fenway and Kenmore still had US 1 signed. I thought that was very odd considering how long ago at the time that US 1 was moved to I-93.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on November 30, 2022, 02:20:33 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 30, 2022, 12:34:56 PM
I remember in 2003 the left exit on Storrow for Fenway and Kenmore still had US 1 signed. I thought that was very odd considering how long ago at the time that US 1 was moved to I-93.

That signage remained into the 2010's as well. GSV goes back to 2013 and the new signage is there, but I know that signage was pretty new at that point.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on December 01, 2022, 05:32:49 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on November 30, 2022, 06:55:59 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 30, 2022, 06:09:25 AM
I don't even think MA 2 is even well signed as it does use the BU Bridge and end at some place in Boston.

That's the confusing part, is signage in Boston is terrible.

The signage on Memorial/Storrow Drive/Soldiers Field Road is lackluster in general. For a long time, there were still signs for US 1 on Storrow long after it had been rerouted to I-93.
That's what happens when you have a non-roadway agency maintaining a roadway...

SM-A515U

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on December 01, 2022, 06:12:38 AM
Quote from: 5foot14 on December 01, 2022, 05:32:49 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on November 30, 2022, 06:55:59 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 30, 2022, 06:09:25 AM
I don't even think MA 2 is even well signed as it does use the BU Bridge and end at some place in Boston.

That's the confusing part, is signage in Boston is terrible.

The signage on Memorial/Storrow Drive/Soldiers Field Road is lackluster in general. For a long time, there were still signs for US 1 on Storrow long after it had been rerouted to I-93.
That's what happens when you have a non-roadway agency maintaining a roadway...

SM-A515U

Yes, the MDC/DCR.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on December 02, 2022, 03:30:09 PM
Most signs in Boston use tiny shields an either N-S or E-W next to them with either the control city or street name with it.

I am though surprised that Fenway is used over Park Drive on Storrow Drive for the old US 1 exit.  Being Fenway is one way with Park Drive being it's SB counterpart, it should be used over that.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on December 04, 2022, 09:57:34 AM
Discussing the old US 1 signage along Storrow Dr, last night I realized there is new signage approaching Storrow Dr still referencing US 1

https://goo.gl/maps/LofsX7CD4vMBpEYt9
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on December 04, 2022, 10:32:52 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 04, 2022, 09:57:34 AM
Discussing the old US 1 signage along Storrow Dr, last night I realized there is new signage approaching Storrow Dr still referencing US 1

https://goo.gl/maps/LofsX7CD4vMBpEYt9
At least going the other way there is no reference to US 1 for Park Drive. I did find another signing problem in the area. This is on Commonwealth Ave at the Charlesgate intersection heading east, notice the East MA 2 trailblazer? The problem is you are already on MA 2 East, which goes straight. I'm assuming the directional banner was meant to say West:
https://goo.gl/maps/X6D69ZmazfwdHAMaA (https://goo.gl/maps/X6D69ZmazfwdHAMaA)

Hopefully someone has notice since the image was taken last September. There is no corresponding trailblazer at Comm. Ave. after you turn (surprise). At least this new paddle sign on Beacon Street for Storrow Drive has no reference to US 1:
https://goo.gl/maps/NC3QUeYm3kWgykWn8 (https://goo.gl/maps/NC3QUeYm3kWgykWn8)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on December 04, 2022, 02:15:23 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 04, 2022, 09:57:34 AM
Discussing the old US 1 signage along Storrow Dr, last night I realized there is new signage approaching Storrow Dr still referencing US 1

https://goo.gl/maps/LofsX7CD4vMBpEYt9

Those 2020 replacements of 1981 signs (the new ones have the date on the back; the old on the face) are faithful carbon copies.  If only they would consider revising the signs to reflect reality instead of just carbon-copying them every 39 years!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on December 04, 2022, 03:42:58 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on December 04, 2022, 02:15:23 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 04, 2022, 09:57:34 AM
Discussing the old US 1 signage along Storrow Dr, last night I realized there is new signage approaching Storrow Dr still referencing US 1

https://goo.gl/maps/LofsX7CD4vMBpEYt9

Those 2020 replacements of 1981 signs (the new ones have the date on the back; the old on the face) are faithful carbon copies.  If only they would consider revising the signs to reflect reality instead of just carbon-copying them every 39 years!

It makes sense to someone deep within the DCR bureaucracy who probably last read a map in 1981, or a map from 1981.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: storm2k on December 04, 2022, 09:33:05 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on December 04, 2022, 02:15:23 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 04, 2022, 09:57:34 AM
Discussing the old US 1 signage along Storrow Dr, last night I realized there is new signage approaching Storrow Dr still referencing US 1

https://goo.gl/maps/LofsX7CD4vMBpEYt9

Those 2020 replacements of 1981 signs (the new ones have the date on the back; the old on the face) are faithful carbon copies.  If only they would consider revising the signs to reflect reality instead of just carbon-copying them every 39 years!

For better or worse, replace in kind signage contracts are highly common amongst a lot of agencies. I'm sure DCR is no different.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on December 05, 2022, 12:12:24 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on December 04, 2022, 10:32:52 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 04, 2022, 09:57:34 AM
Discussing the old US 1 signage along Storrow Dr, last night I realized there is new signage approaching Storrow Dr still referencing US 1

https://goo.gl/maps/LofsX7CD4vMBpEYt9
Not to mention the ones on Storrow Drive East for the Fenway exit:
https://goo.gl/maps/KbMPuGvzdFk9nbYk8 (https://goo.gl/maps/KbMPuGvzdFk9nbYk8)

At least going the other way there is no reference to US 1 for Park Drive. I did find another signing problem in the area. This is on Commonwealth Ave at the Charlesgate intersection heading east, notice the East MA 2 trailblazer? The problem is you are already on MA 2 East, which goes straight. I'm assuming the directional banner was meant to say West:
https://goo.gl/maps/X6D69ZmazfwdHAMaA (https://goo.gl/maps/X6D69ZmazfwdHAMaA)

Hopefully someone has notice since the image was taken last September. There is no corresponding trailblazer at Comm. Ave. after you turn (surprise). At least this new paddle sign on Beacon Street for Storrow Drive has no reference to US 1:
https://goo.gl/maps/NC3QUeYm3kWgykWn8 (https://goo.gl/maps/NC3QUeYm3kWgykWn8)
Route signage along Memorial Drive is almost non-existent approaching and east of the BU Bridge. They at least have this 1 sign that references MA 2A East approaching Mass. Ave heading east, but no mention at the split of ramps itself or of the upcoming end of US 3 and beginning of MA 3: https://goo.gl/maps/YFJLxDtADikZF7QZ7 (https://goo.gl/maps/YFJLxDtADikZF7QZ7) (Notice how even Google Maps is confused, labelling the road as MA 3). Heading west approaching the BU bridge, you do get a mention of MA 2 West, but nothing about MA 2 East or US 3 North: https://goo.gl/maps/BZC7Uh4yhWKNbxV87 (https://goo.gl/maps/BZC7Uh4yhWKNbxV87)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on December 07, 2022, 09:02:43 AM
I primarily work remotely but I usually commute once a week to my work office, usually on Tuesdays.  My commute has me traveling up I-495 west of Boston.  For weeks my drive into Boston was a breeze, but since mid-October, I've been regularly hitting traffic jams NOT caused by an accident, usually in Hopkinton and Westborough.

In the mornings around 7:30 AM, I find myself hitting the brakes between Exit 50 and Exit 54, and this continues up until I pass the Mass Pike.  In the evenings around 5:30 PM, I find myself hitting the brakes around the Rte. 9 exit, and this continues until about halfway between the Mass Pike and Exit 54.

What's so bewitching about this part of 495 now?  And why does someone going south on I-495 in the mornings then north in the evenings never runs into traffic?  It's like they get to laugh at the people traveling in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on December 08, 2022, 01:51:12 PM
That is a sign from above that US 1 should have never been put on I-93. That was an awful idea that makes no sense.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on December 08, 2022, 02:32:45 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 08, 2022, 01:51:12 PM
That is a sign from above that US 1 should have never been put on I-93. That was an awful idea that makes no sense.

I understand the rationale of not wanting trucks to follow it when a significant part is closed to trucks, even if it's possible no trucker ever did. Plenty of trucks do get Storrowed but I doubt due to 1 being it's prior designation.

1A should have been re-routed on it I feel, instead of 1A having a silent concurrency with the US 1 freeway stretch.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on December 08, 2022, 03:01:29 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on December 07, 2022, 09:02:43 AM
I primarily work remotely but I usually commute once a week to my work office, usually on Tuesdays.  My commute has me traveling up I-495 west of Boston.  For weeks my drive into Boston was a breeze, but since mid-October, I've been regularly hitting traffic jams NOT caused by an accident, usually in Hopkinton and Westborough.

In the mornings around 7:30 AM, I find myself hitting the brakes between Exit 50 and Exit 54, and this continues up until I pass the Mass Pike.  In the evenings around 5:30 PM, I find myself hitting the brakes around the Rte. 9 exit, and this continues until about halfway between the Mass Pike and Exit 54.

What's so bewitching about this part of 495 now?  And why does someone going south on I-495 in the mornings then north in the evenings never runs into traffic?  It's like they get to laugh at the people traveling in the opposite direction.

I'm guessing that there are a number of reasons.  The I-495/Mass Pike exit is becoming a choke point between exurban commuters and out-of-state travelers that causes slowdowns on 495. A lot of people use MA-9 to I-495 to the Pike as an alternate route between Worcester and Boston. Also, there are a lot of employers on I-495 in that area. All of the 495 interchanges in that area are underdesigned and need to be reformed to meet modern traffic demands.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on December 08, 2022, 03:55:04 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 08, 2022, 02:32:45 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 08, 2022, 01:51:12 PM
That is a sign from above that US 1 should have never been put on I-93. That was an awful idea that makes no sense.

I understand the rationale of not wanting trucks to follow it when a significant part is closed to trucks, even if it's possible no trucker ever did. Plenty of trucks do get Storrowed but I doubt due to 1 being it's prior designation.

1A should have been re-routed on it I feel, instead of 1A having a silent concurrency with the US 1 freeway stretch.
Nowadays trucks should use their own gps devices that avoids those roads. I just hate the awkward I-95 wrong way multiplex.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on December 08, 2022, 05:32:54 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 08, 2022, 03:55:04 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 08, 2022, 02:32:45 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 08, 2022, 01:51:12 PM
That is a sign from above that US 1 should have never been put on I-93. That was an awful idea that makes no sense.

I understand the rationale of not wanting trucks to follow it when a significant part is closed to trucks, even if it's possible no trucker ever did. Plenty of trucks do get Storrowed but I doubt due to 1 being it's prior designation.

1A should have been re-routed on it I feel, instead of 1A having a silent concurrency with the US 1 freeway stretch.
Nowadays trucks should use their own gps devices that avoids those roads. I just hate the awkward I-95 wrong way multiplex.

You would think, yet three times alone this year I've encountered a truck stuck under this bridge in Billerica, MA.

https://goo.gl/maps/HXDb7ZyGCzVuoh638
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on December 09, 2022, 06:29:21 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 08, 2022, 05:32:54 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 08, 2022, 03:55:04 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 08, 2022, 02:32:45 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 08, 2022, 01:51:12 PM
That is a sign from above that US 1 should have never been put on I-93. That was an awful idea that makes no sense.

I understand the rationale of not wanting trucks to follow it when a significant part is closed to trucks, even if it's possible no trucker ever did. Plenty of trucks do get Storrowed but I doubt due to 1 being it's prior designation.

1A should have been re-routed on it I feel, instead of 1A having a silent concurrency with the US 1 freeway stretch.
Nowadays trucks should use their own gps devices that avoids those roads. I just hate the awkward I-95 wrong way multiplex.

You would think, yet three times alone this year I've encountered a truck stuck under this bridge in Billerica, MA.

https://goo.gl/maps/HXDb7ZyGCzVuoh638

And, of course, there is the annual tradition in Boston known as Storrowing.

https://www.universalhub.com/storrowed
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: ixnay on December 09, 2022, 08:39:46 AM
On another thread someone recalled that I-93 north of Boston was opened early "reluctantly" in 1973 because of the gravel truck accident that damaged the Tobin Bridge.   Ninety-three was already finished.   What had been preventing it from being opened as soon as it was finished?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on December 09, 2022, 09:24:05 AM
Quote from: ixnay on December 09, 2022, 08:39:46 AM
On another thread someone recalled that I-93 north of Boston was opened early "reluctantly" in 1973 because of the gravel truck accident that damaged the Tobin Bridge.   Ninety-three was already finished.   What had been preventing it from being opened as soon as it was finished?

The governor thought opening it was going to cause a massive traffic jam, though I still consider it was much more stupid to build something and just let it rot but that was the thought process back then.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on December 09, 2022, 11:05:17 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 09, 2022, 09:24:05 AM
Quote from: ixnay on December 09, 2022, 08:39:46 AM
On another thread someone recalled that I-93 north of Boston was opened early "reluctantly" in 1973 because of the gravel truck accident that damaged the Tobin Bridge.   Ninety-three was already finished.   What had been preventing it from being opened as soon as it was finished?
The governor thought opening it was going to cause a massive traffic jam, though I still consider it was much more stupid to build something and just let it rot but that was the thought process back then.
From Steve Anderson's Boston Roads site (bostonroads.com):
"STALLED AT SOMERVILLE: In 1965, after two years of planning, MassDPW commissioner Francis Sargent announced plans to construct the final three miles of the Northern Expressway through Somerville and Charlestown. The $100 million elevated section was to provide connections to the Central Artery (I-93), the Northeast Expressway (US 1) and the unbuilt Inner Belt Expressway (I-695). He pledged at the time that the construction of I-93 would [not] require the razing of any homes. However, more than 300 families and 90 businesses had to be relocated for the highway.

With construction of I-93 well underway by 1970, and with political sentiment growing against new highways, Sargent - now Massachusetts Governor - declared a moratorium on building new highways within MA 128 (Yankee Division Highway). However, the governor made an exception for the final three miles of I-93. According to highway officials, since the final link was being built with 90 percent Federal funds, it appeared less expensive to complete the project for $4 million in state funds than to forfeit the contracts for $10 million.

The final three-mile section of I-93 was completed on February 1, 1973 to little fanfare, but plenty of derision. Initially, full use of the highway was delayed because of an apparent engineering oversight that created a potentially hazardous situation where drivers from right-hand lanes sought to make left-hand exits. Taking advantage of the situation, House Democrats in Massachusetts passed a resolution naming the link the "Honorable Francis W. Sargent Highway," in honor of the Republican governor who initiated the project.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on December 09, 2022, 01:30:08 PM
Speaking of which, it was 50 years ago that Gov. Sargent scrapped the I-95 extension. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiinJWXle37AhUshXIEHVrlDoEQxfQBKAB6BAgHEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bostonglobe.com%2F2022%2F12%2F05%2Fmetro%2Ftransformative-decision-half-century-ago-scrap-i-95-extension-still-resonates-boston-today%2F&usg=AOvVaw3OQXV8XmYqHlwnNJLaP95A
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on December 09, 2022, 11:08:00 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on December 09, 2022, 01:30:08 PM
Speaking of which, it was 50 years ago that Gov. Sargent scrapped the I-95 extension. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiinJWXle37AhUshXIEHVrlDoEQxfQBKAB6BAgHEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bostonglobe.com%2F2022%2F12%2F05%2Fmetro%2Ftransformative-decision-half-century-ago-scrap-i-95-extension-still-resonates-boston-today%2F&usg=AOvVaw3OQXV8XmYqHlwnNJLaP95A

I have to laugh at the "it would have brought more cars into the center of Boston" line a little bit.  So where do all those cars go today?  They take the Southeast Expressway, of course.  The only route into the city from the south.  If I-95 was built, it would have displaced some of that traffic from the SE Expy today no doubt.

What it did do was to displace the thru traffic from points south to go around.  How many drivers just stay on I-95 when there is a suitable bypass?  Would thru drivers have known to take 128 to get to NH-Maine and other points n/w of the hub?  Us "road enthusiasts" know that if we see an even "X-95", its a bypass, but how much of the public knows this? 

Regardless, one has to wonder how different traffic would be had these roads been built... maybe the "inner belt" wasn't needed, but I-95 through the city could've been useful.  I can think of a half dozen roads around Hartford, CT that if they were built, traffic would be more dispersed than it is today. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: ne11931 on December 10, 2022, 07:51:51 PM
This may deserve it's own thread but I'll post here.  What's with the I-93 Wilmington 4 to 3 "lane drop?". If I remember correctly breakdown (or shoulder) use during rush hour 6-9AM and 3-6PM was presented by the Commonwealth as a temporary solution about 25 years ago to the FHWA. I thought they said it was okay but only as a temp. solution.  So now this bottleneck creates problems well beyond the times allowed, it really provides no relief because traffic is already messed up. What's really embarrassing is when you get in to NH now it's 4 lanes.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on December 10, 2022, 08:15:59 PM
Quote from: ne11931 on December 10, 2022, 07:51:51 PM
This may deserve it's own thread but I'll post here.  What's with the I-93 Wilmington 4 to 3 "lane drop?". If I remember correctly breakdown (or shoulder) use during rush hour 6-9AM and 3-6PM was presented by the Commonwealth as a temporary solution about 25 years ago to the FHWA. I thought they said it was okay but only as a temp. solution.  So now this bottleneck creates problems well beyond the times allowed, it really provides no relief because traffic is already messed up. What's really embarrassing is when you get in to NH now it's 4 lanes.

I swear that the traffic backups in Wilmington are mainly due to this lane drop. It also causes a headache for people trying to merge onto 93 northbound at Exit 38 in Andover. You constantly have people stuck behind a slow truck doing 45 while the others go 70 plus. I don't get why MassDOT can't widen this stretch of 93. I never use the shoulder to pass due to how dangerous it is.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on December 10, 2022, 08:42:31 PM
Quote from: ne11931 on December 10, 2022, 07:51:51 PM
This may deserve it's own thread but I'll post here.  What's with the I-93 Wilmington 4 to 3 "lane drop?". If I remember correctly breakdown (or shoulder) use during rush hour 6-9AM and 3-6PM was presented by the Commonwealth as a temporary solution about 25 years ago to the FHWA. I thought they said it was okay but only as a temp. solution.  So now this bottleneck creates problems well beyond the times allowed, it really provides no relief because traffic is already messed up. What's really embarrassing is when you get in to NH now it's 4 lanes.

The feds offered to pay a chunk of widening to 4 lanes all the way to NH, but the state only cared about getting it done to 495, and didn't want to pay a portion for north of that point. Therefore, stalemate, and nothing gets done.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on December 10, 2022, 10:08:16 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 10, 2022, 08:42:31 PM
Quote from: ne11931 on December 10, 2022, 07:51:51 PM
This may deserve it's own thread but I'll post here.  What's with the I-93 Wilmington 4 to 3 "lane drop?". If I remember correctly breakdown (or shoulder) use during rush hour 6-10AM and 3-7PM was presented by the Commonwealth as a temporary solution about 25 years ago to the FHWA. I thought they said it was okay but only as a temp. solution.  So now this bottleneck creates problems well beyond the times allowed, it really provides no relief because traffic is already messed up. What's really embarrassing is when you get in to NH now it's 4 lanes.

The feds offered to pay a chunk of widening to 4 lanes all the way to NH, but the state only cared about getting it done to 495, and didn't want to pay a portion for north of that point. Therefore, stalemate, and nothing gets done.

The 4 lanes doesn't even get to 495, though...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on December 11, 2022, 09:30:05 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 10, 2022, 10:08:16 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 10, 2022, 08:42:31 PM
Quote from: ne11931 on December 10, 2022, 07:51:51 PM
This may deserve it's own thread but I'll post here.  What's with the I-93 Wilmington 4 to 3 "lane drop?". If I remember correctly breakdown (or shoulder) use during rush hour 6-10AM and 3-7PM was presented by the Commonwealth as a temporary solution about 25 years ago to the FHWA. I thought they said it was okay but only as a temp. solution.  So now this bottleneck creates problems well beyond the times allowed, it really provides no relief because traffic is already messed up. What's really embarrassing is when you get in to NH now it's 4 lanes.

The feds offered to pay a chunk of widening to 4 lanes all the way to NH, but the state only cared about getting it done to 495, and didn't want to pay a portion for north of that point. Therefore, stalemate, and nothing gets done.

The 4 lanes doesn't even get to 495, though...

"Therefore, stalemate, and nothing gets done."
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on December 11, 2022, 10:32:47 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 11, 2022, 09:30:05 AM
Quote from: 1 on December 10, 2022, 10:08:16 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on December 10, 2022, 08:42:31 PM
Quote from: ne11931 on December 10, 2022, 07:51:51 PM
This may deserve it's own thread but I'll post here.  What's with the I-93 Wilmington 4 to 3 "lane drop?". If I remember correctly breakdown (or shoulder) use during rush hour 6-10AM and 3-7PM was presented by the Commonwealth as a temporary solution about 25 years ago to the FHWA. I thought they said it was okay but only as a temp. solution.  So now this bottleneck creates problems well beyond the times allowed, it really provides no relief because traffic is already messed up. What's really embarrassing is when you get in to NH now it's 4 lanes.

The feds offered to pay a chunk of widening to 4 lanes all the way to NH, but the state only cared about getting it done to 495, and didn't want to pay a portion for north of that point. Therefore, stalemate, and nothing gets done.

The 4 lanes doesn't even get to 495, though...

"Therefore, stalemate, and nothing gets done."

It speaks volumes about the differing approaches of Massachusetts and New Hampshire. It's hard to believe that not very long ago, I-93 was just four lanes wide in the Granite State. Now it's eight lanes, a configuration clearly needed in the Merrimack Valley. It's befuddling why it hasn't happened.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: LilianaUwU on December 11, 2022, 10:35:52 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on December 11, 2022, 10:32:47 AM
I-93 was just four lanes wide in the Granite State. Now it's eight lanes[...]

Except where it isn't (http://www.gribblenation.org/2020/06/franconia-notch-parkway.html). :bigass:
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on December 12, 2022, 05:42:28 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 11, 2022, 10:35:52 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on December 11, 2022, 10:32:47 AM
I-93 was just four lanes wide in the Granite State. Now it's eight lanes[...]

Except where it isn't (http://www.gribblenation.org/2020/06/franconia-notch-parkway.html). :bigass:

I should have said the section from the MA state line to Manchester.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on December 12, 2022, 09:14:59 AM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on December 10, 2022, 08:15:59 PM
I swear that the traffic backups in Wilmington are mainly due to this lane drop. It also causes a headache for people trying to merge onto 93 northbound at Exit 38 in Andover. You constantly have people stuck behind a slow truck doing 45 while the others go 70 plus. I don't get why MassDOT can't widen this stretch of 93. I never use the shoulder to pass due to how dangerous it is.

There are also traffic backups at Exit 42, River Road.  My work office is off this exit and I will notice the on-ramp from I-93 north will back up and "spill" onto River Rd. causing delays *off* the highway!

I-93 could certainly benefit from being 4 lanes in each direction from Boston to Manchester NH.  You also have a "double lane drop" going south from NH Exit 1 to the MA state line.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on December 15, 2022, 02:27:06 PM
I wasn't sure where to post this, but I drove down I-95 south into Rhode Island today and noticed that at Exit 1 just before the state line, they had put up a sign for the first Rhode Island exit which still reads Exit 30 even though I-95 through Rhode Island has converted.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on December 16, 2022, 11:31:09 PM
https://www.wcvb.com/amp/article/highway-sign-falls-hits-suv-on-i-93-in-somerville/42268260

From earlier today.  A BGS on the upper deck of I-93 North crashed down on a vehicle.  I wonder if this was the same problematic BGS that had the missing State shields for MA 28 and 38.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on December 17, 2022, 05:57:43 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on December 16, 2022, 11:31:09 PM
https://www.wcvb.com/amp/article/highway-sign-falls-hits-suv-on-i-93-in-somerville/42268260

From earlier today.  A BGS on the upper deck of I-93 North crashed down on a vehicle.  I wonder if this was the same problematic BGS that had the missing State shields for MA 28 and 38.

The upper/lower decks of I-93 are now about 50 years old. I wonder if the sign structures are also that old or if they need replacement. .
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: amroad17 on December 17, 2022, 06:50:32 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on December 17, 2022, 05:57:43 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on December 16, 2022, 11:31:09 PM
https://www.wcvb.com/amp/article/highway-sign-falls-hits-suv-on-i-93-in-somerville/42268260

From earlier today.  A BGS on the upper deck of I-93 North crashed down on a vehicle.  I wonder if this was the same problematic BGS that had the missing State shields for MA 28 and 38.

The upper/lower decks of I-93 are now about 50 years old. I wonder if the sign structures are also that old or if they need replacement. .
https://goo.gl/maps/saUx87udVcpBrEBJ8
If you look at the right side of the sign, just above the "e" in Somerville, this area appears to show signs of separating.  This is where the sign split.  Everything above Somerville fell on the front of the woman's SUV.  All it took for it to fall was the wind there yesterday.

Have a look at this view: https://goo.gl/maps/ppDfGJZ9a6CXktpKA  The top part of the sign appears to be leaning forward a bit, along with a noticeable crease in the green area.  Maybe this is why the MA 28 and MA 38 shields fell off the sign.

Looking at GSV in 2012, the sign appears to be fine with the shields and the white outline intact.  BY 2018, the shields were gone and the outline strip on the right side of the sign above Somerville was gone also.  Possible trouble brewing?

You would think that MassDOT would have noticed this when they were changing the exit number on the sign.  :hmmm:  :-/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJStephens on December 17, 2022, 11:07:42 AM
Quote from: ne11931 on December 10, 2022, 07:51:51 PM
This may deserve it's own thread but I'll post here.  What's with the I-93 Wilmington 4 to 3 "lane drop?". If I remember correctly breakdown (or shoulder) use during rush hour 6-9AM and 3-6PM was presented by the Commonwealth as a temporary solution about 25 years ago to the FHWA. I thought they said it was okay but only as a temp. solution.  So now this bottleneck creates problems well beyond the times allowed, it really provides no relief because traffic is already messed up. What's really embarrassing is when you get in to NH now it's 4 lanes.

Remember that lane "drop" in the mid eighties, when traveling up to a job in the Lawrence MA area.  Am guessing that I-93 had been built, in the late fifties, in that configuration, the four lane NB cross section, with the drop, in it's original construction.    It's something that should have been addressed, in the seventies, likely during the Edward King administration.  Am of belief had he (King) been the governor, for the entire time the other guy was (the Greek one) the state would have had a far better, and more complete system today.   
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on December 17, 2022, 04:36:30 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on December 15, 2022, 02:27:06 PM
I wasn't sure where to post this, but I drove down I-95 south into Rhode Island today and noticed that at Exit 1 just before the state line, they had put up a sign for the first Rhode Island exit which still reads Exit 30 even though I-95 through Rhode Island has converted.
If it's the sign bridge I'm thinking of, that was a late install.  They fabricated the MA signage prior to the RI Exit Number changes, so all the RI advance signage (Exits 43-42) require overlays on the exit tabs.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on December 17, 2022, 04:39:25 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on December 17, 2022, 05:57:43 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on December 16, 2022, 11:31:09 PM
https://www.wcvb.com/amp/article/highway-sign-falls-hits-suv-on-i-93-in-somerville/42268260

From earlier today.  A BGS on the upper deck of I-93 North crashed down on a vehicle.  I wonder if this was the same problematic BGS that had the missing State shields for MA 28 and 38.

The upper/lower decks of I-93 are now about 50 years old. I wonder if the sign structures are also that old or if they need replacement. .

I've always wondered why they kept those wide New Jersey-style gantries on the Upper Deck instead of replacing them.  Are they a permanent part of that bridge structure that cannot be removed?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on December 17, 2022, 07:13:59 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on December 17, 2022, 11:07:42 AM
Quote from: ne11931 on December 10, 2022, 07:51:51 PM
This may deserve it's own thread but I'll post here.  What's with the I-93 Wilmington 4 to 3 "lane drop?". If I remember correctly breakdown (or shoulder) use during rush hour 6-9AM and 3-6PM was presented by the Commonwealth as a temporary solution about 25 years ago to the FHWA. I thought they said it was okay but only as a temp. solution.  So now this bottleneck creates problems well beyond the times allowed, it really provides no relief because traffic is already messed up. What's really embarrassing is when you get in to NH now it's 4 lanes.

Remember that lane "drop" in the mid eighties, when traveling up to a job in the Lawrence MA area.  Am guessing that I-93 had been built, in the late fifties, in that configuration, the four lane NB cross section, with the drop, in it's original construction.    It's something that should have been addressed, in the seventies, likely during the Edward King administration.  Am of belief had he (King) been the governor, for the entire time the other guy was (the Greek one) the state would have had a far better, and more complete system today.

IIRC, in the past, the state tried to alleviate traffic congestion without widening on a few six lane highways (some sections of I-93 and I-95/128) by allowing the use of the breakdown lanes, at least during rush hour. I-95 south of MA-9 used to allow it until the widening project was completed a couple of years ago. Perhaps the use of the breakdown lanes took some pressure off of the need for widening, but that isn't the case anymore.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: ProfBrad on January 05, 2023, 03:00:17 PM
When I-290 was renumbered they also had the I-395 milemarkers posted as well. Those seem to have disappeared in the past year. Any news on this?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on January 05, 2023, 03:04:18 PM
Quote from: ProfBrad on January 05, 2023, 03:00:17 PM
When I-290 was renumbered they also had the I-395 milemarkers posted as well. Those seem to have disappeared in the past year. Any news on this?

MassDOT removed them in recent months due to motorist confusion. I didn't see the point of having dual mile markers to begin with as it's not like MassDOT is ever going to extend I-395 over I-290.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on January 16, 2023, 02:21:44 PM
Drove I-84 West yesterday and looks like work has started on its resigning project.  There are new ground mounts for the parking area (which is still referred to as a picnic area) and some new sheet aluminums and new reassurance shields, similar to those on I-95-South (single posted). 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on January 28, 2023, 11:56:32 AM
MassDOT has advertised the sign replacement project for MA 25 (as of Jan. 28). The work is to start in the spring. You would hope this would not take too long to complete. Also, according to MassDOT's ProjectInfo site, work has also started on the I-190 sign replacement project which is all of 3% complete.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 30, 2023, 10:30:50 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 28, 2023, 11:56:32 AM
MassDOT has advertised the sign replacement project for MA 25 (as of Jan. 28). The work is to start in the spring. You would hope this would not take too long to complete. Also, according to MassDOT's ProjectInfo site, work has also started on the I-190 sign replacement project which is all of 3% complete.
MA 25 needs new signs already? Geez, I thought the ones from the '06 replacement were still in good shape.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on January 30, 2023, 05:08:55 PM
MA 25 is going on its 3rd sign replacement in < 20 years IIRC. 

I know I-91 in Mass has had 2 sign replacement projects since the 1990s, while those in Enfield and East Windsor, CT were put up in the late 1980s and still hanging on... most still on their original support structures.  And some on I-84 in CT went up in the early/mid 80s. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 03, 2023, 05:19:17 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on January 30, 2023, 05:08:55 PM
MA 25 is going on its 3rd sign replacement in < 20 years IIRC. 

I know I-91 in Mass has had 2 sign replacement projects since the 1990s, while those in Enfield and East Windsor, CT were put up in the late 1980s and still hanging on... most still on their original support structures.  And some on I-84 in CT went up in the early/mid 80s.
I-84 was done in the middle of the last decade.
There's a few 90s signs on I-91, one of which is a distance BGS in Longmeadow.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 08, 2023, 11:37:25 PM
What are the signs' designed lifespan? 3x in 20 years is a lot.
Why are they replacing them so much?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DJStephens on February 09, 2023, 10:32:59 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on December 17, 2022, 07:13:59 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on December 17, 2022, 11:07:42 AM
Quote from: ne11931 on December 10, 2022, 07:51:51 PM
This may deserve it's own thread but I'll post here.  What's with the I-93 Wilmington 4 to 3 "lane drop?". If I remember correctly breakdown (or shoulder) use during rush hour 6-9AM and 3-6PM was presented by the Commonwealth as a temporary solution about 25 years ago to the FHWA. I thought they said it was okay but only as a temp. solution.  So now this bottleneck creates problems well beyond the times allowed, it really provides no relief because traffic is already messed up. What's really embarrassing is when you get in to NH now it's 4 lanes.

Remember that lane "drop" in the mid eighties, when traveling up to a job in the Lawrence MA area.  Am guessing that I-93 had been built, in the late fifties, in that configuration, the four lane NB cross section, with the drop, in it's original construction.    It's something that should have been addressed, in the seventies, likely during the Edward King administration.  Am of belief had he (King) been the governor, for the entire time the other guy was (the Greek one) the state would have had a far better, and more complete system today.

IIRC, in the past, the state tried to alleviate traffic congestion without widening on a few six lane highways (some sections of I-93 and I-95/128) by allowing the use of the breakdown lanes, at least during rush hour. I-95 south of MA-9 used to allow it until the widening project was completed a couple of years ago. Perhaps the use of the breakdown lanes took some pressure off of the need for widening, but that isn't the case anymore.
Yes the original "Salvucci" lanes were on that notorious stretch of 128, between Rte 9 and Rte 24.  It appeared that grading and gantries in the "wide" median stretch were prepared for widening in the mid seventies, that never happened until decades later.   
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on February 13, 2023, 12:14:03 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 28, 2023, 11:56:32 AM
MassDOT has advertised the sign replacement project for MA 25 (as of Jan. 28). The work is to start in the spring. You would hope this would not take too long to complete. Also, according to MassDOT's ProjectInfo site, work has also started on the I-190 sign replacement project which is all of 3% complete.
Among the files you can download on the MassDOT project page is a new one allowing you to request a copy of the plan files, after the project is awarded. While still not as useful as having the plans posted online as other states do, it's a small step in the right direction.
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-23-1030-0H100-0H002-83819&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-23-1030-0H100-0H002-83819&external=true&parentUrl=bid)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on February 15, 2023, 08:45:32 AM
I took some photos on my 9-mile walk from downtown Haverhill to Yang Ming II in Amesbury along MA 110. Of the five I uploaded to Flickr, one is here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7046.msg2816912#msg2816912), in the Signs with Design Errors thread, and one is here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=62.msg2816914#msg2816914), in the Oil/Gas Prices thread (at $0.009 per gallon). The other three are below.

Merrimac Fire Department can't spell Pilgrim (I checked, the actual location is spelled correctly)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52689952752_6bafdafa94_c.jpg)

Apostrophe's for verb's.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52689952767_cf33351299_c.jpg)

Speed limit 10. This is a typical residential road, specifically Orchard Street in Merrimac, just the slightest bit west of downtown.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52690886720_4ccbbe4897_c.jpg)

I also saw Merrimac Chess Club where they claimed they were "knights of the square table", a house that decorated their bushes as Valentine's Day gnomes, and some turkeys that I couldn't get a photo of because it was after sunset.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on February 18, 2023, 11:25:01 AM
Another weekend, another short route sign replacement contract advertised, this time for I-295 (and exit signs for it on US 1):
Bid Opening: 3/28/2023 2:00PM
Location: ATTLEBORO - NORTH ATTLEBOROUGH
Description: Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement along Interstate 295 and a Section of Route 1
District: 5 Ad Date: 2/18/2023 Section Response: Const Project Value: $600,630.00
CDs, Plans & Specs Available: No
Federal Aid No.: HSI-295S(018)X Project Number: 609063 Project Type: Signing - Structural
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on February 19, 2023, 10:10:04 AM
The south end of MA 108 has been redesigned to be a T-intersection rather than being at a shallow angle. Normally, this is inconsequential, but since MA 108 is under a mile long, it might change the length of MA 108 by a small percentage (guessing between 0.1% and 1.0%, and don't know which direction). Google Street View has not been updated yet.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on February 23, 2023, 11:12:27 AM
The schedule for the rehabilitation project for Boston's Sumner Tunnel has changed, closures will continue into 2024:
https://www.mass.gov/news/new-sumner-tunnel-full-closure-schedule-changing-to-reduce-impact-on-travelers-this-summer (https://www.mass.gov/news/new-sumner-tunnel-full-closure-schedule-changing-to-reduce-impact-on-travelers-this-summer)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on February 23, 2023, 11:31:10 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 19, 2023, 10:10:04 AM
The south end of MA 108 has been redesigned to be a T-intersection rather than being at a shallow angle. Normally, this is inconsequential, but since MA 108 is under a mile long, it might change the length of MA 108 by a small percentage (guessing between 0.1% and 1.0%, and don't know which direction). Google Street View has not been updated yet.

So you mean if I'm cycling on 108 south onto 110 west, I can't merge in at 25 MPH anymore?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on February 23, 2023, 11:42:22 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 23, 2023, 11:31:10 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 19, 2023, 10:10:04 AM
The south end of MA 108 has been redesigned to be a T-intersection rather than being at a shallow angle. Normally, this is inconsequential, but since MA 108 is under a mile long, it might change the length of MA 108 by a small percentage (guessing between 0.1% and 1.0%, and don't know which direction). Google Street View has not been updated yet.

So you mean if I'm cycling on 108 south onto 110 west, I can't merge in at 25 MPH anymore?

This is correct.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 06, 2023, 06:11:28 PM
The new 2023 Mass. state transportation map is available to download at:
https://www.mass.gov/official-transportation-map (https://www.mass.gov/official-transportation-map)

The only change I noticed from the previous edition (besides the photo of the new governor) is that they have added the still under construction Dedham Street interchange (Exit 25) to I-95 south of Boston. The previous error of listing the exit numbers for MA 28 on Cape Cod is still there.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 07, 2023, 10:26:00 AM
Cool photo from 1971 showing the eastbound carriageway of US 6 being built in Yarmouth.
https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs= (https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs=)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on March 07, 2023, 11:02:19 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 07, 2023, 10:26:00 AM
Cool photo from 1971 showing the eastbound carriageway of US 6 being built in Yarmouth.
https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs= (https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs=)

I remember driving on that EB side soon after I got my license, while there was still a bunch of construction going on.

Says something about the state of the culture, when nothing more has been done to that road for half a century, even as we're subjected to a 13-mile super-2 with plenty of room next to it to turn it into a freeway.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on March 07, 2023, 11:05:20 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 06, 2023, 06:11:28 PM
The new 2023 Mass. state transportation map is available to download at:
https://www.mass.gov/official-transportation-map (https://www.mass.gov/official-transportation-map)

The only change I noticed from the previous edition (besides the photo of the new governor) is that they have added the still under construction Dedham Street interchange (Exit 25) to I-95 south of Boston. The previous error of listing the exit numbers for MA 28 on Cape Cod is still there.

Wow! Massachusetts is actually going to build one freeway ramp! How ambitious.

It's amazing how long it took them to up 128 to eight lanes up to Highland Ave, even though we were driving in the breakdown lanes in rush hour when I started driving fifty years ago. Massachusetts has a toy road department, compared to California where I live now.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on March 07, 2023, 11:21:40 PM
Quote from: pderocco on March 07, 2023, 11:05:20 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 06, 2023, 06:11:28 PM
The new 2023 Mass. state transportation map is available to download at:
https://www.mass.gov/official-transportation-map (https://www.mass.gov/official-transportation-map)

The only change I noticed from the previous edition (besides the photo of the new governor) is that they have added the still under construction Dedham Street interchange (Exit 25) to I-95 south of Boston. The previous error of listing the exit numbers for MA 28 on Cape Cod is still there.

Wow! Massachusetts is actually going to build one freeway ramp! How ambitious.

It's amazing how long it took them to up 128 to eight lanes up to Highland Ave, even though we were driving in the breakdown lanes in rush hour when I started driving fifty years ago. Massachusetts has a toy road department, compared to California where I live now.
The Dedham Street Interchange has been 1/4 done (Dedham St to I-95 South) for basically my entire life. It's always been one of my roadgeek fascinations. Cool to see that they are finally finishing the interchange.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on March 07, 2023, 11:33:10 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 06, 2023, 06:11:28 PM
The new 2023 Mass. state transportation map is available to download at:
https://www.mass.gov/official-transportation-map (https://www.mass.gov/official-transportation-map)

Do you mean there are PDF maps between the 2009 one in their archives and the the 2023 one?

It's nice that this latest one isn't raster graphics, so there's no limit to the resolution you can render it at.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 08, 2023, 07:03:00 AM
Quote from: pderocco on March 07, 2023, 11:05:20 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 06, 2023, 06:11:28 PM
The new 2023 Mass. state transportation map is available to download at:
https://www.mass.gov/official-transportation-map (https://www.mass.gov/official-transportation-map)

The only change I noticed from the previous edition (besides the photo of the new governor) is that they have added the still under construction Dedham Street interchange (Exit 25) to I-95 south of Boston. The previous error of listing the exit numbers for MA 28 on Cape Cod is still there.

Wow! Massachusetts is actually going to build one freeway ramp! How ambitious.

It's amazing how long it took them to up 128 to eight lanes up to Highland Ave, even though we were driving in the breakdown lanes in rush hour when I started driving fifty years ago. Massachusetts has a toy road department, compared to California where I live now.

Nothing gets built in Massachusetts with ease anymore.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 08, 2023, 07:36:40 AM
Quote from: pderocco on March 07, 2023, 11:02:19 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 07, 2023, 10:26:00 AM
Cool photo from 1971 showing the eastbound carriageway of US 6 being built in Yarmouth.
https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs= (https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs=)

I remember driving on that EB side soon after I got my license, while there was still a bunch of construction going on.

Says something about the state of the culture, when nothing more has been done to that road for half a century, even as we're subjected to a 13-mile super-2 with plenty of room next to it to turn it into a freeway.
Even the full freeway is insufferable in the summer. Sometimes bypassing sections of it on surface streets can be faster

The ROW for the EB side is still there, FWIW.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 09, 2023, 05:55:16 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 08, 2023, 07:36:40 AM
Quote from: pderocco on March 07, 2023, 11:02:19 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 07, 2023, 10:26:00 AM
Cool photo from 1971 showing the eastbound carriageway of US 6 being built in Yarmouth.
https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs= (https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs=)

I remember driving on that EB side soon after I got my license, while there was still a bunch of construction going on.

Says something about the state of the culture, when nothing more has been done to that road for half a century, even as we're subjected to a 13-mile super-2 with plenty of room next to it to turn it into a freeway.
Even the full freeway is insufferable in the summer. Sometimes bypassing sections of it on surface streets can be faster

The ROW for the EB side is still there, FWIW.

Much will depend on whatever the new design for the Cape Cod Bridges will be, whenever it will be. As for the US-6 super 2, I can remember when there was no separation between the east and west lanes. Supposedly environmental and land use concerns have prevented the widening of the super 2, but I imagine any improvements to the bridges may actually improve the chances for widening.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 09, 2023, 07:48:40 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 09, 2023, 05:55:16 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 08, 2023, 07:36:40 AM
Quote from: pderocco on March 07, 2023, 11:02:19 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 07, 2023, 10:26:00 AM
Cool photo from 1971 showing the eastbound carriageway of US 6 being built in Yarmouth.
https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs= (https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs=)

I remember driving on that EB side soon after I got my license, while there was still a bunch of construction going on.

Says something about the state of the culture, when nothing more has been done to that road for half a century, even as we're subjected to a 13-mile super-2 with plenty of room next to it to turn it into a freeway.
Even the full freeway is insufferable in the summer. Sometimes bypassing sections of it on surface streets can be faster

The ROW for the EB side is still there, FWIW.

Much will depend on whatever the new design for the Cape Cod Bridges will be, whenever it will be. As for the US-6 super 2, I can remember when there was no separation between the east and west lanes. Supposedly environmental and land use concerns have prevented the widening of the super 2, but I imagine any improvements to the bridges may actually improve the chances for widening.
My concern is safety. Ambulances routinely have to resort to driving on the soft shoulder on the super 2 stretch when it's backed up. If, God forbid, there is a civil emergency on the Cape, how would MassDOT expect everyone to evacuate in a timely fashion? There's no major airport on the Outer Cape, no rail service either.

At the very least, the super 2 stretch should have full shoulders.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on March 09, 2023, 10:09:50 AM
I've always been freaked out by super 2s. They always seem like they should be 4 lanes in like every case. Would rather have a 4 lane expressway with driveways than a super 2.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on March 09, 2023, 10:27:36 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 09, 2023, 10:09:50 AM
I've always been freaked out by super 2s. They always seem like they should be 4 lanes in like every case. Would rather have a 4 lane expressway with driveways than a super 2.

It's weird that I feel that the ones in Massachusetts are terrifying compared to the New Hampshire ones. For a while I lived close enough to the MA 2/US 202 bypass of Athol and Orange and the NH 101 Milford bypass, heavily using both, and I feel that the safety difference is night and day. The ones in Mass feel like cattle chutes. Oddly enough, cyclists and pedestrians are allowed on all the NH ones except for the tiny super-2 portion of the Spaulding Turnpike, in Mass they are treated just like other freeways in that regard.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on March 09, 2023, 06:18:27 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 09, 2023, 10:27:36 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 09, 2023, 10:09:50 AM
I've always been freaked out by super 2s. They always seem like they should be 4 lanes in like every case. Would rather have a 4 lane expressway with driveways than a super 2.

It's weird that I feel that the ones in Massachusetts are terrifying compared to the New Hampshire ones. For a while I lived close enough to the MA 2/US 202 bypass of Athol and Orange and the NH 101 Milford bypass, heavily using both, and I feel that the safety difference is night and day. The ones in Mass feel like cattle chutes. Oddly enough, cyclists and pedestrians are allowed on all the NH ones except for the tiny super-2 portion of the Spaulding Turnpike, in Mass they are treated just like other freeways in that regard.
Remember MA 2 before the reflective bollards were installed?  Pepperidge Farms remembers...

*Clutches steering wheel hoping the oncoming truck is not driven by Christopher Walken in Annie Hall*
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on March 10, 2023, 08:18:32 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2023, 06:18:27 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 09, 2023, 10:27:36 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 09, 2023, 10:09:50 AM
I've always been freaked out by super 2s. They always seem like they should be 4 lanes in like every case. Would rather have a 4 lane expressway with driveways than a super 2.

It's weird that I feel that the ones in Massachusetts are terrifying compared to the New Hampshire ones. For a while I lived close enough to the MA 2/US 202 bypass of Athol and Orange and the NH 101 Milford bypass, heavily using both, and I feel that the safety difference is night and day. The ones in Mass feel like cattle chutes. Oddly enough, cyclists and pedestrians are allowed on all the NH ones except for the tiny super-2 portion of the Spaulding Turnpike, in Mass they are treated just like other freeways in that regard.
Remember MA 2 before the reflective bollards were installed?  Pepperidge Farms remembers...

*Clutches steering wheel hoping the oncoming truck is not driven by Christopher Walken in Annie Hall*

I do. I think they were installed after I first drove on it myself (probably 1996) so my terror was only as a passenger. I don't think I was on it more than a few times until I moved to Fitchburg in 2005, then was on it a ton, and there was a lot of upgrades to it during the 9 years I was living there, including the small bypass around the paper mill in Erving.

The bollards are a joke anyways, mostly because 1) they won't do anything and 2) for some reason only the stretch concurrent with 202 was deemed important enough for them

I will say the most terrifying thing to cycle on was 2 from the Erving paper mill west for a few miles where it runs beside the Millers River, and there is like no other route that isn't a multi-mile detour with 800+ feet of additional climbing.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 10, 2023, 11:01:44 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2023, 06:18:27 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 09, 2023, 10:27:36 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 09, 2023, 10:09:50 AM
I've always been freaked out by super 2s. They always seem like they should be 4 lanes in like every case. Would rather have a 4 lane expressway with driveways than a super 2.

It's weird that I feel that the ones in Massachusetts are terrifying compared to the New Hampshire ones. For a while I lived close enough to the MA 2/US 202 bypass of Athol and Orange and the NH 101 Milford bypass, heavily using both, and I feel that the safety difference is night and day. The ones in Mass feel like cattle chutes. Oddly enough, cyclists and pedestrians are allowed on all the NH ones except for the tiny super-2 portion of the Spaulding Turnpike, in Mass they are treated just like other freeways in that regard.
Remember MA 2 before the reflective bollards were installed?  Pepperidge Farms remembers...

*Clutches steering wheel hoping the oncoming truck is not driven by Christopher Walken in Annie Hall*

Super-2s in Massachusetts are scary for a few reasons: our population and traffic levels mean that they shouldn't be Super-2s at all; the usual M*hole driver image; the lack of room for passing; insufficient shoulders; the fact that many lack sufficient accel/decel lanes; and so on. The bollards on MA-2 are better than nothing, but still not good enough. On MA-2 in particular, I know a number of folks use it to travel from Western Mass to Boston to avoid Turnpike tolls, and to go to and from UMass and the Five Colleges to points north.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on March 10, 2023, 11:05:35 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 10, 2023, 11:01:44 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2023, 06:18:27 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 09, 2023, 10:27:36 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 09, 2023, 10:09:50 AM
I've always been freaked out by super 2s. They always seem like they should be 4 lanes in like every case. Would rather have a 4 lane expressway with driveways than a super 2.

It's weird that I feel that the ones in Massachusetts are terrifying compared to the New Hampshire ones. For a while I lived close enough to the MA 2/US 202 bypass of Athol and Orange and the NH 101 Milford bypass, heavily using both, and I feel that the safety difference is night and day. The ones in Mass feel like cattle chutes. Oddly enough, cyclists and pedestrians are allowed on all the NH ones except for the tiny super-2 portion of the Spaulding Turnpike, in Mass they are treated just like other freeways in that regard.
Remember MA 2 before the reflective bollards were installed?  Pepperidge Farms remembers...

*Clutches steering wheel hoping the oncoming truck is not driven by Christopher Walken in Annie Hall*

Super-2s in Massachusetts are scary for a few reasons: our population and traffic levels mean that they shouldn't be Super-2s at all; the usual M*hole driver image; the lack of room for passing; insufficient shoulders; the fact that many lack sufficient accel/decel lanes; and so on. The bollards on MA-2 are better than nothing, but still not good enough. On MA-2 in particular, I know a number of folks use it to travel from Western Mass to Boston to avoid Turnpike tolls, and to go to and from UMass and the Five Colleges to points north.
I know people who commute to Boston daily from at least Gardner (and a very few idiots that do so from near Amherst).  As they put it, you're facing the Sun both ways, so get a good pair of sunglasses.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on March 10, 2023, 11:28:57 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 09, 2023, 07:48:40 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 09, 2023, 05:55:16 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 08, 2023, 07:36:40 AM
Quote from: pderocco on March 07, 2023, 11:02:19 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 07, 2023, 10:26:00 AM
Cool photo from 1971 showing the eastbound carriageway of US 6 being built in Yarmouth.
https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs= (https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs=)

I remember driving on that EB side soon after I got my license, while there was still a bunch of construction going on.

Says something about the state of the culture, when nothing more has been done to that road for half a century, even as we're subjected to a 13-mile super-2 with plenty of room next to it to turn it into a freeway.
Even the full freeway is insufferable in the summer. Sometimes bypassing sections of it on surface streets can be faster

The ROW for the EB side is still there, FWIW.

Much will depend on whatever the new design for the Cape Cod Bridges will be, whenever it will be. As for the US-6 super 2, I can remember when there was no separation between the east and west lanes. Supposedly environmental and land use concerns have prevented the widening of the super 2, but I imagine any improvements to the bridges may actually improve the chances for widening.
My concern is safety. Ambulances routinely have to resort to driving on the soft shoulder on the super 2 stretch when it's backed up. If, God forbid, there is a civil emergency on the Cape, how would MassDOT expect everyone to evacuate in a timely fashion? There's no major airport on the Outer Cape, no rail service either.

At the very least, the super 2 stretch should have full shoulders.

Of course this is Cape Cod we're talking about here. It is the same place that dragged their feet on exit renumbering. It won't ever happen because residents of the Cape are ultra NIMBYs that believe that the slightest change will take away from the character of the Cape. The LOCALS call the thing "Suicide Alley"  due to the lack of safety, yet they shoot down any attempt to fix them. People don't come to the Cape to see the freeway.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2023, 03:01:54 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 10, 2023, 11:28:57 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 09, 2023, 07:48:40 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 09, 2023, 05:55:16 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 08, 2023, 07:36:40 AM
Quote from: pderocco on March 07, 2023, 11:02:19 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 07, 2023, 10:26:00 AM
Cool photo from 1971 showing the eastbound carriageway of US 6 being built in Yarmouth.
https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs= (https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs=)

I remember driving on that EB side soon after I got my license, while there was still a bunch of construction going on.

Says something about the state of the culture, when nothing more has been done to that road for half a century, even as we're subjected to a 13-mile super-2 with plenty of room next to it to turn it into a freeway.
Even the full freeway is insufferable in the summer. Sometimes bypassing sections of it on surface streets can be faster

The ROW for the EB side is still there, FWIW.

Much will depend on whatever the new design for the Cape Cod Bridges will be, whenever it will be. As for the US-6 super 2, I can remember when there was no separation between the east and west lanes. Supposedly environmental and land use concerns have prevented the widening of the super 2, but I imagine any improvements to the bridges may actually improve the chances for widening.
My concern is safety. Ambulances routinely have to resort to driving on the soft shoulder on the super 2 stretch when it's backed up. If, God forbid, there is a civil emergency on the Cape, how would MassDOT expect everyone to evacuate in a timely fashion? There's no major airport on the Outer Cape, no rail service either.

At the very least, the super 2 stretch should have full shoulders.

Of course this is Cape Cod we're talking about here. It is the same place that dragged their feet on exit renumbering. It won't ever happen because residents of the Cape are ultra NIMBYs that believe that the slightest change will take away from the character of the Cape. The LOCALS call the thing "Suicide Alley"  due to the lack of safety, yet they shoot down any attempt to fix them. People don't come to the Cape to see the freeway.
No, they come to get stuck on it any wonder why the road is so underpowered.

It's really more of a parkway than a freeway, with it's short merge areas, narrow lanes, blind curves and lack of shoulders.
Actually, I'm not sure why safety improvements haven't been proposed for the full "freeway section".
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on March 10, 2023, 04:03:22 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 10, 2023, 11:05:35 AM
I know people who commute to Boston daily from at least Gardner (and a very few idiots that do so from near Amherst).  As they put it, you're facing the Sun both ways, so get a good pair of sunglasses.

I guess this sign exists thanks to those commuters? https://goo.gl/maps/UF1FfyrwHfFqMefh8
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on March 10, 2023, 06:08:06 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 10, 2023, 04:03:22 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 10, 2023, 11:05:35 AM
I know people who commute to Boston daily from at least Gardner (and a very few idiots that do so from near Amherst).  As they put it, you're facing the Sun both ways, so get a good pair of sunglasses.

I guess this sign exists thanks to those commuters? https://goo.gl/maps/UF1FfyrwHfFqMefh8
The mileage sign or the bridge out sign?  Um...I guess?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 11, 2023, 09:40:44 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2023, 03:01:54 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 10, 2023, 11:28:57 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 09, 2023, 07:48:40 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 09, 2023, 05:55:16 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 08, 2023, 07:36:40 AM
Quote from: pderocco on March 07, 2023, 11:02:19 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 07, 2023, 10:26:00 AM
Cool photo from 1971 showing the eastbound carriageway of US 6 being built in Yarmouth.
https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs= (https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs=)

I remember driving on that EB side soon after I got my license, while there was still a bunch of construction going on.

Says something about the state of the culture, when nothing more has been done to that road for half a century, even as we're subjected to a 13-mile super-2 with plenty of room next to it to turn it into a freeway.
Even the full freeway is insufferable in the summer. Sometimes bypassing sections of it on surface streets can be faster

The ROW for the EB side is still there, FWIW.

Much will depend on whatever the new design for the Cape Cod Bridges will be, whenever it will be. As for the US-6 super 2, I can remember when there was no separation between the east and west lanes. Supposedly environmental and land use concerns have prevented the widening of the super 2, but I imagine any improvements to the bridges may actually improve the chances for widening.
My concern is safety. Ambulances routinely have to resort to driving on the soft shoulder on the super 2 stretch when it's backed up. If, God forbid, there is a civil emergency on the Cape, how would MassDOT expect everyone to evacuate in a timely fashion? There's no major airport on the Outer Cape, no rail service either.

At the very least, the super 2 stretch should have full shoulders.

Of course this is Cape Cod we're talking about here. It is the same place that dragged their feet on exit renumbering. It won't ever happen because residents of the Cape are ultra NIMBYs that believe that the slightest change will take away from the character of the Cape. The LOCALS call the thing "Suicide Alley"  due to the lack of safety, yet they shoot down any attempt to fix them. People don't come to the Cape to see the freeway.
No, they come to get stuck on it any wonder why the road is so underpowered.

It's really more of a parkway than a freeway, with it's short merge areas, narrow lanes, blind curves and lack of shoulders.
Actually, I'm not sure why safety improvements haven't been proposed for the full "freeway section".

The resistance to changing the exit numbers tells us everything we need to know about Cape Cod attitudes towards highway changes and improvements. I would bet the only reason the Bourne and Sagamore Bridges will be replaced (whenever that happens) beyond their age  is because folks there realize it's a drag on the economy. I would guess most Cape Cod residents (year-round) actually like the Parkway style of US-6 west of Dennis and tolerate the Super-2 from Dennis to Orleans because any improvements would (in their eyes) encourage more driving and more development pressure.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 12, 2023, 03:19:11 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 11, 2023, 09:40:44 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2023, 03:01:54 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 10, 2023, 11:28:57 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 09, 2023, 07:48:40 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 09, 2023, 05:55:16 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 08, 2023, 07:36:40 AM
Quote from: pderocco on March 07, 2023, 11:02:19 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 07, 2023, 10:26:00 AM
Cool photo from 1971 showing the eastbound carriageway of US 6 being built in Yarmouth.
https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs= (https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs=)

I remember driving on that EB side soon after I got my license, while there was still a bunch of construction going on.

Says something about the state of the culture, when nothing more has been done to that road for half a century, even as we're subjected to a 13-mile super-2 with plenty of room next to it to turn it into a freeway.
Even the full freeway is insufferable in the summer. Sometimes bypassing sections of it on surface streets can be faster

The ROW for the EB side is still there, FWIW.

Much will depend on whatever the new design for the Cape Cod Bridges will be, whenever it will be. As for the US-6 super 2, I can remember when there was no separation between the east and west lanes. Supposedly environmental and land use concerns have prevented the widening of the super 2, but I imagine any improvements to the bridges may actually improve the chances for widening.
My concern is safety. Ambulances routinely have to resort to driving on the soft shoulder on the super 2 stretch when it's backed up. If, God forbid, there is a civil emergency on the Cape, how would MassDOT expect everyone to evacuate in a timely fashion? There's no major airport on the Outer Cape, no rail service either.

At the very least, the super 2 stretch should have full shoulders.

Of course this is Cape Cod we're talking about here. It is the same place that dragged their feet on exit renumbering. It won't ever happen because residents of the Cape are ultra NIMBYs that believe that the slightest change will take away from the character of the Cape. The LOCALS call the thing "Suicide Alley"  due to the lack of safety, yet they shoot down any attempt to fix them. People don't come to the Cape to see the freeway.
No, they come to get stuck on it any wonder why the road is so underpowered.

It's really more of a parkway than a freeway, with it's short merge areas, narrow lanes, blind curves and lack of shoulders.
Actually, I'm not sure why safety improvements haven't been proposed for the full "freeway section".

The resistance to changing the exit numbers tells us everything we need to know about Cape Cod attitudes towards highway changes and improvements. I would bet the only reason the Bourne and Sagamore Bridges will be replaced (whenever that happens) beyond their age  is because folks there realize it's a drag on the economy. I would guess most Cape Cod residents (year-round) actually like the Parkway style of US-6 west of Dennis and tolerate the Super-2 from Dennis to Orleans because any improvements would (in their eyes) encourage more driving and more development pressure.
Yes, let's keep two 90-year old bridges meant to carry cars MUCH smaller than ones made today, with a steep grade and high curbs and no center barrier.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 14, 2023, 07:28:08 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 12, 2023, 03:19:11 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 11, 2023, 09:40:44 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 10, 2023, 03:01:54 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 10, 2023, 11:28:57 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 09, 2023, 07:48:40 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 09, 2023, 05:55:16 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 08, 2023, 07:36:40 AM
Quote from: pderocco on March 07, 2023, 11:02:19 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on March 07, 2023, 10:26:00 AM
Cool photo from 1971 showing the eastbound carriageway of US 6 being built in Yarmouth.
https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs= (https://media.gettyimages.com/id/650513178/photo/cape-cod-daily-life.webp?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=qUwVn0AhmBWquJRpVuFZJYw1Vp-Ubqw5dccYrtFJ9zs=)

I remember driving on that EB side soon after I got my license, while there was still a bunch of construction going on.

Says something about the state of the culture, when nothing more has been done to that road for half a century, even as we're subjected to a 13-mile super-2 with plenty of room next to it to turn it into a freeway.
Even the full freeway is insufferable in the summer. Sometimes bypassing sections of it on surface streets can be faster

The ROW for the EB side is still there, FWIW.

Much will depend on whatever the new design for the Cape Cod Bridges will be, whenever it will be. As for the US-6 super 2, I can remember when there was no separation between the east and west lanes. Supposedly environmental and land use concerns have prevented the widening of the super 2, but I imagine any improvements to the bridges may actually improve the chances for widening.
My concern is safety. Ambulances routinely have to resort to driving on the soft shoulder on the super 2 stretch when it's backed up. If, God forbid, there is a civil emergency on the Cape, how would MassDOT expect everyone to evacuate in a timely fashion? There's no major airport on the Outer Cape, no rail service either.

At the very least, the super 2 stretch should have full shoulders.

Of course this is Cape Cod we're talking about here. It is the same place that dragged their feet on exit renumbering. It won't ever happen because residents of the Cape are ultra NIMBYs that believe that the slightest change will take away from the character of the Cape. The LOCALS call the thing "Suicide Alley"  due to the lack of safety, yet they shoot down any attempt to fix them. People don't come to the Cape to see the freeway.
No, they come to get stuck on it any wonder why the road is so underpowered.

It's really more of a parkway than a freeway, with it's short merge areas, narrow lanes, blind curves and lack of shoulders.
Actually, I'm not sure why safety improvements haven't been proposed for the full "freeway section".

The resistance to changing the exit numbers tells us everything we need to know about Cape Cod attitudes towards highway changes and improvements. I would bet the only reason the Bourne and Sagamore Bridges will be replaced (whenever that happens) beyond their age  is because folks there realize it's a drag on the economy. I would guess most Cape Cod residents (year-round) actually like the Parkway style of US-6 west of Dennis and tolerate the Super-2 from Dennis to Orleans because any improvements would (in their eyes) encourage more driving and more development pressure.
Yes, let's keep two 90-year old bridges meant to carry cars MUCH smaller than ones made today, with a steep grade and high curbs and no center barrier.

Agreed, but the Cape is the Cape.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on March 24, 2023, 03:53:02 PM
Did the new exit renumbering change the awkward Exits 1A-2A and Exits 1B-2B on I-291 in Springfield?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 24, 2023, 04:01:40 PM
No. Interstate 291 and Interstate 391 did not have their exits renumbered. Nor did MA 213 or the Lowell Connector. I would have renumbered them, as well as number the remaining unnumbered exits. Then again, I'm not in charge, and I haven't been to Massachusetts since 1994 (attending my stepbrother's wedding, three years before my stepfather married my mother).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 25, 2023, 11:50:06 AM
MassDOT has gave the Notice to Proceed yesterday (3/24) on the MA 25 sign replacement contract. No completion date provided, but should it take longer than a year? The I-84 project was started in the spring of 2022 and according to MassDOT is 75% finished. The winning bid for the I-295 sign replacement contract is to be announced this Tuesday (3/28).

I've updated my sign replacement project list page with the new information:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/signprojectlist.html (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/signprojectlist.html)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on March 26, 2023, 11:47:00 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 24, 2023, 04:01:40 PM
No. Interstate 291 and Interstate 391 did not have their exits renumbered. Nor did MA 213 or the Lowell Connector. I would have renumbered them, as well as number the remaining unnumbered exits. Then again, I'm not in charge, and I haven't been to Massachusetts since 1994 (attending my stepbrother's wedding, three years before my stepfather married my mother).

The new mileage-based numbers on I-291 and Route 213 would have shifted the sequence of numbers by one digit.  MassDOT decided such a change  was not significant enough from either a navigation or emergency response perspective to do so.  Converting the numbers on I-391 and the Lowell Connector would have resulted in bowls of alphabet soup.  With a few exceptions, MassDOT design parameters for the project restricted suffixed exit numbers to dual ramp interchanges serving opposite directions of the same route or street, or for multiple exits served by a single collector distributor road off the highway mainline.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on March 27, 2023, 05:38:04 PM
Quote from: roadman on March 26, 2023, 11:47:00 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 24, 2023, 04:01:40 PM
No. Interstate 291 and Interstate 391 did not have their exits renumbered. Nor did MA 213 or the Lowell Connector. I would have renumbered them, as well as number the remaining unnumbered exits. Then again, I'm not in charge, and I haven't been to Massachusetts since 1994 (attending my stepbrother's wedding, three years before my stepfather married my mother).

The new mileage-based numbers on I-291 and Route 213 would have shifted the sequence of numbers by one digit.  MassDOT decided such a change  was not significant enough from either a navigation or emergency response perspective to do so.  Converting the numbers on I-391 and the Lowell Connector would have resulted in bowls of alphabet soup.  With a few exceptions, MassDOT design parameters for the project restricted suffixed exit numbers to dual ramp interchanges serving opposite directions of the same route or street, or for multiple exits served by a single collector distributor road off the highway mainline.
And RIDOT went in the other direction, fully embracing alphabet soup.  Split ramp options and multiple exits within the mile all received the alpha treatment.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on April 11, 2023, 09:00:09 AM
Do C/D roads actually cause traffic jams?

I regularly drive along I-495 for work.  During the 8 AM hour going north, I always hit a slowdown at the Rte. 3/Lowell Connector interchange.  And the slowdown occurs right at the spot where the C/D road is merging with the main traffic lanes.

And Rte. 3 south in the same area is even WORSE!  It's a literal parking lot where it intersects 495, way worse than 128 or 93!  What causes this?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on April 11, 2023, 12:29:39 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on April 11, 2023, 09:00:09 AM
Do C/D roads actually cause traffic jams?

I regularly drive along I-495 for work.  During the 8 AM hour going north, I always hit a slowdown at the Rte. 3/Lowell Connector interchange.  And the slowdown occurs right at the spot where the C/D road is merging with the main traffic lanes.

And Rte. 3 south in the same area is even WORSE!  It's a literal parking lot where it intersects 495, way worse than 128 or 93!  What causes this?

A few guesses: the growing volume of traffic; the cloverleaf interchange that is far too common in MA, esp. at high volume areas; multiple lanes of traffic coming together not only from MA-3 but the Lowell Connector; and the lack of an expanded accel/decel lanes from Exit 88 to Exit 91.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 12, 2023, 12:20:51 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on April 11, 2023, 09:00:09 AM
Do C/D roads actually cause traffic jams?

I regularly drive along I-495 for work.  During the 8 AM hour going north, I always hit a slowdown at the Rte. 3/Lowell Connector interchange.  And the slowdown occurs right at the spot where the C/D road is merging with the main traffic lanes.

And Rte. 3 south in the same area is even WORSE!  It's a literal parking lot where it intersects 495, way worse than 128 or 93!  What causes this?
Perhaps they need to extend the merging lanes or the freeway simply needs to be widened. I can't imagine C/D lanes would cause traffic congestion. They are safer because they separate multiple conflict points creating by busy interchanges merging onto the mainlines and streamlines that.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on April 12, 2023, 09:21:28 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on April 11, 2023, 09:00:09 AM
Do C/D roads actually cause traffic jams?

I regularly drive along I-495 for work.  During the 8 AM hour going north, I always hit a slowdown at the Rte. 3/Lowell Connector interchange.  And the slowdown occurs right at the spot where the C/D road is merging with the main traffic lanes.

And Rte. 3 south in the same area is even WORSE!  It's a literal parking lot where it intersects 495, way worse than 128 or 93!  What causes this?

On 495 north, they need a longer merge lane to help. Maybe when they replace the dilapidated Carlisle St and 3A bridges over 495 just north of the merge, they will widen it and have the lane drop much closer to the Concord River.

It's backed up like that tremendously during rush hour my entire life. My exit to home is the Woburn St exit, but just as often I find myself going down 3 to 129 and going thru Billerica to get home.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on April 12, 2023, 10:37:10 PM
Massachusetts, and the Northeast in general with the possible exception of New Jersey, lacks a good network of 4 lane limited access highways.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on April 12, 2023, 11:34:51 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 12, 2023, 10:37:10 PM
Massachusetts, and the Northeast in general with the possible exception of New Jersey, lacks a good network of 4 lane limited access highways.
So, you're coming back into form now.  Thanks for posting this vague, unsubstantiated opinion in the MA thread.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on April 13, 2023, 12:21:27 AM
Has anyone noticed this very strange lane drop coming from I-95 South Exit 66 (Old exit 46) going into Route 1? Coming from the north, I usually take Exit 63 (Old exit 44) to get on US 1 to bypass the jughandle lights. I took Exit 66 instead of 63 a few weeks ago and was kind of caught off-guard by the fact the right lane from I-95 SB Exit 66 ends as US 1 traffic is merging simultaneously (or with this new configuration, "adding" a lane). I describe it here from a cross-post from this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29277.75) below:

Quote from: fwydriver405 on April 08, 2023, 02:25:02 PM
Sometime in 2022, the configuration was changed so that the right lane coming from I-95 SB Exit 66 ends as US Route 1 traffic is merging (Overview (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5387283,-70.9877037,211m/data=!3m1!1e3), Streetview (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5394683,-70.9873404,3a,28.5y,219.8h,86.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDrji_4vGZvqz4QxiPwTPhA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)). This new configutation gives US Route 1 traffic an added lane instead of having to merge with exiting I-95 traffic. What caught me offguard was, although there were signs saying the right lane ended (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5422485,-70.9856121,3a,29.9y,227.76h,90.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf9tpc6T4bUs7LfA830ZtkA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), I did not expect the right lane to end right at the gore point of merging US 1 traffic. Curious to know why the lane ends here instead of further back up the ramp before US Route 1 SB re-adds a lane onto the mainline.




Quote from: kramie13 on April 11, 2023, 09:00:09 AM
Do C/D roads actually cause traffic jams?

I regularly drive along I-495 for work.  During the 8 AM hour going north, I always hit a slowdown at the Rte. 3/Lowell Connector interchange.  And the slowdown occurs right at the spot where the C/D road is merging with the main traffic lanes.

And Rte. 3 south in the same area is even WORSE!  It's a literal parking lot where it intersects 495, way worse than 128 or 93!  What causes this?

I wonder if the Exit 108-107 (Old exit 50-49) onramps (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7786537,-71.1179534,2051m/data=!3m1!1e3) were seperated on I-495 South when the Merrimack River Bridge was replaced, because of merging conflict issues, short sightlines, and short merging lanes along with being a heavy merge from both exits joining I-495. Before the bridge replacement, both exit's onramp shared the same C/D road and merged shortly before the bridge began. The new configuration seperated both on-ramps and extended the merge lanes substantially.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on April 13, 2023, 08:55:13 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on April 11, 2023, 09:00:09 AM
Do C/D roads actually cause traffic jams?

I regularly drive along I-495 for work.  During the 8 AM hour going north, I always hit a slowdown at the Rte. 3/Lowell Connector interchange.  And the slowdown occurs right at the spot where the C/D road is merging with the main traffic lanes.

And Rte. 3 south in the same area is even WORSE!  It's a literal parking lot where it intersects 495, way worse than 128 or 93!  What causes this?

Another day, another traffic jam at an interchange with a C/D road.  This time, I-495 at Rte. 2 (exit 78) in Littleton!  And guess what?  This C/D road is somewhat new!  Arrgh!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: ne11931 on April 13, 2023, 05:12:44 PM
It is new but in typical Massachusetts fashion the merging lanes are terribly short. I used to go 2W to 495N and the ramp has sharp curves and a steep grade up to the mainline with no room to accelerate.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on April 13, 2023, 07:19:25 PM
We're not as bad as other states (such as Pennsylvania) but too many of our roads, even the improvements, are more of the "let's just get it done now and worry about the functioning later"  variety.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on April 22, 2023, 12:16:06 PM
According to the MassDOT ProjectInfo site, the Notice to Proceed was given to the I-295 Sign Replacement project on April 13. Is there any reason why this should take more than a year to complete? The site also states the I-84 project is complete, 2 years after it started. However, a glitch happened sometime in March whereby all projects listed as under construction at the time were changed to being 100% complete. The only under construction project listed now is for I-295 (the MA 25 project started last month is also listed 100% finished). The only way to find out progress on the other projects is to check any notes that may be added at the bottom of the page. These are listed in my Sign Project List page:
https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/signprojectlist.html (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/signprojectlist.html)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on April 22, 2023, 03:10:11 PM
aren't the signs on 295 relatively new? same with 84. They dont have the small "built in" tabs like the older signs.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on April 23, 2023, 07:54:08 PM
There's a good chance I-84 is complete... I drove I-84 East a couple weeks ago and it was done, and saw new signs in the rear-view.  So it may be done.

Link to my I-84 MA album:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157672122426070

And a few highlights here:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52820059775_305aee106e_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2otwBxM)84EB-Exit05-3 (https://flic.kr/p/2otwBxM) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52820097398_d3c259113f_3k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2otwNJs)84EB-Exit06-4 (https://flic.kr/p/2otwNJs) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

The signs on I-84 were "relatively" not that old.  They may have been among the first to have non-integrated exit tabs.  Those on I-295, same deal, though the interstate shields are faded pretty bad on I-295 (for I-95). 

And to put things in perspective: 
Since c 1985, I-84 in Mass has had 3 generations of signs.  Parts of I-84 in East Hartford and Manchester are still on their first generation since that time.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: reidcc on May 17, 2023, 07:23:15 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 10, 2023, 08:18:32 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2023, 06:18:27 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 09, 2023, 10:27:36 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 09, 2023, 10:09:50 AM
I've always been freaked out by super 2s. They always seem like they should be 4 lanes in like every case. Would rather have a 4 lane expressway with driveways than a super 2.

It's weird that I feel that the ones in Massachusetts are terrifying compared to the New Hampshire ones. For a while I lived close enough to the MA 2/US 202 bypass of Athol and Orange and the NH 101 Milford bypass, heavily using both, and I feel that the safety difference is night and day. The ones in Mass feel like cattle chutes. Oddly enough, cyclists and pedestrians are allowed on all the NH ones except for the tiny super-2 portion of the Spaulding Turnpike, in Mass they are treated just like other freeways in that regard.
Remember MA 2 before the reflective bollards were installed?  Pepperidge Farms remembers...

*Clutches steering wheel hoping the oncoming truck is not driven by Christopher Walken in Annie Hall*

I do. I think they were installed after I first drove on it myself (probably 1996) so my terror was only as a passenger. I don't think I was on it more than a few times until I moved to Fitchburg in 2005, then was on it a ton, and there was a lot of upgrades to it during the 9 years I was living there, including the small bypass around the paper mill in Erving.

The bollards are a joke anyways, mostly because 1) they won't do anything and 2) for some reason only the stretch concurrent with 202 was deemed important enough for them

I will say the most terrifying thing to cycle on was 2 from the Erving paper mill west for a few miles where it runs beside the Millers River, and there is like no other route that isn't a multi-mile detour with 800+ feet of additional climbing.
I've lived in Fitchburg for over 30yrs and remember many a bad crash on the super 2 section of Rt2. It took 4 young girls to get killed for the state to at least widen the "vision" corridor. But of course I can remember doing many stupid things out on that road in my late teens and early 20's as well. Now I'm out that way at least once a week as I have a son living in Orange, but mostly just keeping up with the speed limit. :)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on May 23, 2023, 11:15:55 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on April 23, 2023, 07:54:08 PM
There's a good chance I-84 is complete... I drove I-84 East a couple weeks ago and it was done, and saw new signs in the rear-view.  So it may be done.

Link to my I-84 MA album:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157672122426070
I saw those new I-84 signs during my Easter visit to my brother's.

Kudos for the fabricators for not squishing the I-90 numerals together nor mis-positioning them (usually too high with respect to the top blue part of the I-shield).  I still would've preferred a darker shade of blue used on the shields (per the predecessor signs) for better contrast/readability.

There appears to be some inconsistency with the control city selection & order for those I-84 eastbound signs.  The majority of the new pull-through signs (not including the earlier APLs) use an Albany, NY/Boston combination except for one sign prior to the US 20 westbound ramp (Exit 6B) where the control city combination is the reverse and the Boston legend is spaced too low (it's literally sitting on top of the Albany, NY legend. 

Additionally, the new ramp signage for I-84 eastbound off US 20 still uses a Boston/Springfield combination.

Why the inconsistency for signs that were in the same contract/construction package?

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on June 04, 2023, 08:58:21 PM
Couldn't help notice that on the east shore of the Ted Williams Tunnel that the tubes are emerged beneath one of Logan's concourses with the EB exit for Logan directly beneath three gates with the parked plane's straddling the exit ramp tube.

I'm assuming the terminal concourse predates the tunnel with I-90 bored below it. It's not a cut and cover where the terminal was constructed in unison with the tunnel.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on June 04, 2023, 09:27:37 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 04, 2023, 08:58:21 PM
Couldn't help notice that on the east shore of the Ted Williams Tunnel that the tubes are emerged beneath one of Logan's concourses with the EB exit for Logan directly beneath three gates with the parked plane's straddling the exit ramp tube.

I'm assuming the terminal concourse predates the tunnel with I-90 bored below it. It's not a cut and cover where the terminal was constructed in unison with the tunnel.

The tunnel construction began in the early 90s and it opened in 1995, while the old Terminal A (originally built by Eastern) was still going strong.  The old Terminal A was demolished in 2002 and the new, current Terminal A and its satellite (which is above the tunnel) opened in 2005.  So, the tunnel was built well before the current Terminal A Satellite opened. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on June 04, 2023, 11:53:33 PM
I have a memory from my youth that Eastern had an even earlier terminal, which had an inverted arch to its roof. Or was that just an interior feature of the terminal that was demolished in 2002? I always liked that building a lot.

(Yes, I know this isn't road-related, but someone here might know the answer.)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on June 05, 2023, 12:04:03 AM
Shifting back to road-related, I noticed that the "LEFT" exit tabs approaching the 93/95 Canton junction (on both I-93 SB and I-95 SB) were recently neutered.  This has created smaller tabs akin to the last BGS generation with the "sunken" tabs.  Any explanation?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on June 05, 2023, 06:48:16 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on June 05, 2023, 12:04:03 AM
Shifting back to road-related, I noticed that the "LEFT" exit tabs approaching the 93/95 Canton junction (on both I-93 SB and I-95 SB) were recently neutered.  This has created smaller tabs akin to the last BGS generation with the "sunken" tabs.  Any explanation?

Maybe too many people were photographing the sign (and not paying attention to the road) because of the left exit 12 meme (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/left-exit-12-off-ramp)?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on June 05, 2023, 12:32:18 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on June 05, 2023, 12:04:03 AM
Shifting back to road-related, I noticed that the "LEFT" exit tabs approaching the 93/95 Canton junction (on both I-93 SB and I-95 SB) were recently neutered.  This has created smaller tabs akin to the last BGS generation with the "sunken" tabs.  Any explanation?
Two of the advance signs for the MA 128 North exit in Peabody, below being the second, were also recently changed, truncated at the bottom with no yellow Left Tab included either, wonder if there's any connection?
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs323ii.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on June 05, 2023, 08:14:03 PM
I think the yellow LEFT was probably causing problems. They were trying to get us to visualize the roads as defined by their numbers and not their physical configurations. The tab probably prompted people unfamiliar with the road to crowd over to the left, expecting that there would be a left ramp coming up.

I don't even think it's right to call 128 an "exit", because before that point the road was every bit as much 128 as I-95. It's just two multiplexed roads demultiplexing. However, the I-95 is clearly a "ramp", and looks like an "exit", while 128 isn't and doesn't. This is an effort to make signs conform to exit numbers on the DPW books. There's no reason to number this, because no one would ever describe the route as "Take I-95 to exit 64, then take 128 to..."
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on June 15, 2023, 10:42:03 PM
Was able to take photos of the (mostly) Left Exit tab-less signs in the Canton area last weekend, on I-93 South:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs623a.jpg)

and on I-95 South:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs623i.jpg)

Full set of photos at: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on June 16, 2023, 07:01:06 AM
I didn't really notice if the left tabs were removed previously, but with the sign replacement project going on on I-95 all 4 exit signs currently have the left tab ...(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230616/939b6775134cc9d72eeb334fb3225d68.jpg)

SM-A515U
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on June 16, 2023, 02:52:17 PM
https://mass.streetsblog.org/2023/05/25/provincetown-plans-to-carve-up-its-freeway-for-a-new-bike-path

This is an interesting one (to me at least). US 6 in Provincetown, one of the rare roads in the state the was built well beyond its needed capacity, is having one half turned into a mutli-use path for its "eastern" final mile, knocking it down to a two-lane roadway.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on June 16, 2023, 03:36:17 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 16, 2023, 02:52:17 PM
https://mass.streetsblog.org/2023/05/25/provincetown-plans-to-carve-up-its-freeway-for-a-new-bike-path

This is an interesting one (to me at least). US 6 in Provincetown, one of the rare roads in the state the was built well beyond its needed capacity, is having one half turned into a mutli-use path for its "eastern" final mile, knocking it down to a two-lane roadway.


Interesting that the 2-lane road would take over the current "westbound" side of US 6 (which faces east at this point) while about 15 years ago they narrowed down the end of US 6 near Herring Cove to 2 lanes on that side.  Maybe the abandoned, still-there eastbound side will be revived?  They would have to realign the intersection at the end of US 6 as well--not really a big deal in the big picture.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on June 16, 2023, 05:04:49 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 16, 2023, 03:36:17 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 16, 2023, 02:52:17 PM
https://mass.streetsblog.org/2023/05/25/provincetown-plans-to-carve-up-its-freeway-for-a-new-bike-path

This is an interesting one (to me at least). US 6 in Provincetown, one of the rare roads in the state the was built well beyond its needed capacity, is having one half turned into a mutli-use path for its "eastern" final mile, knocking it down to a two-lane roadway.


Interesting that the 2-lane road would take over the current "westbound" side of US 6 (which faces east at this point) while about 15 years ago they narrowed down the end of US 6 near Herring Cove to 2 lanes on that side.  Maybe the abandoned, still-there eastbound side will be revived?  They would have to realign the intersection at the end of US 6 as well--not really a big deal in the big picture.

Given some of the pavement is still there, that's certainly possible.

Also, would anyone with wikipedia editing experience help out on this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_6A

Appears someone went and made edits that did God knows what to most of the route numbers.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on June 18, 2023, 12:35:07 AM
There appears to be some confusion in the way US 202 is signed through Holyoke.

Coming from South Hadley, there's a sign that tells you to turn right onto Hampden St, then it becomes Lincoln St which is signed with a 202 reassurance shield. At US 5 there's a sign saying to go left for 5/202 south. Then a few 5/202 reassurance shields down Northampton St till the right turn onto Cherry St towards 91. Going the other way there is no signs or shields on Northampton St north, only US 5 ones until you get to Lincoln St where there are signs to turn right on Lincoln St, and North 202 shields on Lincoln and Hampden St, then the sign to turn left onto the bridge into South Hadley. However there are also shields on Beech St for 202 North and for 202 south. Plus the intersection with Resnic Blvd has paddle signs for 202 north to turn right onto Beech St. At Route 141 and Beech St there are signs to go to 202 north onto Beech St. However its one-way couplet Linden St does not.

So my question is, Does north 202 use Beech St to get across Holyoke, or does it turn on 5 to Lincoln St and goes that way? 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on June 18, 2023, 01:02:23 AM
Ha!  Holyoke's had terrible signage for decades; I've pointed out how you can't follow the routes through the city at all over the years multiple times on here.

The answer is no one knows.  I'd wager you'd get different answers from MassDOT depending on who answers the phone.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on June 18, 2023, 10:04:15 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 18, 2023, 12:35:07 AM
There appears to be some confusion in the way US 202 is signed through Holyoke.

Coming from South Hadley, there's a sign that tells you to turn right onto Hampden St, then it becomes Lincoln St which is signed with a 202 reassurance shield. At US 5 there's a sign saying to go left for 5/202 south. Then a few 5/202 reassurance shields down Northampton St till the right turn onto Cherry St towards 91. Going the other way there is no signs or shields on Northampton St north, only US 5 ones until you get to Lincoln St where there are signs to turn right on Lincoln St, and North 202 shields on Lincoln and Hampden St, then the sign to turn left onto the bridge into South Hadley. However there are also shields on Beech St for 202 North and for 202 south. Plus the intersection with Resnic Blvd has paddle signs for 202 north to turn right onto Beech St. At Route 141 and Beech St there are signs to go to 202 north onto Beech St. However its one-way couplet Linden St does not.

So my question is, Does north 202 use Beech St to get across Holyoke, or does it turn on 5 to Lincoln St and goes that way?

At the end of Resnic Blvd 202 is apparently on and not on Beech St, https://goo.gl/maps/dM7FvBrii88wTW5W7
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 18, 2023, 01:26:47 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 18, 2023, 10:04:15 AM

At the end of Resnic Blvd 202 is apparently on and not on Beech St, https://goo.gl/maps/dM7FvBrii88wTW5W7

So, it turns out the portal to that place is and isn't in downtown Holyoke?  Who knew?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on June 18, 2023, 06:44:16 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 16, 2023, 02:52:17 PM
https://mass.streetsblog.org/2023/05/25/provincetown-plans-to-carve-up-its-freeway-for-a-new-bike-path

This is an interesting one (to me at least). US 6 in Provincetown, one of the rare roads in the state the was built well beyond its needed capacity, is having one half turned into a mutli-use path for its "eastern" final mile, knocking it down to a two-lane roadway.

My Grandfather put me in his lap a couple of times when I was about 10, and let me steer his 1962 Chrysler down that lane toward "New Beach". Once, he got it up to 100mph on that stretch. I always liked that empty bit of expressway.

I'm very familiar with all the bike paths out there, having biked and rollerbladed them, and turning this piece of road into another bike path would make it by far the most boring part of the system. The other paths are hilly, curvy, with dangerous corners that get sand on them, sometimes out in the open and sometimes going through scrub pine and oak chaparral. They're exciting rides. I'd much rather take Bradford St (6A) out to the end, in order to get to the bike paths than to bike along that expressway. I think they should leave it as a road.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on June 19, 2023, 10:42:48 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 18, 2023, 10:04:15 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 18, 2023, 12:35:07 AM
There appears to be some confusion in the way US 202 is signed through Holyoke.

Coming from South Hadley, there's a sign that tells you to turn right onto Hampden St, then it becomes Lincoln St which is signed with a 202 reassurance shield. At US 5 there's a sign saying to go left for 5/202 south. Then a few 5/202 reassurance shields down Northampton St till the right turn onto Cherry St towards 91. Going the other way there is no signs or shields on Northampton St north, only US 5 ones until you get to Lincoln St where there are signs to turn right on Lincoln St, and North 202 shields on Lincoln and Hampden St, then the sign to turn left onto the bridge into South Hadley. However there are also shields on Beech St for 202 North and for 202 south. Plus the intersection with Resnic Blvd has paddle signs for 202 north to turn right onto Beech St. At Route 141 and Beech St there are signs to go to 202 north onto Beech St. However its one-way couplet Linden St does not.

So my question is, Does north 202 use Beech St to get across Holyoke, or does it turn on 5 to Lincoln St and goes that way?

At the end of Resnic Blvd 202 is apparently on and not on Beech St, https://goo.gl/maps/dM7FvBrii88wTW5W7

The signs on Resnic are technically accurate... According to the MassDOT Route Log Application, US 202 splits in Holyoke. SB uses Hampden, Lincoln, and US 5 around Holyoke. NB uses Beech through Holyoke. Though it looks like there are some leftover reassurance shields from before this change. Of note is that 202 SB on Hampden and Lincoln as well as NB Between US 5 and Hampden St is not State Maintained but town maintained.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on June 19, 2023, 11:10:28 AM


Quote from: 5foot14 on June 19, 2023, 10:42:48 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 18, 2023, 10:04:15 AM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 18, 2023, 12:35:07 AM
There appears to be some confusion in the way US 202 is signed through Holyoke.

Coming from South Hadley, there's a sign that tells you to turn right onto Hampden St, then it becomes Lincoln St which is signed with a 202 reassurance shield. At US 5 there's a sign saying to go left for 5/202 south. Then a few 5/202 reassurance shields down Northampton St till the right turn onto Cherry St towards 91. Going the other way there is no signs or shields on Northampton St north, only US 5 ones until you get to Lincoln St where there are signs to turn right on Lincoln St, and North 202 shields on Lincoln and Hampden St, then the sign to turn left onto the bridge into South Hadley. However there are also shields on Beech St for 202 North and for 202 south. Plus the intersection with Resnic Blvd has paddle signs for 202 north to turn right onto Beech St. At Route 141 and Beech St there are signs to go to 202 north onto Beech St. However its one-way couplet Linden St does not.

So my question is, Does north 202 use Beech St to get across Holyoke, or does it turn on 5 to Lincoln St and goes that way?

At the end of Resnic Blvd 202 is apparently on and not on Beech St, https://goo.gl/maps/dM7FvBrii88wTW5W7

The signs on Resnic are technically accurate... According to the MassDOT Route Log Application, US 202 splits in Holyoke. SB uses Hampden, Lincoln, and US 5 around Holyoke. NB uses Beech through Holyoke. Though it looks like there are some leftover reassurance shields from before this change. Of note is that 202 SB on Hampden and Lincoln as well as NB Between US 5 and Hampden St is not State Maintained but town maintained.

My bet is MassDOT put up the erroneous shields after the official change, whenever that was. :D

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 19, 2023, 11:31:56 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 16, 2023, 02:52:17 PM
https://mass.streetsblog.org/2023/05/25/provincetown-plans-to-carve-up-its-freeway-for-a-new-bike-path

This is an interesting one (to me at least). US 6 in Provincetown, one of the rare roads in the state the was built well beyond its needed capacity, is having one half turned into a mutli-use path for its "eastern" final mile, knocking it down to a two-lane roadway.

If there's so little traffic past Shank Painter Rd., why not just get rid of both sides of of US 6 west of there and sign it down Shank Painter and onto Bradford St.?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: odditude on June 19, 2023, 07:25:01 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 15, 2023, 10:42:03 PM
Was able to take photos of the (mostly) Left Exit tab-less signs in the Canton area last weekend, on I-93 South:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs623a.jpg)
(snip)

if you look closely, the upper border is missing - i'd say the LEFT tab was present but damaged during or prior to installation, and nobody noticed/cared.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on June 19, 2023, 08:54:11 PM
Quote from: odditude on June 19, 2023, 07:25:01 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 15, 2023, 10:42:03 PM
Was able to take photos of the (mostly) Left Exit tab-less signs in the Canton area last weekend, on I-93 South:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs623a.jpg)
(snip)

if you look closely, the upper border is missing - i'd say the LEFT tab was present but damaged during or prior to installation, and nobody noticed/cared.

I took a picture of this sign 2 years ago and the LEFT was indeed there.  The fact that all of the "LEFTs" went missing at the same time leads me to believe it was an intentional removal on advance signs as of recently.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on June 19, 2023, 09:02:20 PM
Per MassDOT, there will soon be a new pattern at Mass Pike I-90 East interchange with I-495 (Exit 106). A new ramp will be opening soon, presumably so that those heading to 495 north will no longer have to cross over against those heading from I-90 west to I-495 south.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on June 20, 2023, 02:29:16 PM
The left exit tabs have been removed from (at least the first) sign on the Lowell Connector just off US 3 N/B.

https://goo.gl/maps/BU6LagPkquAg4QSU6

Like others shown above, it looks a tad janky with it removed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 20, 2023, 05:49:24 PM
When did new signage for I-391 come through?
My photo doesn't do it justice, but this sign is huge for the typ of road it's on.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52994568056_b8337dd49b_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on June 20, 2023, 07:27:35 PM
I discovered the new signage back in March 2023, so my guess would have to be sometime in 2022.  Ironically, I got the new NB signage this past Saturday (6/17).  And they still never put in an exit now sign for NB Exit 3... it was missing under the old signage, and still is missing.

The album is here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157710678881407/with/52741269011/

And interesting to note the 3-lane expressway narrows to only letting traffic by in the shoulder due to viaduct reconstruction on the last 1/2 mile or so of the expressway.  You can see it in the photo above, on the top level in the distance (where there appears to be a "rooftop" outhouse.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 20, 2023, 08:35:38 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 20, 2023, 07:27:35 PM
I discovered the new signage back in March 2023, so my guess would have to be sometime in 2022.  Ironically, I got the new NB signage this past Saturday (6/17).  And they still never put in an exit now sign for NB Exit 3... it was missing under the old signage, and still is missing.

The album is here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157710678881407/with/52741269011/

And interesting to note the 3-lane expressway narrows to only letting traffic by in the shoulder due to viaduct reconstruction on the last 1/2 mile or so of the expressway.  You can see it in the photo above, on the top level in the distance (where there appears to be a "rooftop" outhouse.

That's hilarious Jay, you were on the same street I was on today taking the on-ramp pic for I-391. Ha

That ending is quite interesting. I thought about getting a pic of the overheads between the barrels.

In other news:
MA-33 button copy is gone except the last one that says Indian Fuller Rd. All replaced by paddle signs.

The button copy in the Mass Pike/US-5 connector are gone too
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on June 20, 2023, 08:56:34 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 20, 2023, 08:35:38 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on June 20, 2023, 07:27:35 PM
I discovered the new signage back in March 2023, so my guess would have to be sometime in 2022.  Ironically, I got the new NB signage this past Saturday (6/17).  And they still never put in an exit now sign for NB Exit 3... it was missing under the old signage, and still is missing.

The album is here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157710678881407/with/52741269011/

And interesting to note the 3-lane expressway narrows to only letting traffic by in the shoulder due to viaduct reconstruction on the last 1/2 mile or so of the expressway.  You can see it in the photo above, on the top level in the distance (where there appears to be a "rooftop" outhouse.

That's hilarious Jay, you were on the same street I was on today taking the on-ramp pic for I-391. Ha

That ending is quite interesting. I thought about getting a pic of the overheads between the barrels.

In other news:

The button copy in the Mass Pike/US-5 connector are gone too

Really??!!??  I was just on that connector on Sunday, but got off onto the 'pike. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 20, 2023, 09:47:10 PM
These are gone. New gantry too I believe
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48191688592_3bbbc67840_c.jpg)
New sign has 1/4 mile and a TOLL banner.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49985453718_28026f98ab_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ja3vVy)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RyanB06 on June 21, 2023, 07:51:48 AM
Someone's got some 'splainin' to do back at the sign shop. (The correct number should be 45.)

https://www.westernmassnews.com/2023/06/20/getting-answers-mass-pike-missing-exit-46-after-extensive-exit-renumbering-project/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 21, 2023, 11:37:39 AM
At least it didn't still say Exit 4. Even so, such errors should be noticed and rectified quickly to avoid confusion.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on June 21, 2023, 12:42:42 PM
Also when I was on the Pike eastbound in Lee, the Exit 2 sign still hasn’t been corrected to say Exit 10 even though the exits are otherwise mileage based.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 22, 2023, 09:18:59 PM
Quote from: RyanB06 on June 21, 2023, 07:51:48 AM
Someone's got some 'splainin' to do back at the sign shop. (The correct number should be 45.)

https://www.westernmassnews.com/2023/06/20/getting-answers-mass-pike-missing-exit-46-after-extensive-exit-renumbering-project/

Hasn't been corrected yet
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52994955605_2211b5caca_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 22, 2023, 10:36:09 PM
Btw, where do you find sign plans or upcoming sign projects on the MA DOT website?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on June 22, 2023, 11:26:54 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 22, 2023, 10:36:09 PM
Btw, where do you find sign plans or upcoming sign projects on the MA DOT website?
MassDOT isn't the easiest DOT to track upcoming projects or get plans, but they are slowly making progress. This is what I have had to do to find out about scheduled upcoming sign projects. First you need to check their ProjectInfo site for structural signing projects under design for this and upcoming fiscal years at:
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massdot-highway-project-information-projectinfo (https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massdot-highway-project-information-projectinfo)

Second, to find out if a specific sign project is being advertised, you need to monitor their weekly bid advertisement list at:
https://www.mass.gov/massdot-highway-construction-contract-bidding (https://www.mass.gov/massdot-highway-construction-contract-bidding)

Third, once a project is advertised it gets its own page on the Mass. Procurement Record System (CommBuys) site. You used to be able search it for the specific contract searching under the DOT and the award date, but the website has recently been modified so that you can only look at the latest bid list showing all the contracts at:
https://www.mass.gov/doc/commbuys-home-page-bid-count/download (https://www.mass.gov/doc/commbuys-home-page-bid-count/download)
or you can perform an advanced search to restrict the department and date you are looking for at:
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/view/search/external/advancedSearchBid.xhtml (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/view/search/external/advancedSearchBid.xhtml)

Fourth, if you can find the contract you are looking for and click on the link to the project page you can then peruse a list of the documents available. Starting last year they began including on this list a form to allow the public to request plans for a contract called REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF MASSDOT AUTOCAD FILES FORM instead of having to email the sign engineer in charge of the project. These forms however can only be sent to MassDOT after a contract is awarded. I have not tried this yet myself to see how it will work.

Got all that? Wish they were more trusting of the public like other states where, would you believe it, they actually allow you to download plans directly onto your computer.

You can also check out my page with updated listing of sign projects underway and upcoming, I try to get the new projects when they are first advertised, at: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/signprojectlist.html (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/signprojectlist.html)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bluecountry on June 26, 2023, 01:16:20 PM
Anybody else think the Mass Pike form 84 east needs to be ramped up so:
-It is 8 lanes from 84 to 290, I surmise that volume is actually heavier than it is from 290 east.
-Making the whole road up to interstate standard, at least west of 128?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on June 26, 2023, 01:41:22 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 26, 2023, 01:16:20 PM
Anybody else think the Mass Pike form 84 east needs to be ramped up so:
-It is 8 lanes from 84 to 290, I surmise that volume is actually heavier than it is from 290 east.
-Making the whole road up to interstate standard, at least west of 128?
Fictional.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on June 26, 2023, 06:24:11 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on June 05, 2023, 12:04:03 AM
Shifting back to road-related, I noticed that the "LEFT" exit tabs approaching the 93/95 Canton junction (on both I-93 SB and I-95 SB) were recently neutered.  This has created smaller tabs akin to the last BGS generation with the "sunken" tabs.  Any explanation?

I was on 93 South yesterday from Braintree to Canton.  All of the "LEFT"  tabs have been removed from the Exit 4 signs (for 24 South).   Most of the left tabs were removed from the phantom exit 1B signs for I-95 north, except for the 1/2 mile sign.  That one still persists for some odd reason.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bjcolby50 on June 26, 2023, 07:07:16 PM
Quote from: RyanB06 on June 21, 2023, 07:51:48 AM
Someone's got some 'splainin' to do back at the sign shop. (The correct number should be 45.)

https://www.westernmassnews.com/2023/06/20/getting-answers-mass-pike-missing-exit-46-after-extensive-exit-renumbering-project/

According to Wikipedia, Exit 45 is located at Mile 45.7, so someone decided to round it up, rather than truncate the decimal.

Side note: I noticed that on the Mass Turnpike going to Springfield; the mileage signs from Weston to Springfield have shifted 6 miles upwards to direct drivers to take Exit 45 (I-91) instead of Exit 51 (I-291) to downtown Springfield.  For instance, just outside of the former Weston toll barrier, it used to be 70 miles to the Springfield exit, and it's now 76.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on June 27, 2023, 09:12:51 AM
The EB exit for I-91 from I-90/Mass Pike is at Mile 45.5.  The WB exit is at Mile 45.8.  Take the average and you get 45.65.  Rounding to the nearest whole number gets you to 46.  But exit numbering standards say it can be 45 or 46.  MassDOT chose to use 45, rounding down and not to the nearest whole number.

Yet 5 miles to the west, at the US 202/MA 10 interchange, the EB exit is at Mile 40.35.  The WB exit is at Mile 40.6.  Take the average and you get 40.475.  Rounding to the nearest whole number here gives you 40.  But MassDOT chose to assign exit 41 to this interchange, this time rounding up, and again not to the nearest whole number.

Which proves that MassDOT was inconsistent in their exit renumbering.  I would have assigned exit number 40 for this interchange, especially when there are "next exit 30 miles" signs going west and the exit after that is exit 10.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on June 27, 2023, 09:13:37 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on June 27, 2023, 09:12:51 AM
The EB exit for I-91 from I-90/Mass Pike is at Mile 45.5.  The WB exit is at Mile 45.8.  Take the average and you get 45.65.  Rounding to the nearest whole number gets you to 46.  But exit numbering standards say it can be 45 or 46.  MassDOT chose to use 45, rounding down and not to the nearest whole number.

Yet 5 miles to the west, at the US 202/MA 10 interchange, the EB exit is at Mile 40.35.  The WB exit is at Mile 40.6.  Take the average and you get 40.475.  Rounding to the nearest whole number here gives you 40.  But MassDOT chose to assign exit 41 to this interchange, this time rounding up, and again not to the nearest whole number.

Which proves that MassDOT was inconsistent in their exit renumbering.  I would have assigned exit number 40 for this interchange, especially when there are "next exit 30 miles" signs going west and the exit after that is exit 10.

What are these numbers for the centerline of the overpass/underpass? Is it still inconsistent?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jmacswimmer on June 27, 2023, 09:39:04 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 27, 2023, 09:13:37 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on June 27, 2023, 09:12:51 AM
The EB exit for I-91 from I-90/Mass Pike is at Mile 45.5.  The WB exit is at Mile 45.8.  Take the average and you get 45.65.  Rounding to the nearest whole number gets you to 46.  But exit numbering standards say it can be 45 or 46.  MassDOT chose to use 45, rounding down and not to the nearest whole number.

Yet 5 miles to the west, at the US 202/MA 10 interchange, the EB exit is at Mile 40.35.  The WB exit is at Mile 40.6.  Take the average and you get 40.475.  Rounding to the nearest whole number here gives you 40.  But MassDOT chose to assign exit 41 to this interchange, this time rounding up, and again not to the nearest whole number.

Which proves that MassDOT was inconsistent in their exit renumbering.  I would have assigned exit number 40 for this interchange, especially when there are "next exit 30 miles" signs going west and the exit after that is exit 10.

What are these numbers for the centerline of the overpass/underpass? Is it still inconsistent?

Looks like the exit 41 overpass is just east of milepost 40.4 while the exit 45 underpass is right at milepost 45.7, so still inconsistent.

The other inconsistent thing I find amusing here is that the Westfield toll gantry just east of exit 41 at ~mile 40.9 shows up on E-ZPass charges as 040 eastbound/540 westbound.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on June 27, 2023, 09:57:02 AM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 27, 2023, 09:39:04 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 27, 2023, 09:13:37 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on June 27, 2023, 09:12:51 AM
The EB exit for I-91 from I-90/Mass Pike is at Mile 45.5.  The WB exit is at Mile 45.8.  Take the average and you get 45.65.  Rounding to the nearest whole number gets you to 46.  But exit numbering standards say it can be 45 or 46.  MassDOT chose to use 45, rounding down and not to the nearest whole number.

Yet 5 miles to the west, at the US 202/MA 10 interchange, the EB exit is at Mile 40.35.  The WB exit is at Mile 40.6.  Take the average and you get 40.475.  Rounding to the nearest whole number here gives you 40.  But MassDOT chose to assign exit 41 to this interchange, this time rounding up, and again not to the nearest whole number.

Which proves that MassDOT was inconsistent in their exit renumbering.  I would have assigned exit number 40 for this interchange, especially when there are "next exit 30 miles" signs going west and the exit after that is exit 10.

What are these numbers for the centerline of the overpass/underpass? Is it still inconsistent?

Looks like the exit 41 overpass is just east of milepost 40.4 while the exit 45 underpass is right at milepost 45.7, so still inconsistent.

The other inconsistent thing I find amusing here is that the Westfield toll gantry just east of exit 41 at ~mile 40.9 shows up on E-ZPass charges as 040 eastbound/540 westbound.

The bridge/crossing centerline to go with may be that of the route itself, not the trumpet ramps.  Using that, it's more consistent.  I-91 crosses the Pike at 45.2, and Routes 10 & 202 cross at 40.6.  Those would give Exits 45 and 41 rounded to the nearest mile. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on June 27, 2023, 06:17:09 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 26, 2023, 01:41:22 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 26, 2023, 01:16:20 PM
Anybody else think the Mass Pike form 84 east needs to be ramped up so:
-It is 8 lanes from 84 to 290, I surmise that volume is actually heavier than it is from 290 east.
-Making the whole road up to interstate standard, at least west of 128?
Fictional.
At least the part from 84 to 290 is a traffic question with legitimate concern.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jmacswimmer on June 28, 2023, 09:45:41 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 27, 2023, 06:17:09 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 26, 2023, 01:41:22 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 26, 2023, 01:16:20 PM
Anybody else think the Mass Pike form 84 east needs to be ramped up so:
-It is 8 lanes from 84 to 290, I surmise that volume is actually heavier than it is from 290 east.
-Making the whole road up to interstate standard, at least west of 128?
Fictional.
At least the part from 84 to 290 is a traffic question with legitimate concern.

FWIW, here's the data at the Charlton toll gantry from MassDOT's traffic count map:

(https://i.imgur.com/wX3AP5A.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on June 28, 2023, 10:55:51 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on June 27, 2023, 09:57:02 AM
The bridge/crossing centerline to go with may be that of the route itself, not the trumpet ramps.  Using that, it's more consistent.  I-91 crosses the Pike at 45.2, and Routes 10 & 202 cross at 40.6.  Those would give Exits 45 and 41 rounded to the nearest mile.

It does appear that the route intersecting the Mass Pike is the reference point for assigning an exit number.  For all other highways in the state, this works because in most cases, the point where the route intersects the highway is in between the exit ramps in both directions.  But on the Mass Pike, because it used to have toll booths on the ramps, the exit ramps are a few tenths of a mile east/west of where the surface road and highway intersect.

This creates an anomaly where it's 29.8 miles between the US 20 and US 202 exits but their exit numbers have a difference of 31.  The US 202 exit should be Exit 40, not 41, for this very reason.  It also maintains consistency with the "next exit 30 miles" signs in both directions approaching the 30 mile gap between exits.

In the case of the I-91 exit, the Pike intersects I-91 at mile 45.2 but the exit also serves US 5, which intersects the Pike at mile 46.0!  The EB exit is at mile 45.4, and the WB exit is at mile 45.8.  Either number (45 or 46) is acceptable here.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on June 29, 2023, 11:10:12 AM
Opinion on the Commonwealth's license plates, including age and legibility issues:

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/tampering-with-mass-license-plates-has-got-to-stop/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on June 29, 2023, 01:49:36 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on June 29, 2023, 11:10:12 AM
Opinion on the Commonwealth's license plates, including age and legibility issues:

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/tampering-with-mass-license-plates-has-got-to-stop/

There was a story on WCVB about a woman incorrectly getting charged tolls.  Her license plate ended in "I-O", while the car driving through the EZPass gantries had a license plate ending in "1-0".
https://youtu.be/IwYbExxxLuc
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on July 01, 2023, 11:35:07 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 05, 2023, 12:32:18 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on June 05, 2023, 12:04:03 AM
Shifting back to road-related, I noticed that the "LEFT" exit tabs approaching the 93/95 Canton junction (on both I-93 SB and I-95 SB) were recently neutered.  This has created smaller tabs akin to the last BGS generation with the "sunken" tabs.  Any explanation?
Two of the advance signs for the MA 128 North exit in Peabody, below being the second, were also recently changed, truncated at the bottom with no yellow Left Tab included either, wonder if there's any connection?
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs323ii.jpg)

I drove on I-95 / MA 128 north just today at Exit 64, and all of the "LEFT" tabs were reinstated* as new tabs on all of the diagrammatics as well as at the actual split. Can't say if LEFT Exit 26 (I-95 South / MA 128 South -> I-93 North) / LEFT Exit 1 A (I-93 South -> I-95 North / MA 128 North), or if I-93 South's LEFT Exit 4 TO MA 24 South got the same treatment as well, or if they are still without a LEFT exit tab.

Also, new signage has started to appear along US Route 1 SB from I-95 Exit 66 to around the MA 60 exit. Not sure about the NB side or if more are on the way (or if the US 1 segment from I-95 Exit 70 to I-95 Exit 66 got new signs as well).

*EDIT: seems like I must have missed Reply #2159 - they must have been reinstated earlier in June, haven't driven much in the area in the month of June.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on July 05, 2023, 12:20:39 PM
The "Summer Without Sumner"  closure of the Sumner Tunnel begins today and will continue through the end of August. There will likely be nightmarish traffic for North Shore commuters.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 07, 2023, 10:41:11 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on July 01, 2023, 11:35:07 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 05, 2023, 12:32:18 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on June 05, 2023, 12:04:03 AM
Shifting back to road-related, I noticed that the "LEFT" exit tabs approaching the 93/95 Canton junction (on both I-93 SB and I-95 SB) were recently neutered.  This has created smaller tabs akin to the last BGS generation with the "sunken" tabs.  Any explanation?
Two of the advance signs for the MA 128 North exit in Peabody, below being the second, were also recently changed, truncated at the bottom with no yellow Left Tab included either, wonder if there's any connection?
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95signs323ii.jpg)

I drove on I-95 / MA 128 north just today at Exit 64, and all of the "LEFT" tabs were reinstated* as new tabs on all of the diagrammatics as well as at the actual split. Can't say if LEFT Exit 26 (I-95 South / MA 128 South -> I-93 North) / LEFT Exit 1 A (I-93 South -> I-95 North / MA 128 North), or if I-93 South's LEFT Exit 4 TO MA 24 South got the same treatment as well, or if they are still without a LEFT exit tab.

Also, new signage has started to appear along US Route 1 SB from I-95 Exit 66 to around the MA 60 exit. Not sure about the NB side or if more are on the way (or if the US 1 segment from I-95 Exit 70 to I-95 Exit 66 got new signs as well).

*EDIT: seems like I must have missed Reply #2159 - they must have been reinstated earlier in June, haven't driven much in the area in the month of June.
There has been no change along I-93 or I-95 South in Canton as of today (the tab on the 1/2 mile advance on I-93 South still stands). They have also removed the Left Exit tabs approaching I-93 on MA 24 North as well on I-93 South in Randolph:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma24signs723b.jpg)

Remaining photos are at: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/MA24photos.html)

Traffic prevented me from checking out whether this is also true on I-93 South at the 'Braintree Split.'
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on July 10, 2023, 04:23:00 PM
I wonder if they were worried about the extra LEFT tab's height and strong winds, or the signs not being designed properly for wind loads.   Could this have been related to the fall-out of the random gantry on I-190 that collapsed earlier this year? 

The ones on 128NB approaching I-95 NB in Peabody are smaller than the ones previously, and they were replaced, so they may have been designed with the extra height in consideration.

And while it may not seem like much, I got an e-mail response about why ConnDOT has done away with the "service bar" on recently replaced signs (replacing it with sheet aluminum signs).  The response I got was the extra height of the sign would have had to be redesigned for wind loads and such.  And this was for a ground-mounted sign. 

So that could be what's going on here.  If a strong wind came and hooked the LEFT tab on those giant APLs or other diagrammatics, that's a big sign falling down on a heavily - trafficked road, and they're just now realizing it. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on July 10, 2023, 08:41:58 PM
If it weren't for signage tweaks, we'd never have anything to talk about in this thread.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on July 10, 2023, 09:32:55 PM
Quote from: pderocco on July 10, 2023, 08:41:58 PM
If it weren't for signage tweaks, we'd never have anything to talk about in this thread.

Well, between that and where should 128 officially end!
:-)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bluecountry on July 10, 2023, 10:24:28 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 26, 2023, 01:41:22 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 26, 2023, 01:16:20 PM
Anybody else think the Mass Pike form 84 east needs to be ramped up so:
-It is 8 lanes from 84 to 290, I surmise that volume is actually heavier than it is from 290 east.
-Making the whole road up to interstate standard, at least west of 128?
Fictional.
How?

Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 28, 2023, 09:45:41 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 27, 2023, 06:17:09 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 26, 2023, 01:41:22 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on June 26, 2023, 01:16:20 PM
Anybody else think the Mass Pike form 84 east needs to be ramped up so:
-It is 8 lanes from 84 to 290, I surmise that volume is actually heavier than it is from 290 east.
-Making the whole road up to interstate standard, at least west of 128?
Fictional.
At least the part from 84 to 290 is a traffic question with legitimate concern.

FWIW, here's the data at the Charlton toll gantry from MassDOT's traffic count map:

(https://i.imgur.com/wX3AP5A.jpg)
I want to see the counts for between 84 and 290 vs W of 84 and E of 290.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on July 11, 2023, 09:03:58 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 10, 2023, 04:23:00 PM
I wonder if they were worried about the extra LEFT tab's height and strong winds, or the signs not being designed properly for wind loads.   Could this have been related to the fall-out of the random gantry on I-190 that collapsed earlier this year? 

The ones on 128NB approaching I-95 NB in Peabody are smaller than the ones previously, and they were replaced, so they may have been designed with the extra height in consideration.
I believe MassDOT's current sign replacement contracts involve mostly keeping the existing gantries but replacing panels with, mostly, match-in-kind variety in terms of legends.  If wind loads were indeed a concern; why weren't shorter overall panels used for those diagrammatic signs... especially since many of them are only a few years old.  FWIW, the Federal style (from the 2009 MUTCD) LEFT EXIT tabs are actually larger & wider than MassDOT's tabs.

Since wind occurs everywhere; wouldn't this also be an issue elsewhere & not just Massachusetts?

IIRC, placing yellow LEFT banners/tabs on signs is a current MUTCD requirement; will yellow LEFT placards be placed on the main sign panels instead (going a bit more old-school)?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on July 12, 2023, 03:50:02 PM
Got to capture some of Exit 4 at the 1.6 km (1.0 mile), 800 m (0.5 mile) and at the exit with no exit tabs on I-93 SB on Friday 7 July, here they are. It looks like the EXIT 4 tab is new, however I can't confirm this as I couldn't read the date stamp at all.

(https://i.ibb.co/qxWf1vr/DSC09438.jpg) (https://ibb.co/kM9fctS)
(https://i.ibb.co/xm79DW9/DSC09440.jpg) (https://ibb.co/z849rp9)
(https://i.ibb.co/mNyKqV9/DSC09442.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PDWyhvc)

The LEFT tab on the 800 m (0.5 mile) sign to I-93 South Exit 1 A-B remains as of last Friday.
(https://i.ibb.co/qdG2r8t/DSC09445.jpg) (https://ibb.co/NshGyq8)

Quote from: bob7374 on July 07, 2023, 10:41:11 PM
Traffic prevented me from checking out whether this is also true on I-93 South at the 'Braintree Split.'

Also want to say that the signs at least at the exit were removed but can't confirm. Route 3 North at Exit 43 A-B: I-93 / Braintree Split may have also had their tabs removed as well. However, Google Maps suggests that this is true at I-93 South Exit 7:
1.6 km (1.0 mile) (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2436467,-71.029074,3a,75y,115.93h,92.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEE2CvNquXRrYM4BGs_du8w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
800 m (0.5 mile) (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2379515,-71.0239489,3a,90y,162.72h,103.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHs5FsbbXLJkX8XY0n5QTuw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
At the exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2313235,-71.0234272,3a,75y,154.52h,90.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBeqJqlxYlJxVmHj9m8b8fg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on July 14, 2023, 05:39:06 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on July 12, 2023, 03:50:02 PM
Got to capture some of Exit 4 at the 1.6 km (1.0 mile), 800 m (0.5 mile) and at the exit with no exit tabs on I-93 SB on Friday 7 July, here they are. It looks like the EXIT 4 tab is new, however I can't confirm this as I couldn't read the date stamp at all.

(https://i.ibb.co/qxWf1vr/DSC09438.jpg) (https://ibb.co/kM9fctS)
(https://i.ibb.co/xm79DW9/DSC09440.jpg) (https://ibb.co/z849rp9)
(https://i.ibb.co/mNyKqV9/DSC09442.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PDWyhvc)

The LEFT tab on the 800 m (0.5 mile) sign to I-93 South Exit 1 A-B remains as of last Friday.
(https://i.ibb.co/qdG2r8t/DSC09445.jpg) (https://ibb.co/NshGyq8)

Quote from: bob7374 on July 07, 2023, 10:41:11 PM
Traffic prevented me from checking out whether this is also true on I-93 South at the 'Braintree Split.'

Also want to say that the signs at least at the exit were removed but can't confirm. Route 3 North at Exit 43 A-B: I-93 / Braintree Split may have also had their tabs removed as well. However, Google Maps suggests that this is true at I-93 South Exit 7:
1.6 km (1.0 mile) (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2436467,-71.029074,3a,75y,115.93h,92.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEE2CvNquXRrYM4BGs_du8w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
800 m (0.5 mile) (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2379515,-71.0239489,3a,90y,162.72h,103.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHs5FsbbXLJkX8XY0n5QTuw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
At the exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2313235,-71.0234272,3a,75y,154.52h,90.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBeqJqlxYlJxVmHj9m8b8fg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
Got photos of some of the MA 3 exit signs showing tabs removed as well, First along I-93 South:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i93signs723b.jpg)

Then along along MA 3 North:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma3signs723a.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on July 17, 2023, 12:04:53 PM
The overhead BGS on I-93 north in Somerville, which fell onto a vehicle last year, has been replaced...with the "Exit Only" arrow over the wrong lane.

Yes, MassDOT, quality control is actually a thing.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on July 17, 2023, 04:10:48 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 17, 2023, 12:04:53 PM
The overhead BGS on I-93 north in Somerville, which fell onto a vehicle last year, has been replaced...with the "Exit Only" arrow over the wrong lane.

Yes, MassDOT, quality control is actually a thing.

They're trying......
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on July 20, 2023, 04:45:33 PM
I drove down I-95/MA-128 south today from Rte. 9 in Wellesley.  It was gridlocked the entire way to the I-95 split in Canton!  All in all, it was about 10 miles of stall-and-crawl, with NO traffic accidents to blame!  Meanwhile, anyone driving north on 95/128 from Canton up to Wellesley at that time had no delays whatsoever!

Didn't this highway get an additional lane added in the 2010s (and get a bit modernized along the way)?  So why is it absolute hell for someone who works in Wellesley and lives in Canton driving home from work, but someone who works in Canton and lives in Wellesley has it smooth sailing in the evenings?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on July 20, 2023, 04:55:45 PM


Quote from: kramie13 on July 20, 2023, 04:45:33 PM
I drove down I-95/MA-128 south today from Rte. 9 in Wellesley.  It was gridlocked the entire way to the I-95 split in Canton!  All in all, it was about 10 miles of stall-and-crawl, with NO traffic accidents to blame!  Meanwhile, anyone driving north on 95/128 from Canton up to Wellesley at that time had no delays whatsoever!

Didn't this highway get an additional lane added in the 2010s (and get a bit modernized along the way)?  So why is it absolute hell for someone who works in Wellesley and lives in Canton driving home from work, but someone who works in Canton and lives in Wellesley has it smooth sailing in the evenings?

In other news, water is wet.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on July 20, 2023, 07:35:33 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 20, 2023, 04:45:33 PM
I drove down I-95/MA-128 south today from Rte. 9 in Wellesley.  It was gridlocked the entire way to the I-95 split in Canton!  All in all, it was about 10 miles of stall-and-crawl, with NO traffic accidents to blame!  Meanwhile, anyone driving north on 95/128 from Canton up to Wellesley at that time had no delays whatsoever!

Didn't this highway get an additional lane added in the 2010s (and get a bit modernized along the way)?  So why is it absolute hell for someone who works in Wellesley and lives in Canton driving home from work, but someone who works in Canton and lives in Wellesley has it smooth sailing in the evenings?

I've noticed this as well on my afternoon drives in this corridor. My guess is that, in addition to local commuters, you were joined by lots of folks heading to the Cape or RI to begin their weekends early. Plus lots of interstate traffic traveling from NH-ME to other parts of the NE corridor that follow the I-95 designation even though there are better ways IMO to do that (495). The extra lane added in the 2010s was much needed and is a huge improvement, but it may have also spurred additional traffic.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Roadgeekteen on July 21, 2023, 12:45:06 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on July 20, 2023, 07:35:33 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 20, 2023, 04:45:33 PM
I drove down I-95/MA-128 south today from Rte. 9 in Wellesley.  It was gridlocked the entire way to the I-95 split in Canton!  All in all, it was about 10 miles of stall-and-crawl, with NO traffic accidents to blame!  Meanwhile, anyone driving north on 95/128 from Canton up to Wellesley at that time had no delays whatsoever!

Didn't this highway get an additional lane added in the 2010s (and get a bit modernized along the way)?  So why is it absolute hell for someone who works in Wellesley and lives in Canton driving home from work, but someone who works in Canton and lives in Wellesley has it smooth sailing in the evenings?

I've noticed this as well on my afternoon drives in this corridor. My guess is that, in addition to local commuters, you were joined by lots of folks heading to the Cape or RI to begin their weekends early. Plus lots of interstate traffic traveling from NH-ME to other parts of the NE corridor that follow the I-95 designation even though there are better ways IMO to do that (495). The extra lane added in the 2010s was much needed and is a huge improvement, but it may have also spurred additional traffic.
I-495 is too far out to be a RI-ME bypass- it's like I-840. Also public transit, though quite good in metro Boston compared to most metro areas, is not helpful for the suburb to suburb traffic that I-95/128 generates.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on July 21, 2023, 04:03:20 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 20, 2023, 04:45:33 PM
I drove down I-95/MA-128 south today from Rte. 9 in Wellesley.  It was gridlocked the entire way to the I-95 split in Canton!  All in all, it was about 10 miles of stall-and-crawl, with NO traffic accidents to blame!  Meanwhile, anyone driving north on 95/128 from Canton up to Wellesley at that time had no delays whatsoever!

Didn't this highway get an additional lane added in the 2010s (and get a bit modernized along the way)?  So why is it absolute hell for someone who works in Wellesley and lives in Canton driving home from work, but someone who works in Canton and lives in Wellesley has it smooth sailing in the evenings?

Yes, it was six lanes until the teens. It was six lanes in the 1970s when I started driving, and we were allowed to drive in the breakdown lane during rush hour. And some of us drove in the breakdown lane even when it wasn't rush hour. In other words, they should have widened it to eight lanes in the 1970s. Then, they could have widened it to ten lanes in the teens. But as I've said before, Massachusetts has a toy road department.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on July 21, 2023, 05:34:08 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 21, 2023, 12:45:06 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on July 20, 2023, 07:35:33 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 20, 2023, 04:45:33 PM
I drove down I-95/MA-128 south today from Rte. 9 in Wellesley.  It was gridlocked the entire way to the I-95 split in Canton!  All in all, it was about 10 miles of stall-and-crawl, with NO traffic accidents to blame!  Meanwhile, anyone driving north on 95/128 from Canton up to Wellesley at that time had no delays whatsoever!

Didn't this highway get an additional lane added in the 2010s (and get a bit modernized along the way)?  So why is it absolute hell for someone who works in Wellesley and lives in Canton driving home from work, but someone who works in Canton and lives in Wellesley has it smooth sailing in the evenings?

I've noticed this as well on my afternoon drives in this corridor. My guess is that, in addition to local commuters, you were joined by lots of folks heading to the Cape or RI to begin their weekends early. Plus lots of interstate traffic traveling from NH-ME to other parts of the NE corridor that follow the I-95 designation even though there are better ways IMO to do that (495). The extra lane added in the 2010s was much needed and is a huge improvement, but it may have also spurred additional traffic.
I-495 is too far out to be a RI-ME bypass- it's like I-840. Also public transit, though quite good in metro Boston compared to most metro areas, is not helpful for the suburb to suburb traffic that I-95/128 generates.

Agree w/public transit; the T, even when functioning, isn't really designed for suburb-to-suburb commuting. As for 495, knowing Boston-area traffic, I would have no hesitation whatsoever about using it as a bypass from RI to NH or ME if I didn't have a reason to stop in the Boston area. But I do understand why most would still follow 95.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on July 21, 2023, 05:39:53 AM
Quote from: pderocco on July 21, 2023, 04:03:20 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 20, 2023, 04:45:33 PM
I drove down I-95/MA-128 south today from Rte. 9 in Wellesley.  It was gridlocked the entire way to the I-95 split in Canton!  All in all, it was about 10 miles of stall-and-crawl, with NO traffic accidents to blame!  Meanwhile, anyone driving north on 95/128 from Canton up to Wellesley at that time had no delays whatsoever!

Didn't this highway get an additional lane added in the 2010s (and get a bit modernized along the way)?  So why is it absolute hell for someone who works in Wellesley and lives in Canton driving home from work, but someone who works in Canton and lives in Wellesley has it smooth sailing in the evenings?

Yes, it was six lanes until the teens. It was six lanes in the 1970s when I started driving, and we were allowed to drive in the breakdown lane during rush hour. And some of us drove in the breakdown lane even when it wasn't rush hour. In other words, they should have widened it to eight lanes in the 1970s. Then, they could have widened it to ten lanes in the teens. But as I've said before, Massachusetts has a toy road department.

A toy road department and well-organized NIMBYs throughout the area.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on July 21, 2023, 06:54:23 AM


Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on July 21, 2023, 05:34:08 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 21, 2023, 12:45:06 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on July 20, 2023, 07:35:33 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 20, 2023, 04:45:33 PM
I drove down I-95/MA-128 south today from Rte. 9 in Wellesley.  It was gridlocked the entire way to the I-95 split in Canton!  All in all, it was about 10 miles of stall-and-crawl, with NO traffic accidents to blame!  Meanwhile, anyone driving north on 95/128 from Canton up to Wellesley at that time had no delays whatsoever!

Didn't this highway get an additional lane added in the 2010s (and get a bit modernized along the way)?  So why is it absolute hell for someone who works in Wellesley and lives in Canton driving home from work, but someone who works in Canton and lives in Wellesley has it smooth sailing in the evenings?

I've noticed this as well on my afternoon drives in this corridor. My guess is that, in addition to local commuters, you were joined by lots of folks heading to the Cape or RI to begin their weekends early. Plus lots of interstate traffic traveling from NH-ME to other parts of the NE corridor that follow the I-95 designation even though there are better ways IMO to do that (495). The extra lane added in the 2010s was much needed and is a huge improvement, but it may have also spurred additional traffic.
I-495 is too far out to be a RI-ME bypass- it's like I-840. Also public transit, though quite good in metro Boston compared to most metro areas, is not helpful for the suburb to suburb traffic that I-95/128 generates.

Agree w/public transit; the T, even when functioning, isn't really designed for suburb-to-suburb commuting. As for 495, knowing Boston-area traffic, I would have no hesitation whatsoever about using it as a bypass from RI to NH or ME if I didn't have a reason to stop in the Boston area. But I do understand why most would still follow 95.

As a former local, I also agree with Ted.  I've often thought over the years that yes, I-495 is pretty far out, but it does serve as a good bypass around Boston for those headed to and from the far northeast and Cape Cod.  Summer traffic is very indicative of the traffic flows in this regard.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on July 21, 2023, 08:22:28 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 21, 2023, 06:54:23 AM


Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on July 21, 2023, 05:34:08 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 21, 2023, 12:45:06 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on July 20, 2023, 07:35:33 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on July 20, 2023, 04:45:33 PM
I drove down I-95/MA-128 south today from Rte. 9 in Wellesley.  It was gridlocked the entire way to the I-95 split in Canton!  All in all, it was about 10 miles of stall-and-crawl, with NO traffic accidents to blame!  Meanwhile, anyone driving north on 95/128 from Canton up to Wellesley at that time had no delays whatsoever!

Didn't this highway get an additional lane added in the 2010s (and get a bit modernized along the way)?  So why is it absolute hell for someone who works in Wellesley and lives in Canton driving home from work, but someone who works in Canton and lives in Wellesley has it smooth sailing in the evenings?

I've noticed this as well on my afternoon drives in this corridor. My guess is that, in addition to local commuters, you were joined by lots of folks heading to the Cape or RI to begin their weekends early. Plus lots of interstate traffic traveling from NH-ME to other parts of the NE corridor that follow the I-95 designation even though there are better ways IMO to do that (495). The extra lane added in the 2010s was much needed and is a huge improvement, but it may have also spurred additional traffic.
I-495 is too far out to be a RI-ME bypass- it's like I-840. Also public transit, though quite good in metro Boston compared to most metro areas, is not helpful for the suburb to suburb traffic that I-95/128 generates.

Agree w/public transit; the T, even when functioning, isn't really designed for suburb-to-suburb commuting. As for 495, knowing Boston-area traffic, I would have no hesitation whatsoever about using it as a bypass from RI to NH or ME if I didn't have a reason to stop in the Boston area. But I do understand why most would still follow 95.

As a former local, I also agree with Ted.  I've often thought over the years that yes, I-495 is pretty far out, but it does serve as a good bypass around Boston for those headed to and from the far northeast and Cape Cod.  Summer traffic is very indicative of the traffic flows in this regard.

I-495 certainly gets a lot of traffic using it. North of Boston, it serves as an important connector between Lowell/Lawrence/Haverhill. It also forms part of a long distance router between Maine and points south.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on July 21, 2023, 08:07:04 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on July 05, 2023, 12:20:39 PM
The "Summer Without Sumner"  closure of the Sumner Tunnel begins today and will continue through the end of August. There will likely be nightmarish traffic for North Shore commuters.

Don't worry. The anti-car lobby tells us that people will just drive less and traffic won't be any worse than normal.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on July 21, 2023, 09:22:00 PM


Quote from: kernals12 on July 21, 2023, 08:07:04 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on July 05, 2023, 12:20:39 PM
The "Summer Without Sumner"  closure of the Sumner Tunnel begins today and will continue through the end of August. There will likely be nightmarish traffic for North Shore commuters.

Don't worry. The anti-car lobby tells us that people will just drive less and traffic won't be any worse than normal.

I drove from Lynn down into Boston recently with the Sumner closed.  It's definitely affecting that flow for the worse.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on July 24, 2023, 08:00:02 AM
Just noticed on the 2023 Rand McNally edition, that the Mass Pike is shown as being a free freeway (in purple) instead of being tolled ( in green) through Springfield.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 24, 2023, 08:34:09 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 24, 2023, 08:00:02 AM
Just noticed on the 2023 Rand McNally edition, that the Mass Pike is shown as being a free freeway (in purple) instead of being tolled ( in green) through Springfield.

Wishully thinking that the Pike is still free from Stockbridge to Springfield.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on July 24, 2023, 08:45:06 AM
Through Springfield (not Springfield and west)? It's accurate.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on July 24, 2023, 08:48:41 AM
So no toll for use between I-90 and MA 21 then?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on July 24, 2023, 08:55:08 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 24, 2023, 08:48:41 AM
So no toll for use between I-90 and MA 21 then?
I-91 and MA 21, yes.

Sort of misleading, though.  If your trips start outside of the free zone, you, of course, pay a toll.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on July 24, 2023, 09:06:02 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 24, 2023, 08:55:08 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 24, 2023, 08:48:41 AM
So no toll for use between I-90 and MA 21 then?
I-91 and MA 21, yes.

Sort of misleading, though.  If your trips start outside of the free zone, you, of course, pay a toll.

I meant I-91 lol.  So locally yes, but long distance no.

Sort of like the Schenectady area in New York. Free from I-88 to I-890, but tolled from I-88 to anywhere else between Harriman and Williamsville.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on July 24, 2023, 11:33:52 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 24, 2023, 08:00:02 AM
Just noticed on the 2023 Rand McNally edition, that the Mass Pike is shown as being a free freeway (in purple) instead of being tolled ( in green) through Springfield.

There are no toll gantries between I-91 (Exit 45) and MA 21 (Exit 54).  There are also no toll gantries between I-290 (Exit 90) and MA 122 (Exit 96).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on July 24, 2023, 12:49:30 PM
It's not quite like I-88 as I understand it.  The Thruway is only toll free for traffic entering/exiting at exit 25A and traveling to/from exits 24, 25, or 26, with all other travel (through traffic, travel beyond those exits, or 24-25) paying a toll.  The MassPike's gantry tolls, however, are a fixed rate per gantry, and the bill is just an amalgamation of all the gantries on passed under, so there wouldn't be an additional toll if traveling both within that section and the tolled sections.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 24, 2023, 12:59:27 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 24, 2023, 08:45:06 AM
Through Springfield (not Springfield and west)? It's accurate.

Free between I-91 and MA 21 Exits 45-54; old 4-7) and from I-290/395 to MA 122 in the Worcester area (Exits 90-96, old 10-11)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on July 24, 2023, 01:02:54 PM
But the Thruway is ( and always was) free near Buffalo from US 219 to I-290 and in parts of Rockland and Westchester from Ardsley to Spring Valley. So these parts are the same.

Yes from Harriman to Exit 25 A you pay it all and not just up to 24 in Colonie. As from Exit 17 at Newburgh to Exit 11 in Nyack you pay from 17 to 14A only and not all the way to 11.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on July 25, 2023, 03:43:53 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 24, 2023, 12:59:27 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 24, 2023, 08:45:06 AM
Through Springfield (not Springfield and west)? It's accurate.

Free between I-91 and MA 21 Exits 45-54; old 4-7) and from I-290/395 to MA 122 in the Worcester area (Exits 90-96, old 10-11)
So does this mean the Pike is experimenting with certain local toll elimination, or they just haven't budgeted for enough gantries yet?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on July 25, 2023, 04:57:13 AM
Quote from: pderocco on July 25, 2023, 03:43:53 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 24, 2023, 12:59:27 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 24, 2023, 08:45:06 AM
Through Springfield (not Springfield and west)? It's accurate.

Free between I-91 and MA 21 Exits 45-54; old 4-7) and from I-290/395 to MA 122 in the Worcester area (Exits 90-96, old 10-11)
So does this mean the Pike is experimenting with certain local toll elimination, or they just haven't budgeted for enough gantries yet?

Not sure what MassDOT is up to. Since toll plazas were eliminated in 2016, they've had plenty of time to add gantries to places where they're lacking. And given the cost of highway maintenance, I doubt that toll elimination is anywhere in the offing. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on July 25, 2023, 06:38:05 AM
Quote from: pderocco on July 25, 2023, 03:43:53 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 24, 2023, 12:59:27 PM
Quote from: 1 on July 24, 2023, 08:45:06 AM
Through Springfield (not Springfield and west)? It's accurate.

Free between I-91 and MA 21 Exits 45-54; old 4-7) and from I-290/395 to MA 122 in the Worcester area (Exits 90-96, old 10-11)
So does this mean the Pike is experimenting with certain local toll elimination, or they just haven't budgeted for enough gantries yet?
Remember when the whole western half of the Pike was free?  Pepperidge Farms remembers.

MassPike/MassDOT have been implementing free zones for one reason or another for decades.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on July 25, 2023, 03:09:57 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on July 25, 2023, 04:57:13 AMNot sure what MassDOT is up to. Since toll plazas were eliminated in 2016, they've had plenty of time to add gantries to places where they're lacking. And given the cost of highway maintenance, I doubt that toll elimination is anywhere in the offing.

This was the design from the beginning of the toll plaza elimination project.  The object was to give drivers in the Worcester and Springfield areas another highway option to use without having pay a toll.  It was also an apology of sorts for Pike chairman William Callahan's snub of those two metro areas when the Pike was originally built.  They both had expected the Pike would be laid out closer to those cities, and they asked Callahan about it.  His response was in the Robert Moses mold ("no one tells me where to build a highway"), so he deliberately laid out the Pike to avoid the more heavily populated areas of those two cities.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DrSmith on July 25, 2023, 04:39:57 PM
Besides making the Springfield and Worcester area exits without tolls, they were added explicitly inside Route 128 where the Mass Pike only had fixed toll barriers. You could previously go between West Newton and Newton Corner without paying a toll previously. That only worked if you only went between those exits and that was it. With electronic tolling, an overhead gantry was added so that there is now a toll collected.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: dantheman on July 29, 2023, 02:28:18 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 25, 2023, 03:09:57 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on July 25, 2023, 04:57:13 AMNot sure what MassDOT is up to. Since toll plazas were eliminated in 2016, they've had plenty of time to add gantries to places where they're lacking. And given the cost of highway maintenance, I doubt that toll elimination is anywhere in the offing.

This was the design from the beginning of the toll plaza elimination project.  The object was to give drivers in the Worcester and Springfield areas another highway option to use without having pay a toll.  It was also an apology of sorts for Pike chairman William Callahan's snub of those two metro areas when the Pike was originally built.  They both had expected the Pike would be laid out closer to those cities, and they asked Callahan about it.  His response was in the Robert Moses mold ("no one tells me where to build a highway"), so he deliberately laid out the Pike to avoid the more heavily populated areas of those two cities.

I also remember hearing somewhere (local news, maybe?) that the cost of constructing and operating the gantry wouldn't be offset by the small tolls collected. The tolls are done on a roughly per-mile basis, so the gantry between something like exits 49 and 51 (old 5 & 6) would have only been a 5 or 10 cent toll for people with transponders. Evidently the cost of the gantry wasn't worth it for the low revenue, so the state decided not to install them.

(That logic isn't perfect, because exits 41-45 has a barrier for a 4-mile distance, but exits 90-94 doesn't have a barrier for the same 4-mile distance. *shrug*)

To me, it makes a lot of sense to me to keep highways toll-free in suburban/urban areas. Someone driving from the commercial strip along MA 33 in Chicopee to downtown Springfield has the choice between I-90 to I-291, or local streets either over to I-391 or straight down to Springfield. Why penalize someone for taking 90/291, and incentivize them to clog up neighborhoods and local streets that are already fairly crowded? Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on August 02, 2023, 12:06:19 AM
Not sure if this is related to any of the LEFT exit tab removals further down on I-93 in Braintree, Randolph and Canton (wind/sign loading issues?), but as of 27 July 2023, all three of the Exit 18 signs on I-93 South were replaced, removing MA Route 3 and 28 as well as "Cambridge", as well as one sign at the Sullivan / Assembly Sq split have been replaced too.

(https://i.ibb.co/ypvCC8n/Capture-d-e-cran-le-2023-07-28-a-15-43-06-0400.png) (https://ibb.co/bFwVVrg)
(https://i.ibb.co/f4z38Qm/Capture-d-e-cran-le-2023-07-28-a-15-43-14-0400.png) (https://ibb.co/qk3H0xb)
(https://i.ibb.co/MZvt5X8/Capture-d-e-cran-le-2023-08-01-a-23-55-39-0400.png) (https://ibb.co/FmryqPs)
(https://i.ibb.co/NFspcF4/Capture-d-e-cran-le-2023-08-01-a-23-55-54-0400.png) (https://ibb.co/MgspFgX)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on August 02, 2023, 12:01:36 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on August 02, 2023, 12:06:19 AM
Not sure if this is related to any of the LEFT exit tab removals further down on I-93 in Braintree, Randolph and Canton (wind/sign loading issues?), but as of 27 July 2023, all three of the Exit 18 signs on I-93 South were replaced, removing MA Route 3 and 28 as well as "Cambridge", as well as one sign at the Sullivan / Assembly Sq split have been replaced too.

(https://i.ibb.co/ypvCC8n/Capture-d-e-cran-le-2023-07-28-a-15-43-06-0400.png) (https://ibb.co/bFwVVrg)
(https://i.ibb.co/f4z38Qm/Capture-d-e-cran-le-2023-07-28-a-15-43-14-0400.png) (https://ibb.co/qk3H0xb)
(https://i.ibb.co/MZvt5X8/Capture-d-e-cran-le-2023-08-01-a-23-55-39-0400.png) (https://ibb.co/FmryqPs)
(https://i.ibb.co/NFspcF4/Capture-d-e-cran-le-2023-08-01-a-23-55-54-0400.png) (https://ibb.co/MgspFgX)
Interesting. Perhaps this was done to increase the size of the Hazardous Materials Must Exit message. Most locals refer to the roads by name anyway, don't know if this will cause any confusion for visitors though. Makes it easier to put up those US 3 North trailblazers in the future... :D
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on August 02, 2023, 04:42:28 PM
Saw those modified/new signs Memorial Day weekend this year. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on August 02, 2023, 06:26:04 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 02, 2023, 12:01:36 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on August 02, 2023, 12:06:19 AM
Not sure if this is related to any of the LEFT exit tab removals further down on I-93 in Braintree, Randolph and Canton (wind/sign loading issues?), but as of 27 July 2023, all three of the Exit 18 signs on I-93 South were replaced, removing MA Route 3 and 28 as well as "Cambridge", as well as one sign at the Sullivan / Assembly Sq split have been replaced too.

(https://i.ibb.co/ypvCC8n/Capture-d-e-cran-le-2023-07-28-a-15-43-06-0400.png) (https://ibb.co/bFwVVrg)
(https://i.ibb.co/f4z38Qm/Capture-d-e-cran-le-2023-07-28-a-15-43-14-0400.png) (https://ibb.co/qk3H0xb)
(https://i.ibb.co/MZvt5X8/Capture-d-e-cran-le-2023-08-01-a-23-55-39-0400.png) (https://ibb.co/FmryqPs)
(https://i.ibb.co/NFspcF4/Capture-d-e-cran-le-2023-08-01-a-23-55-54-0400.png) (https://ibb.co/MgspFgX)
Interesting. Perhaps this was done to increase the size of the Hazardous Materials Must Exit message. Most locals refer to the roads by name anyway, don't know if this will cause any confusion for visitors though. Makes it easier to put up those US 3 North trailblazers in the future... :D

MassDOT has usually been about signing for locals anyway IMO. Assuming that most visitors use GPS, and the most dominant platform (Waze) will update/be updated to include the current signs and not MA-3 or MA-28.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on August 03, 2023, 08:56:49 AM
I was on I-95 South in the Wakefield area last night and saw that they installed a new 1 mile advance overhead sign for Exit 58 without an exit tab. I wonder if this was put up by accident or how the contractors didn’t notice it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on August 03, 2023, 11:27:13 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on August 02, 2023, 06:26:04 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 02, 2023, 12:01:36 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on August 02, 2023, 12:06:19 AM
Not sure if this is related to any of the LEFT exit tab removals further down on I-93 in Braintree, Randolph and Canton (wind/sign loading issues?), but as of 27 July 2023, all three of the Exit 18 signs on I-93 South were replaced, removing MA Route 3 and 28 as well as "Cambridge", as well as one sign at the Sullivan / Assembly Sq split have been replaced too.

(https://i.ibb.co/ypvCC8n/Capture-d-e-cran-le-2023-07-28-a-15-43-06-0400.png) (https://ibb.co/bFwVVrg)
(https://i.ibb.co/f4z38Qm/Capture-d-e-cran-le-2023-07-28-a-15-43-14-0400.png) (https://ibb.co/qk3H0xb)
(https://i.ibb.co/MZvt5X8/Capture-d-e-cran-le-2023-08-01-a-23-55-39-0400.png) (https://ibb.co/FmryqPs)
(https://i.ibb.co/NFspcF4/Capture-d-e-cran-le-2023-08-01-a-23-55-54-0400.png) (https://ibb.co/MgspFgX)
Interesting. Perhaps this was done to increase the size of the Hazardous Materials Must Exit message. Most locals refer to the roads by name anyway, don't know if this will cause any confusion for visitors though. Makes it easier to put up those US 3 North trailblazers in the future... :D

MassDOT has usually been about signing for locals anyway IMO. Assuming that most visitors use GPS, and the most dominant platform (Waze) will update/be updated to include the current signs and not MA-3 or MA-28.
According to Steve Timmins, a sign engineer at MassDOT posting on the BostonRoads.com FB group, the replacement of the existing signs with new shorter panels, and now centered on the sign structures, was prompted by the failure of an overhead sign on I-93 northbound in December of last year. While these signs weren't in danger of imminent failure, they had hangers of similar design to the one that fell, so they were swapped out with the smaller ones as a precautionary measure. He also said MassDOT is doing preliminary design work for rebuilding the current I-93 viaduct which would include replacing the current sign gantries, which are now over 50 years old. No word on whether supplemental route signs will be placed along I-93 for this exit.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on August 03, 2023, 06:38:42 PM
I wonder what goes into rebuilding 93 thru Somerville. I shudder to think some of the dumb ideas from "stakeholders" that will come in.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on August 03, 2023, 08:22:12 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on August 03, 2023, 06:38:42 PM
I wonder what goes into rebuilding 93 thru Somerville. I shudder to think some of the dumb ideas from "stakeholders" that will come in.
Yeah, keep the public out of publicly-funded infrastructure decision-making!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on August 03, 2023, 08:48:37 PM
Wonder if they'll find a way to give I-93 SB a third lane from the Exit 18 lane drop to closer to the Rt 1 merge.  The fact that I-93 SB narrows to 2 lanes in that location is laughable.  If the present Exit 18 ramp was to lead to the "Inner Belt" which would have had traffic bypass the Central Artery, that would have been one thing, but funneling all traffic into 2 lanes heading into New England's largest city isn't the best.  I have seen worse, however... Bruckner to Cross Bronx drops I-95 down to 2 lanes then 1.  Better merge quick!

Then again, this is the state that still hasn't done anything about the one lane loop ramp from I-95 NB to Rt 128 NB. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on August 04, 2023, 08:20:06 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 03, 2023, 08:22:12 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on August 03, 2023, 06:38:42 PM
I wonder what goes into rebuilding 93 thru Somerville. I shudder to think some of the dumb ideas from "stakeholders" that will come in.
Yeah, keep the public out of publicly-funded infrastructure decision-making!

A man from the state of deleting I-81 thru a city checking in...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on August 04, 2023, 11:57:42 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 03, 2023, 08:48:37 PM
Then again, this is the state that still hasn't done anything about the one lane loop ramp from I-95 NB to Rt 128 NB.

Who in the right mind decided that I-95, one of the major north-south corridors of the United States East Coast, would be reduced to a single lane (and a 270 degree loop) in Canton?  Even more odd, those exiting 95 onto 93 north get a 2-lane exit!  As a result, every time I drive through this area, there's a traffic jam.  Even on weekends!

Also, aren't I-95 and MA 128 one and the same between Canton and Peabody?  When you say "one lane loop ramp from 95 NB to 128 NB", you're making it sound like I-95 "ends" in Canton, when it clearly does not!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on August 04, 2023, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on August 04, 2023, 11:57:42 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 03, 2023, 08:48:37 PM
Then again, this is the state that still hasn't done anything about the one lane loop ramp from I-95 NB to Rt 128 NB.

Who in the right mind decided that I-95, one of the major north-south corridors of the United States East Coast, would be reduced to a single lane (and a 270 degree loop) in Canton?  Even more odd, those exiting 95 onto 93 north get a 2-lane exit!  As a result, every time I drive through this area, there's a traffic jam.  Even on weekends!

Also, aren't I-95 and MA 128 one and the same between Canton and Peabody?  When you say "one lane loop ramp from 95 NB to 128 NB", you're making it sound like I-95 "ends" in Canton, when it clearly does not!

It’s like this due to the cancellation of the Southwest Expressway into Boston, so it likely would’ve been built as a cloverleaf. I thought MassDOT originally looked into replacing it with a flyover. Are there still plans to do that? NIMBYism shouldn’t be too big a problem since there aren’t numerous houses in the way.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on August 04, 2023, 02:03:48 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on August 04, 2023, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on August 04, 2023, 11:57:42 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 03, 2023, 08:48:37 PM
Then again, this is the state that still hasn't done anything about the one lane loop ramp from I-95 NB to Rt 128 NB.

Who in the right mind decided that I-95, one of the major north-south corridors of the United States East Coast, would be reduced to a single lane (and a 270 degree loop) in Canton?  Even more odd, those exiting 95 onto 93 north get a 2-lane exit!  As a result, every time I drive through this area, there's a traffic jam.  Even on weekends!

Also, aren't I-95 and MA 128 one and the same between Canton and Peabody?  When you say "one lane loop ramp from 95 NB to 128 NB", you're making it sound like I-95 "ends" in Canton, when it clearly does not!

It's like this due to the cancellation of the Southwest Expressway into Boston, so it likely would've been built as a cloverleaf. I thought MassDOT originally looked into replacing it with a flyover. Are there still plans to do that? NIMBYism shouldn't be too big a problem since there aren't numerous houses in the way.

Yes, I-95 was intended to go straight through Boston.....long story short, it didn't happen. Thus, the intended on-ramp from I-95 North to what was MA-128 N now serves as a continuation of I-95 N, a critical link in the Greater Boston highway network, and an overburdened one at that. I had seen plans for a flyover in the past, but MassDOT spent so much money on improving I-93/95 themselves (such as adding a fourth lane and other improvements to the exit) that they may be a little gun shy or short of money. There may also be environmental issues, since a flyover may impact both the Neponset River and the Blue Hills Reservation.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on August 07, 2023, 02:09:56 PM
I am aware that I-95 was supposed to go through Boston.  But...

It's been 50 years since this project was cancelled.  FIFTY YEARS.

The fact that the state's Department of Transportation can't restructure mainline I-95 north traffic to be at least 2 lanes at a major junction with another Interstate is just baffling!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on August 07, 2023, 06:37:35 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on August 07, 2023, 02:09:56 PM
I am aware that I-95 was supposed to go through Boston.  But...

It's been 50 years since this project was cancelled.  FIFTY YEARS.

The fact that the state's Department of Transportation can't restructure mainline I-95 north traffic to be at least 2 lanes at a major junction with another Interstate is just baffling!

I agree wholeheartedly. Both I-93/95 interchanges need serious work. But it's not really a shock that it hasn't happened.  There are a few reasons:

1. The Big Dig sapped the public's will and wallet for big projects, even necessary ones.  The cost overruns and scandals were particularly harmful.

2. Not enough political will/bureaucratic inertia. For example, adding the extra lane from MA-9 to MA-24 took the better part of a decade by itself.

3. The cost of materials and labor in MA (never cheap, only going up).

4. Community opposition (it will happen) and the need for expensive mitigation over the potential for massive traffic disruptions. Traffic is already bad in that area, esp. from 95 North to 95/128 North, but worsening traffic often makes people forget about why improvements are needed. Some opposition will be genuine, some will be well-meaning, some will be self-serving, and some will oppose it just because.

5. Environmental concerns (esp. for the Blue Hills Reservation/Neponset River). Even if there aren't actual problems, the state will need to go out of its way to placate the green lobby.

6. The inevitable controversies over transit/green alternatives, etc.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on August 08, 2023, 01:53:19 AM
It's not that hard to build some ramps that go over a river without disturbing it.

I could see opposing building something that would take fifty acres of wetlands, if it was something like a housing development. After all, once one is built, why not another? Then another? But you can only justify one set of ramps in an interchange. Conceivably, express lane ramps might be desired decades from now, but building one interchange doesn't imply an open-ended ability to build more and more and more.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on August 08, 2023, 02:10:39 AM
Someone posted the Highest Point on I-90 east of South Dakota on Freeway Jim on FB.  Is that somewhere in the 30 mile exit less stretch east of Lee where the brown informative guide is located?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on August 08, 2023, 04:43:44 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 08, 2023, 02:10:39 AM
Someone posted the Highest Point on I-90 east of South Dakota on Freeway Jim on FB.  Is that somewhere in the 30 mile exit less stretch east of Lee where the brown informative guide is located?

There was one near the point where the Pike crosses the Appalachian Trail in the Town of Becket. I couldn't find it on GSV.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 08, 2023, 09:40:07 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on August 08, 2023, 04:43:44 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 08, 2023, 02:10:39 AM
Someone posted the Highest Point on I-90 east of South Dakota on Freeway Jim on FB.  Is that somewhere in the 30 mile exit less stretch east of Lee where the brown informative guide is located?

There was one near the point where the Pike crosses the Appalachian Trail in the Town of Becket. I couldn't find it on GSV.

Someone has created it as a place in Google maps.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/iry2ZAUc3YTCBXZq5?g_st=ic
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on August 08, 2023, 11:18:48 AM
The old sign was better for the highest point east of Oacoma.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 08, 2023, 02:30:42 PM
Does Oacoma have a "Highest point east of Becket, Massachusetts"  sign?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on August 08, 2023, 11:36:08 PM
No, because it's not.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 09, 2023, 11:45:06 AM
Quote from: pderocco on August 08, 2023, 11:36:08 PM
No, because it's not.

Yes, west.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on August 09, 2023, 02:53:18 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on August 07, 2023, 06:37:35 PM...There are a few reasons:

1. The Big Dig sapped the public's will and wallet for big projects, even necessary ones.  The cost overruns and scandals were particularly devastating.

2. Not enough political will/bureaucratic inertia. For example, adding the extra lane from MA-9 to MA-24 took the better part of a decade by itself.

3. The cost of materials and labor in MA. 

4. Community opposition and the need for expensive mitigation over the potential for massive traffic disruptions (it will happen). Some will be genuine, some will be well-meaning, and some will oppose it just because.

5. Environmental concerns (esp. for the Blue Hills Reservation/Neponset River).

6. The inevitable controversies over transit/green alternatives, etc.

And, in the case of the northern interchange, let's not forget...

7.  The cost of condemning at least several properties in the way of the proposed solutions.  Average home prices in those towns are well over $1 million now.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 10, 2023, 05:33:33 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on August 09, 2023, 02:53:18 PM
And, in the case of the northern interchange, let's not forget...

7.  The cost of condemning at least several properties in the way of the proposed solutions.  Average home prices in those towns are well over $1 million now.

Not to sound cavalier with the public coffers, but $1 million is a drop in the bucket on a project this size. The big Interstate to Interstate interchange project in Massachusetts right now is 495 and the Mass Pike, and that is budgeted at close to half a billion dollars.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on August 10, 2023, 07:42:07 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on August 04, 2023, 02:03:48 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on August 04, 2023, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on August 04, 2023, 11:57:42 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 03, 2023, 08:48:37 PM
Then again, this is the state that still hasn't done anything about the one lane loop ramp from I-95 NB to Rt 128 NB.

Who in the right mind decided that I-95, one of the major north-south corridors of the United States East Coast, would be reduced to a single lane (and a 270 degree loop) in Canton?  Even more odd, those exiting 95 onto 93 north get a 2-lane exit!  As a result, every time I drive through this area, there's a traffic jam.  Even on weekends!

Also, aren't I-95 and MA 128 one and the same between Canton and Peabody?  When you say "one lane loop ramp from 95 NB to 128 NB", you're making it sound like I-95 "ends" in Canton, when it clearly does not!

It's like this due to the cancellation of the Southwest Expressway into Boston, so it likely would've been built as a cloverleaf. I thought MassDOT originally looked into replacing it with a flyover. Are there still plans to do that? NIMBYism shouldn't be too big a problem since there aren't numerous houses in the way.

Yes, I-95 was intended to go straight through Boston.....long story short, it didn't happen. Thus, the intended on-ramp from I-95 North to what was MA-128 N now serves as a continuation of I-95 N, a critical link in the Greater Boston highway network, and an overburdened one at that. I had seen plans for a flyover in the past, but MassDOT spent so much money on improving I-93/95 themselves (such as adding a fourth lane and other improvements to the exit) that they may be a little gun shy or short of money. There may also be environmental issues, since a flyover may impact both the Neponset River and the Blue Hills Reservation.

First off, I am well aware I-95 doesn't end in Canton/Dedham.  The way I look at I-95 in Mass, I see "south of 128", "128", and "north of 128".  We here all know that I-95 is continuous, but there are still those Boston area traffic reporters that think there's a gap in I-95 between Canton and Peabody. 

Anyways,
If there's anything the I-91 Exit 29 NB project in Hartford CT taught us, its that 2-lane flyovers can be built in a tight area (and can yield some pretty substantial traffic-relieving results).  Really the only major ramp here to be constructed is the I-95NB->128/95NB ramp.  So using https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2074995,-71.1440087,999m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu as a template...
I would create a 2-lane ramp from existing I-95 NB near Green Lodge St, then starting its left curve towards 128, to enter 128 on the left.  You would lose at least the two existing left most lanes of 128 coming into I-95 NB so build those off to the right (north side), again widening the bridge over Amtrak/MBTA adjacent to the Rt 128 station.  Traffic entering Rt 128 NB from this new I-95 NB ramp would not need to access University Ave/RR station, having already used the presently-under construction ramp to Dedham St.  So then you'd have 4 lanes of 128 and 2 lanes of I-95 merging in to 128.  The far rightmost lane can end at the Rt 128 exit, then you've got 3 "128" lanes and the 2 I-95 lanes.  All of this can reduce back to its existing footprint before you get too close to the development off East St/Canton St.
With the existing 95NB->128NB loop ramp removed, you can realign the existing 93SB->95SB ramp to lessen the curve. 

With the northern I-93/I-95 interchange in Reading/Woburn, you're looking at a much larger project with more flyovers or some alternative. 
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.50299,-71.1208524,941m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
A cheaper solution may be to C/D road it, at least on I-95/128.  You may be able to keep 3 lanes of thru traffic with that alternative.  Not ideal, but a stopgap solution that doesn't raise a neighborhood.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 10, 2023, 10:13:00 PM
How much right-of-way might be necessary if the northern Interstate 93/Interstate 95 interchange were reconstructed in its existing configuration, and all ramps were expanded from one lane to two?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on August 11, 2023, 08:16:17 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 10, 2023, 10:13:00 PM
How much right-of-way might be necessary if the northern Interstate 93/Interstate 95 interchange were reconstructed in its existing configuration, and all ramps were expanded from one lane to two?

Lots. You have large business on the southwest side, and lots of homes on the other three sides, all right up to 93 and 95. The ones on the southeast side were even built long after the interchange was built.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on August 11, 2023, 08:40:06 AM
Wouldn't removing the lane drop on I-95 north  just past the I-93 interchange by increasing it from 3 to 4 lanes fix a lot of the issues at this interchange?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SidS1045 on August 11, 2023, 11:21:47 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 11, 2023, 08:40:06 AMWouldn't removing the lane drop on I-95 north  just past the I-93 interchange by increasing it from 3 to 4 lanes fix a lot of the issues at this interchange?

That might alleviate some of the issues, but not all of them.  One of the biggest problems is the conflict between traffic from I-93 north merging onto 95/128 north, and the traffic exiting 95/128 north onto MA-28 south.  The weave area is only about 1/4 mile.

Also, remember that the lane drop on 95/128 north extends all the way to Peabody, where the two routes separate.  Adding one lane beyond the I-93 interchange just "kicks the can" down the road.  Some of the overpasses on that stretch of 95/128 were built with capacity for an extra lane, but not all of them.  Look how long it took to add an extra lane on 95/128 between MA-9 and MA-24.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on August 11, 2023, 02:03:54 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on August 11, 2023, 11:21:47 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 11, 2023, 08:40:06 AMWouldn't removing the lane drop on I-95 north  just past the I-93 interchange by increasing it from 3 to 4 lanes fix a lot of the issues at this interchange?

That might alleviate some of the issues, but not all of them.  One of the biggest problems is the conflict between traffic from I-93 north merging onto 95/128 north, and the traffic exiting 95/128 north onto MA-28 south.  The weave area is only about 1/4 mile.

Also, remember that the lane drop on 95/128 north extends all the way to Peabody, where the two routes separate.  Adding one lane beyond the I-93 interchange just "kicks the can" down the road.  Some of the overpasses on that stretch of 95/128 were built with capacity for an extra lane, but not all of them.  Look how long it took to add an extra lane on 95/128 between MA-9 and MA-24.

It would fix some issues, but still doesn't solve the main problems of the loop ramps in particular.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on August 12, 2023, 12:21:10 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on August 11, 2023, 11:21:47 AM
Also, remember that the lane drop on 95/128 north extends all the way to Peabody, where the two routes separate.  Adding one lane beyond the I-93 interchange just "kicks the can" down the road.  Some of the overpasses on that stretch of 95/128 were built with capacity for an extra lane, but not all of them.  Look how long it took to add an extra lane on 95/128 between MA-9 and MA-24.
Look how long it took to add extra lanes on I-405 in California between CA-73 and CA-22. What was it, two years, during which they replaced or widened about 15 interchanges and grade separations? Massachusetts has a toy road department.

That said, traffic obviously drops the further north you go on 95/128, so extending the eight lanes up to the I-95 split would help, but only up to that point. It will make it all the more obvious that the ancient 128 beyond that needs more lanes, at least through Beverly. But it looks like there's actually room to do that without tearing down more than a few houses.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on August 24, 2023, 10:32:17 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on July 14, 2023, 05:39:06 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on July 12, 2023, 03:50:02 PM
Got to capture some of Exit 4 at the 1.6 km (1.0 mile), 800 m (0.5 mile) and at the exit with no exit tabs on I-93 SB on Friday 7 July, here they are. It looks like the EXIT 4 tab is new, however I can't confirm this as I couldn't read the date stamp at all.

(https://i.ibb.co/qxWf1vr/DSC09438.jpg) (https://ibb.co/kM9fctS)
(https://i.ibb.co/xm79DW9/DSC09440.jpg) (https://ibb.co/z849rp9)
(https://i.ibb.co/mNyKqV9/DSC09442.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PDWyhvc)

The LEFT tab on the 800 m (0.5 mile) sign to I-93 South Exit 1 A-B remains as of last Friday.
(https://i.ibb.co/qdG2r8t/DSC09445.jpg) (https://ibb.co/NshGyq8)

Quote from: bob7374 on July 07, 2023, 10:41:11 PM
Traffic prevented me from checking out whether this is also true on I-93 South at the 'Braintree Split.'

Also want to say that the signs at least at the exit were removed but can't confirm. Route 3 North at Exit 43 A-B: I-93 / Braintree Split may have also had their tabs removed as well. However, Google Maps suggests that this is true at I-93 South Exit 7:
1.6 km (1.0 mile) (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2436467,-71.029074,3a,75y,115.93h,92.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEE2CvNquXRrYM4BGs_du8w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
800 m (0.5 mile) (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2379515,-71.0239489,3a,90y,162.72h,103.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHs5FsbbXLJkX8XY0n5QTuw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
At the exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2313235,-71.0234272,3a,75y,154.52h,90.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBeqJqlxYlJxVmHj9m8b8fg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
Got photos of some of the MA 3 exit signs showing tabs removed as well, First along I-93 South:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/i93signs723b.jpg)

Then along along MA 3 North:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma3signs723a.jpg)
The Left Exit sign removal continues, this time further south along MA 3 in Plymouth with signage at the Plimoth Patuxet (formerly Plimoth Plantation) Highway exit, two examples:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma3signspph823a.jpg)

(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma3signspph823d.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on August 25, 2023, 03:18:34 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 24, 2023, 10:32:17 PM
The Left Exit sign removal continues, this time further south along MA 3 in Plymouth with signage at the Plimoth Patuxet (formerly Plimoth Plantation) Highway exit, two examples:

(images clipped)

The tabs have also dissappeared along I-195, MA Route 24 and 140 as well near Fall River:

I-195 to MA Route 24 North:
400 m / 0.25 mi (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6823479,-71.13159,3a,20.8y,103.73h,95.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssncF2Dl4H_H1DbF77jzPeQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DsncF2Dl4H_H1DbF77jzPeQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D222.85522%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
At exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6812428,-71.1259583,3a,27.8y,104.03h,94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKYkpIFZvn-vwNWjuAOI63g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)

MA Route 24 at I-195:
1.6 km / 1.0 mi (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6980214,-71.1222987,3a,75y,193.69h,97.94t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sSPVQU01daAhYyTLt44rSuQ!2e0!5s20230601T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DSPVQU01daAhYyTLt44rSuQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D183.15665%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
800 m / 0.5 mi (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.689904,-71.1222808,3a,63.3y,166.69h,98.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swG7ptLo2L87W6-1nb7mdwA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DwG7ptLo2L87W6-1nb7mdwA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D335.39835%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
At exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6832933,-71.1215386,3a,41.2y,197.71h,90.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJW7eKOOgfe6QrvjnGFfMxw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DJW7eKOOgfe6QrvjnGFfMxw%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D61.345917%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)

MA Route 140 at Exit 6: MA Route 18 / Ashley Boul.
1.6 km / 1.0 mi (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.726334,-70.948589,3a,31.5y,143.51h,96.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG7SeZ4NcTeAItVpF-BGgew!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
400 m /  0.25 mi (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7218534,-70.9445129,3a,27.7y,148.11h,99.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWMTcw8RjLd6hPlZb1vJxAQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
240 m / 800 ft (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7171742,-70.9417305,3a,75y,172.26h,101.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shVPEhngqCQNdvhMqC3u0Jg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
At exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7149061,-70.9411019,3a,27.7y,171.48h,95.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saAbElqyZHOwEeFk9HmVMRA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on August 25, 2023, 04:24:37 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 24, 2023, 10:32:17 PM
The Left Exit sign removal continues, this time further south along MA 3 in Plymouth with signage at the Plimoth Patuxet (formerly Plimoth Plantation) Highway exit, two examples:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma3signspph823a.jpg)

(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma3signspph823d.jpg)

Those overlays really stick out like a sore thumb.  Do you really need a large directional sign at the 1-mile warning for what is basically a parkway?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: sturmde on August 25, 2023, 05:24:51 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on August 07, 2023, 02:09:56 PM
I am aware that I-95 was supposed to go through Boston.  But...

It's been 50 years since this project was cancelled.  FIFTY YEARS.

The fact that the state's Department of Transportation can't restructure mainline I-95 north traffic to be at least 2 lanes at a major junction with another Interstate is just baffling!

No one is coming from the Middle Atlantic states or New York City along that segment of 95, anyway.  The bulk of traffic to Boston from points other than Rhode Island is coming up 91 from New Haven, over 84 from Hartford and then in on the Mass Pike/90 to Boston.  Traffic headed to Maine heads up 495.  95 south of Boston is only carrying Providence-Boston traffic.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on August 25, 2023, 05:33:45 PM
... but that's still a fair amount of traffic, enough to warrant a 2-lane ramp. 

Have there been any proposals to expand "I-95 South" to 4 lanes, from 128 down to (at least) I-295)?  Looks like most of it could be done relatively easy, in the median, and the opportunity taken to fix the I-295NB to I-95NB ramp or to add c/d lanes at the I-95/I-495 cloverleaf.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on August 25, 2023, 05:35:55 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on August 25, 2023, 04:24:37 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on August 24, 2023, 10:32:17 PM
The Left Exit sign removal continues, this time further south along MA 3 in Plymouth with signage at the Plimoth Patuxet (formerly Plimoth Plantation) Highway exit, two examples:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma3signspph823a.jpg)

(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma3signspph823d.jpg)

Those overlays really stick out like a sore thumb.  Do you really need a large directional sign at the 1-mile warning for what is basically a parkway?

In fairness, Plimoth Plantation, er, Patuxet is a major tourist attraction, as is MA 3-A to which the highway leads to.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 25, 2023, 07:51:11 PM
I think the Pilmoth Plantation Highway should have been numbered MA 3B (given that the designation has been available since the original 3B was renumbered to MA 38 in the early 1930s), since the PPH was originally part of MA 3 from 1951 to 1957 (when the rest of the MA 3 freeway was completed to the US 6 freeway). I also think the Exit 12 off-ramp should be on the right-hand-side.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on August 26, 2023, 08:08:04 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 25, 2023, 07:51:11 PM
I think the Pilmoth Plantation Highway should have been numbered MA 3B (given that the designation has been available since the original 3B was renumbered to MA 38 in the early 1930s), since the PPH was originally part of MA 3 from 1951 to 1957 (when the rest of the MA 3 freeway was completed to the US 6 freeway). I also think the Exit 12 off-ramp should be on the right-hand-side.

3B looks too much like 38 to probably duplicate 3B somewhere else. I think DOTs agree with me given the "## B" exit numbering with the space between numbers and letters now to make a B not look like an 8.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on August 27, 2023, 10:58:14 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 25, 2023, 05:33:45 PM
... but that's still a fair amount of traffic, enough to warrant a 2-lane ramp. 

Have there been any proposals to expand "I-95 South" to 4 lanes, from 128 down to (at least) I-295)?  Looks like most of it could be done relatively easy, in the median, and the opportunity taken to fix the I-295NB to I-95NB ramp or to add c/d lanes at the I-95/I-495 cloverleaf.
Considering money is always the bottom line, I'd rather they get the 93/95 Canton Interchange done before they even tackle a possible flyover treatment of I-295 NB to I-95 NB (which is also desperately needed).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on August 28, 2023, 09:13:51 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on August 27, 2023, 10:58:14 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 25, 2023, 05:33:45 PM
... but that's still a fair amount of traffic, enough to warrant a 2-lane ramp. 

Have there been any proposals to expand "I-95 South" to 4 lanes, from 128 down to (at least) I-295)?  Looks like most of it could be done relatively easy, in the median, and the opportunity taken to fix the I-295NB to I-95NB ramp or to add c/d lanes at the I-95/I-495 cloverleaf.
Considering money is always the bottom line, I'd rather they get the 93/95 Canton Interchange done before they even tackle a possible flyover treatment of I-295 NB to I-95 NB (which is also desperately needed).

Alrighty, so, probably not.  ;-)


In other news....
The LEFT exit tabs are alive and well in the Pioneer Valley.  Saw them surviving yesterday on I-91 South in the Greenfield area for the MA 2 East exit. 
(No pictures from this trip, but they were there)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on August 28, 2023, 09:57:20 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 28, 2023, 09:13:51 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on August 27, 2023, 10:58:14 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on August 25, 2023, 05:33:45 PM
... but that's still a fair amount of traffic, enough to warrant a 2-lane ramp. 

Have there been any proposals to expand "I-95 South" to 4 lanes, from 128 down to (at least) I-295)?  Looks like most of it could be done relatively easy, in the median, and the opportunity taken to fix the I-295NB to I-95NB ramp or to add c/d lanes at the I-95/I-495 cloverleaf.
Considering money is always the bottom line, I'd rather they get the 93/95 Canton Interchange done before they even tackle a possible flyover treatment of I-295 NB to I-95 NB (which is also desperately needed).

Alrighty, so, probably not.  ;-)


In other news....
The LEFT exit tabs are alive and well in the Pioneer Valley.  Saw them surviving yesterday on I-91 South in the Greenfield area for the MA 2 East exit. 
(No pictures from this trip, but they were there)
They are also still around in the Worcester area on I-290 based on recent photos posted on FB. Does someone in the Boston area have something against them? Would be nice to hear an explanation for this from MassDOT.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on August 29, 2023, 08:10:12 AM
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/massdot-secretary-stepping-down-after-8-months-on-the-job/3122594/

MassDOT's new head winning the speedrun competition for Gov. Healey's cabinet picks.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on August 29, 2023, 09:54:18 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on August 29, 2023, 08:10:12 AM
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/massdot-secretary-stepping-down-after-8-months-on-the-job/3122594/

MassDOT's new head winning the speedrun competition for Gov. Healey's cabinet picks.
Heh.  It seems few DOT heads stick around for very long nowadays, but that's a fun little stint.

One of those jobs where a lot can go wrong that's out of your control (e.g., stupid people driving in blizzards) and you still have to take the blame.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on August 29, 2023, 10:20:32 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 29, 2023, 09:54:18 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on August 29, 2023, 08:10:12 AM
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/massdot-secretary-stepping-down-after-8-months-on-the-job/3122594/

MassDOT's new head winning the speedrun competition for Gov. Healey's cabinet picks.
Heh.  It seems few DOT heads stick around for very long nowadays, but that's a fun little stint.

One of those jobs where a lot can go wrong that's out of your control (e.g., stupid people driving in blizzards) and you still have to take the blame.

Per a Boston Globe story from the Spring (no point in linking due to paywalling) she awarded a $900K no bid-contract to her former brother-in-law Bill Bratton. Bratton used to be Boston police commissioner before going to NYC, and used to be married to her sister Cheryl, who jumps between government jobs and TV jobs within Boston. Needless to say her employer, WBZ, never reported on the Globe story. I guess you're not following up on an investigation when your investigative reporter is the partial subject of the story.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on September 07, 2023, 10:40:23 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on July 10, 2023, 04:23:00 PM
I wonder if they were worried about the extra LEFT tab's height and strong winds, or the signs not being designed properly for wind loads.   Could this have been related to the fall-out of the random gantry on I-190 that collapsed earlier this year?
FWIW, the gantry along I-190 that fell was a cantilever type with a single sign panel with a standard right-justified Exit tab.

Edit:.
Link replaced.

https://www.masslive.com/worcester/2022/08/bolts-failed-on-highway-sign-that-fell-on-i-190-in-worcester-investigation-shows-52-more-highway-signs-being-inspected.html (https://www.masslive.com/worcester/2022/08/bolts-failed-on-highway-sign-that-fell-on-i-190-in-worcester-investigation-shows-52-more-highway-signs-being-inspected.html)

Quote from: Excerpt from Above-web-linkAn overhead sign that fell on I-190 in Worcester last week was caused when the anchor bolts holding the sign support to its foundation failed, according to a preliminary investigation by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.
In that case, it was anchor bolts on the foundation; not the ones on the sign panels nor above-gantries themselves.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 08, 2023, 11:33:25 AM
That story from August of last year is no longer available at that link. I got a "404 Page Not Found" error when I clicked on it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on September 12, 2023, 07:11:56 AM
Catastrophic flooding in Leominster last night that had a severe effect on local roads and on MA-2.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on September 12, 2023, 11:36:31 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on September 12, 2023, 07:11:56 AM
Catastrophic flooding in Leominster last night that had a severe effect on local roads and on MA-2.
Here's a news report showing the impacts of the flooding:
https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/bridge-collapse-giant-sinkhole-evacuations-state-emergency-leominster-after-flash-flooding/SFPGLWMUC5AG3FJNDJC6WXNKTI/ (https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/bridge-collapse-giant-sinkhole-evacuations-state-emergency-leominster-after-flash-flooding/SFPGLWMUC5AG3FJNDJC6WXNKTI/)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: ThatHighwayGuy777 on September 16, 2023, 12:55:06 AM
I guess they revamped a good chunk of the mile markers on highways and made them thicker with a big route shield and mile marker your on and am I the only one who thinks these are ugly
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on September 16, 2023, 08:29:45 PM
Quote from: ThatHighwayGuy777 on September 16, 2023, 12:55:06 AM
I guess they revamped a good chunk of the mile markers on highways and made them thicker with a big route shield and mile marker your on and am I the only one who thinks these are ugly
Yes, new ones have appeared along Route 3 in Braintree and Weymouth. These are actually the first with the route shields on that stretch, they put up markers like those seen on non-freeways when they were installing those throughout District 6 and didn't replace them with enhanced reference markers when the rest of the route was first upgraded. The route shields do look a little too large given the current size of the markers.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on September 21, 2023, 11:09:21 AM
The Commonwealth is beginning the process of considering a replacement to the Maurice Tobin Bridge, opened in 1950 and a key cog in Greater Boston's transportation network.

https://whdh.com/news/state-setting-sights-on-replacing-tobin-bridge/
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 21, 2023, 11:21:01 AM
I assume the new bridge will be a double-decked bridge like the existing Northeast Expressway is from Interstate 93 to 5th St.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on September 21, 2023, 01:37:24 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 21, 2023, 11:21:01 AM
I assume the new bridge will be a double-decked bridge like the existing Northeast Expressway is from Interstate 93 to 5th St.

I think it would have to be, given space limitations.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on September 21, 2023, 05:18:02 PM
In a perfect world, the new Tobin Bridge would be built on a new alignment, leaving I-93 near Sullivan Square and meeting up with the existing alignment in Chelsea near Rt 16.  You'd eliminate two curves and would have improved ramps to/from I-93 that occur "ON THE RIGHT".  And it looks like a mostly industrial area.  (And that perfect world would have this become I-95 since you'd be able to build the rest of the Northeast Exp'y out to 128). 

Anyway...

I wonder if in the 'list of possible alternatives', when it comes out (still a ways to go for that), if such an alignment would be thrown out there for consideration, or what other options they'll come up with.  Seems like building a double decker bridge of that length in this day and age isn't the most ideal (especially if you're on the other coast).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 22, 2023, 06:53:06 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 21, 2023, 05:18:02 PM
In a perfect world, the new Tobin Bridge would be built on a new alignment, leaving I-93 near Sullivan Square and meeting up with the existing alignment in Chelsea near Rt 16.  You'd eliminate two curves and would have improved ramps to/from I-93 that occur "ON THE RIGHT".  And it looks like a mostly industrial area.  (And that perfect world would have this become I-95 since you'd be able to build the rest of the Northeast Exp'y out to 128). 

Anyway...

I wonder if in the 'list of possible alternatives', when it comes out (still a ways to go for that), if such an alignment would be thrown out there for consideration, or what other options they'll come up with.  Seems like building a double decker bridge of that length in this day and age isn't the most ideal (especially if you're on the other coast).
What about a tunnel from MA 1A from the north end of the Callahan/Sumner Tunnels to just before Alington St?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on September 22, 2023, 10:02:10 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 22, 2023, 06:53:06 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 21, 2023, 05:18:02 PM
In a perfect world, the new Tobin Bridge would be built on a new alignment, leaving I-93 near Sullivan Square and meeting up with the existing alignment in Chelsea near Rt 16.  You'd eliminate two curves and would have improved ramps to/from I-93 that occur "ON THE RIGHT".  And it looks like a mostly industrial area.  (And that perfect world would have this become I-95 since you'd be able to build the rest of the Northeast Exp'y out to 128). 

Anyway...

I wonder if in the 'list of possible alternatives', when it comes out (still a ways to go for that), if such an alignment would be thrown out there for consideration, or what other options they'll come up with.  Seems like building a double decker bridge of that length in this day and age isn't the most ideal (especially if you're on the other coast).
What about a tunnel from MA 1A from the north end of the Callahan/Sumner Tunnels to just before Alington St?
*laughs in Syracuse*

I'd love to see MA get bogged down in that nonsense.  It's someone else's turn.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on October 01, 2023, 08:04:24 PM
Saw something today I've never seen before...

When was the last time you saw a yellow diamond/speed limit sign (which normally advises you of a reduced speed ahead) indicate an increase in speed ahead?  On MA 140 North just past the MA 2 expressway, there is a yellow diamond with a speed limit 50 sign in it.  Prior to this diamond, the speed limit is 40 MPH (on account of a traffic light/intersection). 

Anywhere else this is seen?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on October 05, 2023, 01:47:45 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 01, 2023, 08:04:24 PM
Saw something today I've never seen before...

When was the last time you saw a yellow diamond/speed limit sign (which normally advises you of a reduced speed ahead) indicate an increase in speed ahead?  On MA 140 North just past the MA 2 expressway, there is a yellow diamond with a speed limit 50 sign in it.  Prior to this diamond, the speed limit is 40 MPH (on account of a traffic light/intersection). 

Anywhere else this is seen?
It's really pointless because you can just use the new higher speed limit sign to increase speeds, there's no need for warning.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE-3 on October 12, 2023, 11:02:05 AM
New topic. Has MassDot cut back the budget on vegetation control/management, grooming and cleaning MassDOT maintained roadways or segments of roadways?  Not that Mass has ever done this well compared to other states IMO, but it seems to be getting worse with weeds and grass growing over guardrails, excessive overgrowth around interchanges, weeds and even small trees growing out of storm drains particularly around highway interchanges, excessive weeds growing out of bridge overpasses, sidewalks, median barriers, accumulation of dirt, gravel and other road debris, etc. And, what's with the angled granite curbing used as edging that as far as I can tell is a Massachusetts thing?  The edging seems to add virtually nothing except serve as a weed magnet.  The lack of vegetation management is more than just aesthetics, but also raises safety concerns.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on October 12, 2023, 11:25:05 AM
Quote from: NE-3 on October 12, 2023, 11:02:05 AM
New topic. Has MassDot cut back the budget on vegetation control/management, grooming and cleaning MassDOT maintained roadways or segments of roadways?  Not that Mass has ever done this well compared to other states IMO, but it seems to be getting worse with weeds and grass growing over guardrails, excessive overgrowth around interchanges, weeds and even small trees growing out of storm drains particularly around highway interchanges, excessive weeds growing out of bridge overpasses, sidewalks, median barriers, accumulation of dirt, gravel and other road debris, etc. And, what's with the angled granite curbing used as edging that as far as I can tell is a Massachusetts thing?  The edging seems to add virtually nothing except serve as a weed magnet.  The lack of vegetation management is more than just aesthetics, but also raises safety concerns.

I can speak from a bicycling perspective on this, weeds on the edge of roads are terrible this year. Not just Mass but NH as well. I think keeping up with their growth has just been much harder. I've taken my fair share of lashes from ones hanging into narrow roads, and much more than prior years. If we have a dry year soon, I'll be inclined to agree with you, but for now I think it's more related to the excessive rainfall and their planning around a more typical weather pattern for the summer.

(Also welcome to the forum!)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on October 12, 2023, 03:36:53 PM
On the other hand, some (definitely not all) of that may be to better accommodate pollinators.

More flowers and growth coming to medians near you, soon...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on October 13, 2023, 07:52:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 12, 2023, 03:36:53 PM
On the other hand, some (definitely not all) of that may be to better accommodate pollinators.

More flowers and growth coming to medians near you, soon...

"Wildflowers. Do not mow."
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on October 17, 2023, 01:16:55 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 05, 2023, 01:47:45 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 01, 2023, 08:04:24 PM
Saw something today I've never seen before...

When was the last time you saw a yellow diamond/speed limit sign (which normally advises you of a reduced speed ahead) indicate an increase in speed ahead?  On MA 140 North just past the MA 2 expressway, there is a yellow diamond with a speed limit 50 sign in it.  Prior to this diamond, the speed limit is 40 MPH (on account of a traffic light/intersection). 

Anywhere else this is seen?
It's really pointless because you can just use the new higher speed limit sign to increase speeds, there's no need for warning.
I've never seen a yellow diamond with a numeric speed on it. They're all rectangles. And they're not speed limits because they don't say SPEED LIMIT. They appear to be recommended speeds for really ill-handling vehicles like campers.

But if that's what you're talking about, yes, it wouldn't make any sense, unless it's a really old sign, and they recently dropped the real speed limit ahead of that from a higher number to a lower number.

I don't think I've ever seen a yellow speed sign with a value that isn't lower than the speed limit. Normally, if you don't know what the speed limit is, and you see one of those, you can assume it's five, or maybe ten mph higher.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on October 17, 2023, 01:19:52 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on October 12, 2023, 11:25:05 AM
Quote from: NE-3 on October 12, 2023, 11:02:05 AM
New topic. Has MassDot cut back the budget on vegetation control/management, grooming and cleaning MassDOT maintained roadways or segments of roadways?  Not that Mass has ever done this well compared to other states IMO, but it seems to be getting worse with weeds and grass growing over guardrails, excessive overgrowth around interchanges, weeds and even small trees growing out of storm drains particularly around highway interchanges, excessive weeds growing out of bridge overpasses, sidewalks, median barriers, accumulation of dirt, gravel and other road debris, etc. And, what's with the angled granite curbing used as edging that as far as I can tell is a Massachusetts thing?  The edging seems to add virtually nothing except serve as a weed magnet.  The lack of vegetation management is more than just aesthetics, but also raises safety concerns.

I can speak from a bicycling perspective on this, weeds on the edge of roads are terrible this year. Not just Mass but NH as well. I think keeping up with their growth has just been much harder. I've taken my fair share of lashes from ones hanging into narrow roads, and much more than prior years. If we have a dry year soon, I'll be inclined to agree with you, but for now I think it's more related to the excessive rainfall and their planning around a more typical weather pattern for the summer.

(Also welcome to the forum!)
It's all that extra CO2.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE-3 on October 17, 2023, 06:49:02 AM
It may certainly be the changes in climate - more CO2 and warm and wet weather. That may require MassDOT to update its vegetation management plan or at least more vigorously follow its current plan taking into account changes in climate. Overgrowth on guardrails, medians, storm drains, sidewalks, overpasses raises safety concerns (which MassDOT states in its plan).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on October 17, 2023, 09:17:15 PM
Quote from: pderocco on October 17, 2023, 01:16:55 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 05, 2023, 01:47:45 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 01, 2023, 08:04:24 PM
Saw something today I've never seen before...

When was the last time you saw a yellow diamond/speed limit sign (which normally advises you of a reduced speed ahead) indicate an increase in speed ahead?  On MA 140 North just past the MA 2 expressway, there is a yellow diamond with a speed limit 50 sign in it.  Prior to this diamond, the speed limit is 40 MPH (on account of a traffic light/intersection). 

Anywhere else this is seen?
It's really pointless because you can just use the new higher speed limit sign to increase speeds, there's no need for warning.
I've never seen a yellow diamond with a numeric speed on it. They're all rectangles. And they're not speed limits because they don't say SPEED LIMIT. They appear to be recommended speeds for really ill-handling vehicles like campers.

But if that's what you're talking about, yes, it wouldn't make any sense, unless it's a really old sign, and they recently dropped the real speed limit ahead of that from a higher number to a lower number.

I don't think I've ever seen a yellow speed sign with a value that isn't lower than the speed limit. Normally, if you don't know what the speed limit is, and you see one of those, you can assume it's five, or maybe ten mph higher.

(https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-1mxugrbmxo/images/stencil/500x659/products/1315/1817/W3-5__99484.1599843561.png?c=1)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on October 19, 2023, 01:41:24 AM
I may have seen a sign like that somewhere, but I can't think of any in SoCal, where I live. So now I understand your point. My "old sign" theory might still apply, but I can't find the sign you mentioned in GSV, since it's four years out of date.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on October 19, 2023, 07:09:27 AM
Quote from: pderocco on October 19, 2023, 01:41:24 AM
I may have seen a sign like that somewhere, but I can't think of any in SoCal, where I live. So now I understand your point. My "old sign" theory might still apply, but I can't find the sign you mentioned in GSV, since it's four years out of date.
This just means your experience is extremely limited...and questions why you thought your experience would pertain to Massachusetts...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on October 21, 2023, 10:36:07 PM
Because I lived there for 30 years, and still visit every year. I was there two weeks ago, and drove about 400 miles clinching some new routes.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on October 25, 2023, 11:52:09 AM
MassDOT is holding a public meeting on Thursday 10/26 regarding its proposed reconstruction and widening of the Bowker Overpass that takes traffic to and from the Fenway to Storrow Drive over the Mass Pike and railroad tracks:
https://www.mass.gov/event/boston-bowker-overpass-bridge-superstructure-replacement-and-new-bridge-construction-2023-10-26t180000-0400-2023-10-26t193000-0400 (https://www.mass.gov/event/boston-bowker-overpass-bridge-superstructure-replacement-and-new-bridge-construction-2023-10-26t180000-0400-2023-10-26t193000-0400)

Hopefully, this will include the removal of the remaining signs that still refer to Storrow Drive East as US 1 more than 30 years after the route was rerouted along I-93.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: spooky on October 26, 2023, 03:16:36 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on October 25, 2023, 11:52:09 AM
Hopefully, this will include the removal of the remaining signs that still refer to Storrow Drive East as US 1 more than 30 years after the route was rerouted along I-93.

Imagine a world in which it doesn't take a $90M project to do that!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on October 26, 2023, 06:33:28 PM
Hopefully, part of the Bowker Overpass project will include improving the (lack of) merge on to Storrow Dreive west.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PurdueBill on October 28, 2023, 11:09:57 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on October 25, 2023, 11:52:09 AM
MassDOT is holding a public meeting on Thursday 10/26 regarding its proposed reconstruction and widening of the Bowker Overpass that takes traffic to and from the Fenway to Storrow Drive over the Mass Pike and railroad tracks:
https://www.mass.gov/event/boston-bowker-overpass-bridge-superstructure-replacement-and-new-bridge-construction-2023-10-26t180000-0400-2023-10-26t193000-0400 (https://www.mass.gov/event/boston-bowker-overpass-bridge-superstructure-replacement-and-new-bridge-construction-2023-10-26t180000-0400-2023-10-26t193000-0400)

Hopefully, this will include the removal of the remaining signs that still refer to Storrow Drive East as US 1 more than 30 years after the route was rerouted along I-93.

It's amazing that the new (practically new, most installed in 2020 including around that area) signs on and arround Storrow mention US 1 in exactly the same way (even with initialed directions, like "N" instead of North) carbon-copying the old Helvetica-fonted ones from 1981.  Apparently no one at DCR thought to check out if any of the messages needed changed.  The new signs sport a DCR logo at lower right corner where old ones didn't; the large bottom panel featuring "MetroParkways" is gone at least.)

Quote repaired.  --J N Winkler
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on November 06, 2023, 02:42:31 PM
On I-95 south approaching I-495, is there a reason why there are no overhead signs at Exit 12B (I-495 north exit)?

You have a 1 mile advance sign announcing Exits 12B-A, then Exit 12B comes right at you after rounding a curve with no other warning signs.  Exit 12A for I-495 South still has its own "at-exit" overhead sign.  Why is this?

Also, I've noticed that a new gore sign for Exit 12B was installed in 2021, just after the switch to mileage based exit numbering, but now it's a "temporary-looking" "at-exit" sign for I-495 north.

Before (August 2021):
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0293165,-71.2542511,3a,49.6y,228.5h,88.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sd-aN6wNLbnKmdYDpFOZebA!2e0!5s20210801T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Currently (October 2023):
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0293267,-71.254242,3a,75y,228.5h,88.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scF8m_ylI59jM-vpBM5M1cQ!2e0!5s20231001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on November 06, 2023, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on November 06, 2023, 02:42:31 PM
On I-95 south approaching I-495, is there a reason why there are no overhead signs at Exit 12B (I-495 north exit)?

You have a 1 mile advance sign announcing Exits 12B-A, then Exit 12B comes right at you after rounding a curve with no other warning signs.  Exit 12A for I-495 South still has its own "at-exit" overhead sign.  Why is this?

Also, I've noticed that a new gore sign for Exit 12B was installed in 2021, just after the switch to mileage based exit numbering, but now it's a "temporary-looking" "at-exit" sign for I-495 north.

Before (August 2021):
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0293165,-71.2542511,3a,49.6y,228.5h,88.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sd-aN6wNLbnKmdYDpFOZebA!2e0!5s20210801T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Currently (October 2023):
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0293267,-71.254242,3a,75y,228.5h,88.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scF8m_ylI59jM-vpBM5M1cQ!2e0!5s20231001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
The reason the signage for I-495 on I-95 South is very inadequate is the unfortunate result of two different reasons. The 1/2 Mile advance sign for I-495 on I-95 South was one of the signs that was supposed to be put up during the last sign replacement project, the old sign was taken down but nothing has replaced it as of yet (MassDOT says the project is complete). The overhead signs put up at the I-495 North exit, seen in August 2021, were knocked down by a truck soon after. The I-495 North sign was replaced by the 'temporary' exit/gore sign that is there now to stay until a new set of permanent signs is placed there. How long that will be is unknown. It's been 2 years, you would think it would have happened by now.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on November 06, 2023, 04:33:28 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 06, 2023, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on November 06, 2023, 02:42:31 PM
On I-95 south approaching I-495, is there a reason why there are no overhead signs at Exit 12B (I-495 north exit)?

You have a 1 mile advance sign announcing Exits 12B-A, then Exit 12B comes right at you after rounding a curve with no other warning signs.  Exit 12A for I-495 South still has its own "at-exit" overhead sign.  Why is this?

Also, I've noticed that a new gore sign for Exit 12B was installed in 2021, just after the switch to mileage based exit numbering, but now it's a "temporary-looking" "at-exit" sign for I-495 north.

Before (August 2021):
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0293165,-71.2542511,3a,49.6y,228.5h,88.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sd-aN6wNLbnKmdYDpFOZebA!2e0!5s20210801T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Currently (October 2023):
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0293267,-71.254242,3a,75y,228.5h,88.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scF8m_ylI59jM-vpBM5M1cQ!2e0!5s20231001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
The reason the signage for I-495 on I-95 South is very inadequate is the unfortunate result of two different reasons. The 1/2 Mile advance sign for I-495 on I-95 South was one of the signs that was supposed to be put up during the last sign replacement project, the old sign was taken down but nothing has replaced it as of yet (MassDOT says the project is complete). The overhead signs put up at the I-495 North exit, seen in August 2021, were knocked down by a truck soon after. The I-495 North sign was replaced by the 'temporary' exit/gore sign that is there now to stay until a new set of permanent signs is placed there. How long that will be is unknown. It's been 2 years, you would think it would have happened by now.

Ah, the Garden State is no different. They set up temporary signs that can last decades until a new overall signing project comes along.

BTW, if a truck knocked the sign down to begin with, why didn't the truckers insurance cover replacement of the sign. If the driver had liability with property damage, the at fault driver's insurance should be charged for it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on November 08, 2023, 07:19:15 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 22, 2023, 06:53:06 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on September 21, 2023, 05:18:02 PM
In a perfect world, the new Tobin Bridge would be built on a new alignment, leaving I-93 near Sullivan Square and meeting up with the existing alignment in Chelsea near Rt 16.  You'd eliminate two curves and would have improved ramps to/from I-93 that occur "ON THE RIGHT".  And it looks like a mostly industrial area.  (And that perfect world would have this become I-95 since you'd be able to build the rest of the Northeast Exp'y out to 128). 

Anyway...

I wonder if in the 'list of possible alternatives', when it comes out (still a ways to go for that), if such an alignment would be thrown out there for consideration, or what other options they'll come up with.  Seems like building a double decker bridge of that length in this day and age isn't the most ideal (especially if you're on the other coast).
What about a tunnel from MA 1A from the north end of the Callahan/Sumner Tunnels to just before Alington St?
Downsides with a tunnel option are both cost & hazmat transport won't be allowed to use such when completed.

Quote from: bob7374 on August 28, 2023, 09:57:20 PMDoes someone in the Boston area have something against them? Would be nice to hear an explanation for this from MassDOT.
I privately reached out to a MassDOT engineer & asked the reasoning behind the mysterious removal of those yellow LEFT tabs. 

The response: such were removed until thicker, more robust mounting brackets become available.  Since the LEFT banners plus the EXIT tab are obviously larger than the standard EXIT tabs; MassDOT made a decision not to no longer use the thinner standard EXIT tab mounting brackets for the LEFT EXIT tabs.  The decision was in reaction to the partial collapse of a sign panel along I-93 southbound in Somerville that took place a while back.

Long story short: the removals were/are only temporary.  Based on some recent pics I've seen in FB; all the LEFT tabs for the Peabody I-95/MA 128 interchange have since been reinstalled.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kernals12 on November 11, 2023, 12:59:07 PM
There's been some construction going on at the 95/90 interchange for the past few weeks. Anyone know what that's about?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on November 11, 2023, 06:10:05 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 11, 2023, 12:59:07 PM
There's been some construction going on at the 95/90 interchange for the past few weeks. Anyone know what that's about?
Bridge replacement project, not to be completed until 2027. The link to the MassDOT project site:
https://www.mass.gov/newton-weston-bridge-replacement-and-rehabilitation-at-i-90i-95 (https://www.mass.gov/newton-weston-bridge-replacement-and-rehabilitation-at-i-90i-95)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on November 11, 2023, 07:51:18 PM
Doesn't look like any alteration of the routing, though. Now that there are no tollbooths, they could simplify that interchange, the way they're doing for I-90/I-495. They could probably even downsize it, and sell the real estate. I wonder if they're planning that, or if they just look at the mess and throw up their hands...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on November 12, 2023, 05:55:14 AM
The 95/90 interchange was altered when the toll booths were discontinued and removed in 2016. MassDOT moved the exit ramp from 90W to 95 from its horrible merge just before the ramp to 95S, requiring good brakes and lots of weaving, to a much better alignment further west. Any additional changes would likely be more complicated, due to the regional impact, environmental considerations, and the usual NIMBYism.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 15, 2023, 04:27:46 PM
Quote from: NE-3 on October 17, 2023, 06:49:02 AM
It may certainly be the changes in climate - more CO2 and warm and wet weather. That may require MassDOT to update its vegetation management plan or at least more vigorously follow its current plan taking into account changes in climate. Overgrowth on guardrails, medians, storm drains, sidewalks, overpasses raises safety concerns (which MassDOT states in its plan).

As every gardener in Mass. this year knows, it was the staggering amount of rain. We received something like 4" in Greater Boston last summer, a total we got in at least one week this summer (and possibly in multiple weeks).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on November 15, 2023, 06:33:40 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 15, 2023, 04:27:46 PM
Quote from: NE-3 on October 17, 2023, 06:49:02 AM
It may certainly be the changes in climate - more CO2 and warm and wet weather. That may require MassDOT to update its vegetation management plan or at least more vigorously follow its current plan taking into account changes in climate. Overgrowth on guardrails, medians, storm drains, sidewalks, overpasses raises safety concerns (which MassDOT states in its plan).

As every gardener in Mass. this year knows, it was the staggering amount of rain. We received something like 4" in Greater Boston last summer, a total we got in at least one week this summer (and possibly in multiple weeks).

I got 4 inches in two hours one of the summer days.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on November 16, 2023, 05:26:25 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 15, 2023, 04:27:46 PM
Quote from: NE-3 on October 17, 2023, 06:49:02 AM
It may certainly be the changes in climate - more CO2 and warm and wet weather. That may require MassDOT to update its vegetation management plan or at least more vigorously follow its current plan taking into account changes in climate. Overgrowth on guardrails, medians, storm drains, sidewalks, overpasses raises safety concerns (which MassDOT states in its plan).

As every gardener in Mass. this year knows, it was the staggering amount of rain. We received something like 4" in Greater Boston last summer, a total we got in at least one week this summer (and possibly in multiple weeks).

Indeed. This was our worst year for gardening in living memory, between excessive rain and excessive heat.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: hotdogPi on November 16, 2023, 07:25:57 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on November 16, 2023, 05:26:25 AM
excessive heat.

Excessive heat? This year probably had one of the fewest 90+ days.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on November 16, 2023, 07:27:57 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on November 16, 2023, 05:26:25 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 15, 2023, 04:27:46 PM
Quote from: NE-3 on October 17, 2023, 06:49:02 AM
It may certainly be the changes in climate - more CO2 and warm and wet weather. That may require MassDOT to update its vegetation management plan or at least more vigorously follow its current plan taking into account changes in climate. Overgrowth on guardrails, medians, storm drains, sidewalks, overpasses raises safety concerns (which MassDOT states in its plan).

As every gardener in Mass. this year knows, it was the staggering amount of rain. We received something like 4" in Greater Boston last summer, a total we got in at least one week this summer (and possibly in multiple weeks).

Indeed. This was our worst year for gardening in living memory, between excessive rain and excessive heat.

The average high for summer (Jun-Aug) at my location was three degrees below normal...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on November 17, 2023, 05:53:24 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on November 16, 2023, 07:27:57 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on November 16, 2023, 05:26:25 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 15, 2023, 04:27:46 PM
Quote from: NE-3 on October 17, 2023, 06:49:02 AM
It may certainly be the changes in climate - more CO2 and warm and wet weather. That may require MassDOT to update its vegetation management plan or at least more vigorously follow its current plan taking into account changes in climate. Overgrowth on guardrails, medians, storm drains, sidewalks, overpasses raises safety concerns (which MassDOT states in its plan).

As every gardener in Mass. this year knows, it was the staggering amount of rain. We received something like 4" in Greater Boston last summer, a total we got in at least one week this summer (and possibly in multiple weeks).

Indeed. This was our worst year for gardening in living memory, between excessive rain and excessive heat.

The average high for summer (Jun-Aug) at my location was three degrees below normal...

I'll have to look up what it was near my place  Regardless, a few days of very heavy rain and extreme humidity outdid our efforts in the garden.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on November 20, 2023, 04:04:35 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on November 06, 2023, 02:42:31 PM
On I-95 south approaching I-495, is there a reason why there are no overhead signs at Exit 12B (I-495 north exit)?

You have a 1 mile advance sign announcing Exits 12B-A, then Exit 12B comes right at you after rounding a curve with no other warning signs.  Exit 12A for I-495 South still has its own "at-exit" overhead sign.  Why is this?

Also, I've noticed that a new gore sign for Exit 12B was installed in 2021, just after the switch to mileage based exit numbering, but now it's a "temporary-looking" "at-exit" sign for I-495 north.

Before (August 2021):
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0293165,-71.2542511,3a,49.6y,228.5h,88.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sd-aN6wNLbnKmdYDpFOZebA!2e0!5s20210801T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Currently (October 2023):
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0293267,-71.254242,3a,75y,228.5h,88.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scF8m_ylI59jM-vpBM5M1cQ!2e0!5s20231001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Quote from: bob7374 on November 06, 2023, 04:05:52 PM
The reason the signage for I-495 on I-95 South is very inadequate is the unfortunate result of two different reasons. The 1/2 Mile advance sign for I-495 on I-95 South was one of the signs that was supposed to be put up during the last sign replacement project, the old sign was taken down but nothing has replaced it as of yet (MassDOT says the project is complete). The overhead signs put up at the I-495 North exit, seen in August 2021, were knocked down by a truck soon after. The I-495 North sign was replaced by the 'temporary' exit/gore sign that is there now to stay until a new set of permanent signs is placed there. How long that will be is unknown. It's been 2 years, you would think it would have happened by now.

I was just on this stretch of I-95 yesterday - the overhead sign gantry just before exit 12B going south has been restored!  It's your typical sign assembly - a 1/4 mile sign for the 2nd cloverleaf exit (I-495 south) alongside an "at exit" sign for the first cloverleaf exit (I-495 north).

Oddly, the "temporary, enhanced" gore sign for I-495 north/exit 12B still remains at the interchange.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on November 28, 2023, 01:05:23 AM
Question about the pre-big dig configuration. How did things work with the HOV lane on the lower level on 93 heading towards the older Zakim bridge which had only three lanes across? Looking at old footage where people get onto 93 from the Tobin they loop around and that lane becomes the rightmost lane where there are only two lanes on 93 south approaching that merge, then those three lanes go over the old double decker Zakim bridge.

Also that segment itself is a bit strange, was all that extra space for more lanes in the double decker segment in Somerville supposed to tie into the unbuilt I-695 if it was built?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 5foot14 on November 28, 2023, 01:00:42 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 28, 2023, 01:05:23 AM
Question about the pre-big dig configuration. How did things work with the HOV lane on the lower level on 93 heading towards the older Zakim bridge which had only three lanes across? Looking at old footage where people get onto 93 from the Tobin they loop around and that lane becomes the rightmost lane where there are only two lanes on 93 south approaching that merge, then those three lanes go over the old double decker Zakim bridge.

Also that segment itself is a bit strange, was all that extra space for more lanes in the double decker segment in Somerville supposed to tie into the unbuilt I-695 if it was built?

The HOV lane didn't exist back then. It was added as an environmental mitigation as a part of the big dig. Yes the extra space would've facilitated the merge from I-695 had it been built. Also the old double decker bridge over the Charles River was named The Charlestown High Bridge. It was never referred to as the Zakim Bridge.

Interestingly, before the loop ramps your referring to were built, ramps to the Tobin Bridge (US 1) connected at a Y Interchange directly north of the High Bridge on the EAST side. Before US 1 was relocated onto the Central Artery, US 1 traversed the Tobin Bridge and continued to Storrow Drive. This meant than anyone who wanted to continue on US 1 South would merge on to the High Bridge in the left lane, have to merge over 2 lanes of heavy traffic to exit to US 1 Storrow Drive on the right, all within the 1/4 mile or so of the High Bridge. The same would apply to those entering North from Storrow Drive and wanting to continue North to US 1 and the Tobin Bridge.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on November 28, 2023, 05:58:41 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on November 28, 2023, 01:00:42 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 28, 2023, 01:05:23 AM
Question about the pre-big dig configuration. How did things work with the HOV lane on the lower level on 93 heading towards the older Zakim bridge which had only three lanes across? Looking at old footage where people get onto 93 from the Tobin they loop around and that lane becomes the rightmost lane where there are only two lanes on 93 south approaching that merge, then those three lanes go over the old double decker Zakim bridge.

Also that segment itself is a bit strange, was all that extra space for more lanes in the double decker segment in Somerville supposed to tie into the unbuilt I-695 if it was built?

The HOV lane didn't exist back then. It was added as an environmental mitigation as a part of the big dig. Yes the extra space would've facilitated the merge from I-695 had it been built. Also the old double decker bridge over the Charles River was named The Charlestown High Bridge. It was never referred to as the Zakim Bridge.

Interestingly, before the loop ramps your referring to were built, ramps to the Tobin Bridge (US 1) connected at a Y Interchange directly north of the High Bridge on the EAST side. Before US 1 was relocated onto the Central Artery, US 1 traversed the Tobin Bridge and continued to Storrow Drive. This meant than anyone who wanted to continue on US 1 South would merge on to the High Bridge in the left lane, have to merge over 2 lanes of heavy traffic to exit to US 1 Storrow Drive on the right, all within the 1/4 mile or so of the High Bridge. The same would apply to those entering North from Storrow Drive and wanting to continue North to US 1 and the Tobin Bridge.

The old Y with US-1 and I-93 was white knuckle driving indeed. So much so that the loop ramps were opened to the old High Bridge in 1994 as part of the Central Artery Nirth Area project. This was nearly a decade before the Zakim itself opened.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on December 01, 2023, 02:17:16 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on October 25, 2023, 11:52:09 AM
MassDOT is holding a public meeting on Thursday 10/26 regarding its proposed reconstruction and widening of the Bowker Overpass that takes traffic to and from the Fenway to Storrow Drive over the Mass Pike and railroad tracks:
https://www.mass.gov/event/boston-bowker-overpass-bridge-superstructure-replacement-and-new-bridge-construction-2023-10-26t180000-0400-2023-10-26t193000-0400 (https://www.mass.gov/event/boston-bowker-overpass-bridge-superstructure-replacement-and-new-bridge-construction-2023-10-26t180000-0400-2023-10-26t193000-0400)

Hopefully, this will include the removal of the remaining signs that still refer to Storrow Drive East as US 1 more than 30 years after the route was rerouted along I-93.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn1v6XjjBow

Virtual meeting of the said project... The project entails the removal of the ramps to and from Commonwealth Avenue and reconfigures the intersection of Boylston Street to include a fourth leg alongside a new (and wider) bridge to accommodate traffic and pedestrians to and from Commonwealth Avenue.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman on December 02, 2023, 03:31:12 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on November 28, 2023, 01:00:42 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 28, 2023, 01:05:23 AM
Question about the pre-big dig configuration. How did things work with the HOV lane on the lower level on 93 heading towards the older Zakim bridge which had only three lanes across? Looking at old footage where people get onto 93 from the Tobin they loop around and that lane becomes the rightmost lane where there are only two lanes on 93 south approaching that merge, then those three lanes go over the old double decker Zakim bridge.

Also that segment itself is a bit strange, was all that extra space for more lanes in the double decker segment in Somerville supposed to tie into the unbuilt I-695 if it was built?

The HOV lane didn't exist back then. It was added as an environmental mitigation as a part of the big dig. Yes the extra space would've facilitated the merge from I-695 had it been built. Also the old double decker bridge over the Charles River was named The Charlestown High Bridge. It was never referred to as the Zakim Bridge.

Interestingly, before the loop ramps your referring to were built, ramps to the Tobin Bridge (US 1) connected at a Y Interchange directly north of the High Bridge on the EAST side. Before US 1 was relocated onto the Central Artery, US 1 traversed the Tobin Bridge and continued to Storrow Drive. This meant than anyone who wanted to continue on US 1 South would merge on to the High Bridge in the left lane, have to merge over 2 lanes of heavy traffic to exit to US 1 Storrow Drive on the right, all within the 1/4 mile or so of the High Bridge. The same would apply to those entering North from Storrow Drive and wanting to continue North to US 1 and the Tobin Bridge.

Actually, the HOV lane on the Lower Deck existed almost from the opening of the roadway in September, 1973 (the day after Georges Tonka Toy wiped out a support bent on the Charlestown side - note that the Upper and Lower decks didn't receive the I-93 designation until late 1974.).  The left lane served as both the exit to the northbound Tobin Bridge and the HOV lane.  When the lane was being enforced, people without the minimum number of occupants (it was originally 3+) who tried to slip back into the mainline lanes would be pulled over into the gore area, ticketed, and then directed to take the ramp to the Tobin Bridge.  There used to be a right-side slip ramp into City Square northbound just before the start of the bridge, but many people weren't aware of this or were unable to cross over to use it, with the result they ended up in Chelsea.   When work began on the Zakim Bridge/Big Dig, the lane wound up being significantly shortened, and would no longer had an "enforcement" area.  Originally, MassDPW wanted to eliminate the lane completely, but the EPA rejected the idea.   Instead, the start of the lane was extended to just after the Mystic Avenue exit, and a new "enforcement area" was constructed midway along the HOV lane where the road widens at the stub ramp that was supposed to come from the I-695 'clockwise' direction.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on December 02, 2023, 11:58:55 PM
Quote from: roadman on December 02, 2023, 03:31:12 PM
Quote from: 5foot14 on November 28, 2023, 01:00:42 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on November 28, 2023, 01:05:23 AM
Question about the pre-big dig configuration. How did things work with the HOV lane on the lower level on 93 heading towards the older Zakim bridge which had only three lanes across? Looking at old footage where people get onto 93 from the Tobin they loop around and that lane becomes the rightmost lane where there are only two lanes on 93 south approaching that merge, then those three lanes go over the old double decker Zakim bridge.

Also that segment itself is a bit strange, was all that extra space for more lanes in the double decker segment in Somerville supposed to tie into the unbuilt I-695 if it was built?

The HOV lane didn't exist back then. It was added as an environmental mitigation as a part of the big dig. Yes the extra space would've facilitated the merge from I-695 had it been built. Also the old double decker bridge over the Charles River was named The Charlestown High Bridge. It was never referred to as the Zakim Bridge.

Interestingly, before the loop ramps your referring to were built, ramps to the Tobin Bridge (US 1) connected at a Y Interchange directly north of the High Bridge on the EAST side. Before US 1 was relocated onto the Central Artery, US 1 traversed the Tobin Bridge and continued to Storrow Drive. This meant than anyone who wanted to continue on US 1 South would merge on to the High Bridge in the left lane, have to merge over 2 lanes of heavy traffic to exit to US 1 Storrow Drive on the right, all within the 1/4 mile or so of the High Bridge. The same would apply to those entering North from Storrow Drive and wanting to continue North to US 1 and the Tobin Bridge.

Actually, the HOV lane on the Lower Deck existed almost from the opening of the roadway in September, 1973 (the day after Georges Tonka Toy wiped out a support bent on the Charlestown side - note that the Upper and Lower decks didn't receive the I-93 designation until late 1974.).  The left lane served as both the exit to the northbound Tobin Bridge and the HOV lane.  When the lane was being enforced, people without the minimum number of occupants (it was originally 3+) who tried to slip back into the mainline lanes would be pulled over into the gore area, ticketed, and then directed to take the ramp to the Tobin Bridge.  There used to be a right-side slip ramp into City Square northbound just before the start of the bridge, but many people weren't aware of this or were unable to cross over to use it, with the result they ended up in Chelsea.   When work began on the Zakim Bridge/Big Dig, the lane wound up being significantly shortened, and would no longer had an "enforcement" area.  Originally, MassDPW wanted to eliminate the lane completely, but the EPA rejected the idea.   Instead, the start of the lane was extended to just after the Mystic Avenue exit, and a new "enforcement area" was constructed midway along the HOV lane where the road widens at the stub ramp that was supposed to come from the I-695 'clockwise' direction.

During that time when the older High Bridge was still in use and the Tobin ramps were reconfigured to the right side, where did the Carpool lane end? Since I imagine it would have merged into the two main lanes, since the on ramp from the Tobin according to videos I watched added a lane, so then you had three lanes over the High Bridge, the right most lane was an exit only for the Storrow Dr Exit then the onramp right after that Exit made the third lane for the elevated artery
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on December 30, 2023, 11:55:44 AM
Just drove through the I-90/I-95 interchange. MassDOT appears to be changing the ramp from the Mass. Pike to I-95/128 North so that there is less weaving between those going to I-95 north and those exiting at MA-30.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: JWF1959 on January 01, 2024, 08:33:33 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on December 30, 2023, 11:55:44 AM
Just drove through the I-90/I-95 interchange. MassDOT appears to be changing the ramp from the Mass. Pike to I-95/128 North so that there is less weaving between those going to I-95 north and those exiting at MA-30.

It's hard to believe that after all this time, at one of the major interchanges in MA, that the Mass Pike ramps to 95N and 95S are both only two lanes each.  The former toll booth area is huge where the traffic converges, but it all funnels down to two outrageously out-of-date on ramps to I  95.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 11, 2024, 04:36:03 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on December 30, 2023, 11:55:44 AM
Just drove through the I-90/I-95 interchange. MassDOT appears to be changing the ramp from the Mass. Pike to I-95/128 North so that there is less weaving between those going to I-95 north and those exiting at MA-30.

Does anyone have a good link to a plan of work for this project? I have seen overviews of the roadways involved in the work, but not specifics about which bridges will be rehabbed and which ones will be replaced.

Quote from: JWF1959 on January 01, 2024, 08:33:33 PM
It's hard to believe that after all this time, at one of the major interchanges in MA, that the Mass Pike ramps to 95N and 95S are both only two lanes each.  The former toll booth area is huge where the traffic converges, but it all funnels down to two outrageously out-of-date on ramps to I  95.

When tolls were removed, I always assumed that as these interchanges were worked on, they would be reconfigured in a way more rational to a non-toll road situation, like the one at 495.

However, my guess is this project would be vastly more expensive and take much longer to get off the ground if they did that, particularly with the number of site constraints and abutters. It's a shame because it is, as you point out, kind of a disaster.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on January 11, 2024, 11:09:46 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 11, 2024, 04:36:03 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on December 30, 2023, 11:55:44 AM
Just drove through the I-90/I-95 interchange. MassDOT appears to be changing the ramp from the Mass. Pike to I-95/128 North so that there is less weaving between those going to I-95 north and those exiting at MA-30.

Does anyone have a good link to a plan of work for this project? I have seen overviews of the roadways involved in the work, but not specifics about which bridges will be rehabbed and which ones will be replaced.

Quote from: JWF1959 on January 01, 2024, 08:33:33 PM
It's hard to believe that after all this time, at one of the major interchanges in MA, that the Mass Pike ramps to 95N and 95S are both only two lanes each.  The former toll booth area is huge where the traffic converges, but it all funnels down to two outrageously out-of-date on ramps to I  95.

When tolls were removed, I always assumed that as these interchanges were worked on, they would be reconfigured in a way more rational to a non-toll road situation, like the one at 495.

However, my guess is this project would be vastly more expensive and take much longer to get off the ground if they did that, particularly with the number of site constraints and abutters. It's a shame because it is, as you point out, kind of a disaster.
Here is the MassDOT project webpage. They describe it as simply a bridge replacement and rehabilitation project, they do not mention any changes to the ramps in the interchange:
"A series of eight bridges at the I-90/I-95 (Route 128) interchange on the Newton/Weston border are in need of replacement and rehabilitation. The bridges are currently safe but aging and deteriorating. Included in these bridges is I-90's crossing over the Charles River. Of the eight bridges, five will be replaced, one will be rehabilitated, and two will have their superstructure replaced."
https://www.mass.gov/newton-weston-bridge-replacement-and-rehabilitation-at-i-90i-95 (https://www.mass.gov/newton-weston-bridge-replacement-and-rehabilitation-at-i-90i-95)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on January 12, 2024, 05:37:45 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 11, 2024, 04:36:03 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on December 30, 2023, 11:55:44 AM
Just drove through the I-90/I-95 interchange. MassDOT appears to be changing the ramp from the Mass. Pike to I-95/128 North so that there is less weaving between those going to I-95 north and those exiting at MA-30.

Does anyone have a good link to a plan of work for this project? I have seen overviews of the roadways involved in the work, but not specifics about which bridges will be rehabbed and which ones will be replaced.

Quote from: JWF1959 on January 01, 2024, 08:33:33 PM
It's hard to believe that after all this time, at one of the major interchanges in MA, that the Mass Pike ramps to 95N and 95S are both only two lanes each.  The former toll booth area is huge where the traffic converges, but it all funnels down to two outrageously out-of-date on ramps to I  95.

When tolls were removed, I always assumed that as these interchanges were worked on, they would be reconfigured in a way more rational to a non-toll road situation, like the one at 495.

However, my guess is this project would be vastly more expensive and take much longer to get off the ground if they did that, particularly with the number of site constraints and abutters. It's a shame because it is, as you point out, kind of a disaster.

It would be great to see a more modern I-90/I-95 interchange, given its regional significance. As you point out though, unlike I-495, it would be much more complex due to significant site constraints and suspicious neighbors that would make any improvements prohibitively expensive. The area has gotten better with the removal of the toll booths and the elimination of the horrible merge from I-90W yo I-95. That, plus the bridge improvements, are the best we can hope for in the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on January 14, 2024, 06:02:34 PM
Although I spent much of my life in Massachusetts, I have grown tired of its lousy signage.  Yes, SGSes trigger a fair amount of nostalgia with me, but usually such signage did not cover all route movements at New England's quirky intersections or even traditional intersections where concurrencies split or merged.  It's better for drivers when they're replaced by trailblazers, despite the lack of distance information to nearby communities.

On a recent trip to Boston, I found myself annoyed at their random placement of trailblazers, especially "TO" ones with straight arrows, but no further guidance down the road.  TO MA 2A, straight on Boylston.  Are we going to tell you where to turn left to actually get onto MA 2A?  Of course not.  TO I-90 West, straight arrow.  We're just not wanting you to ignore a no left turn restriction, but then will not give you any further guidance to the I-90 west on-ramp.

I've said for years that it is impossible to follow state routes through Holyoke, MA, especially MA 116, so it's not restricted to the Boston area.

Add on top of that the fact that you can ride the T for free if the right drivers are operating/not enforcing the on-train fare collection/card reader is broken and the startling incompetence seems to affect all areas.  And why the freak can you not use the CharlieCard for the T-operated ferries?

There is a lot to like about Massachusetts, but transportation wayfinding is just not one of them, much to my chagrin.

</rant>
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on January 14, 2024, 09:03:20 PM
Speaking of route signage, I don't like how the western part of the state has the MassPike logo up top (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2995605,-73.2252151,3a,29.8y,107.3h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHEYSfEWe5e-2-zYD4yD3rA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu).  The blue directional banner clashes with the white shield.  The way they appear out east (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2982803,-71.4762212,3a,25.3y,71.79h,90.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sodqqUidGezOXYKqWcANxEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) with the interstate shield on top looks much nicer.

In other issues, is there something in the road near the I-290/I-395 interchange?  When I was there this morning, I must have seen 4-5 cars off the side of the road in the span of a couple miles, all with flat tires.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on January 15, 2024, 11:11:31 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 14, 2024, 09:03:20 PM
In other issues, is there something in the road near the I-290/I-395 interchange?  When I was there this morning, I must have seen 4-5 cars off the side of the road in the span of a couple miles, all with flat tires.

Flat tires have been an apparent scourge of late for a lot of people. I drove 95 from Burlington to Canton Friday morning and there was a vehicle pulled over every 1-2 miles with a flat. All driver's side too which can't be fun to replace. Not a single vehicle pulled over with a flat doing the N/B drive back.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on January 15, 2024, 11:18:46 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 14, 2024, 09:03:20 PM
Speaking of route signage, I don't like how the western part of the state has the MassPike logo up top (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2995605,-73.2252151,3a,29.8y,107.3h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHEYSfEWe5e-2-zYD4yD3rA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu).  The blue directional banner clashes with the white shield.  The way they appear out east (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2982803,-71.4762212,3a,25.3y,71.79h,90.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sodqqUidGezOXYKqWcANxEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) with the interstate shield on top looks much nicer.

Even more annoying, the western part of the Mass Pike has overhead exit signs now when they used to be ground-mounted.  East of I-84 the overheads are okay, since the highway is 3 lanes in each direction.  But west of that interchange they should be ground-mounted.  It creates a more intimate road setting, and overhead signs on 2-lane highways can ruin the view!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on January 15, 2024, 11:41:27 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on January 15, 2024, 11:18:46 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 14, 2024, 09:03:20 PM
Speaking of route signage, I don't like how the western part of the state has the MassPike logo up top (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2995605,-73.2252151,3a,29.8y,107.3h,91.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHEYSfEWe5e-2-zYD4yD3rA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu).  The blue directional banner clashes with the white shield.  The way they appear out east (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2982803,-71.4762212,3a,25.3y,71.79h,90.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sodqqUidGezOXYKqWcANxEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) with the interstate shield on top looks much nicer.

Even more annoying, the western part of the Mass Pike has overhead exit signs now when they used to be ground-mounted.  East of I-84 the overheads are okay, since the highway is 3 lanes in each direction.  But west of that interchange they should be ground-mounted.  It creates a more intimate road setting, and overhead signs on 2-lane highways can ruin the view!
Pfft.  As someone who spent many years in Western MA, there are very good reasons why MassDOT has opted to convert to overhead signage.  Greater and more reliable visibility being only one of them.  MA 9 on I-91 NB's ground mounted signage was hanging on by its fingernails by the time it was replaced.  MA 116 on I-91 SB had sign go completely down.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on January 15, 2024, 01:17:49 PM
I actually think the signage has actually gotten better in the state overall.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on January 15, 2024, 03:41:36 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on January 15, 2024, 01:17:49 PM
I actually think the signage has actually gotten better in the state overall.
But it was so bad to begin with that even the small improvement there has been seems significant.

Give a man a penny who had a penny and his income doubles...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 15, 2024, 04:00:54 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 11, 2024, 11:09:46 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 11, 2024, 04:36:03 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on December 30, 2023, 11:55:44 AM
Just drove through the I-90/I-95 interchange. MassDOT appears to be changing the ramp from the Mass. Pike to I-95/128 North so that there is less weaving between those going to I-95 north and those exiting at MA-30.

Does anyone have a good link to a plan of work for this project? I have seen overviews of the roadways involved in the work, but not specifics about which bridges will be rehabbed and which ones will be replaced.

Quote from: JWF1959 on January 01, 2024, 08:33:33 PM
It's hard to believe that after all this time, at one of the major interchanges in MA, that the Mass Pike ramps to 95N and 95S are both only two lanes each.  The former toll booth area is huge where the traffic converges, but it all funnels down to two outrageously out-of-date on ramps to I  95.

When tolls were removed, I always assumed that as these interchanges were worked on, they would be reconfigured in a way more rational to a non-toll road situation, like the one at 495.

However, my guess is this project would be vastly more expensive and take much longer to get off the ground if they did that, particularly with the number of site constraints and abutters. It's a shame because it is, as you point out, kind of a disaster.
Here is the MassDOT project webpage. They describe it as simply a bridge replacement and rehabilitation project, they do not mention any changes to the ramps in the interchange:
"A series of eight bridges at the I-90/I-95 (Route 128) interchange on the Newton/Weston border are in need of replacement and rehabilitation. The bridges are currently safe but aging and deteriorating. Included in these bridges is I-90's crossing over the Charles River. Of the eight bridges, five will be replaced, one will be rehabilitated, and two will have their superstructure replaced."
https://www.mass.gov/newton-weston-bridge-replacement-and-rehabilitation-at-i-90i-95 (https://www.mass.gov/newton-weston-bridge-replacement-and-rehabilitation-at-i-90i-95)
Thanks. I've seen this and it's typically short on detail, no plan of work or specifics.
Title: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 23, 2024, 01:44:47 PM
Does anyone know of plans to rehabilitate or replace the Mass. 129 overpass over I-93 in Wilmington? It looks awful and there are already a few band-aids on it.  (Google Street View images) (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240123/8d78320aa61fc0c69bab7e84c17612ad.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240123/503fe2f6bda29256ea0a77d24a4cbad3.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on January 23, 2024, 04:31:44 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 23, 2024, 01:44:47 PM
Does anyone know of plans to rehabilitate or replace the Mass. 129 overpass over I-93 in Wilmington? It looks awful and there are already a few band-aids on it.

https://hwy.massdot.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=ViewProject&PROJECT_NO=608703

Work begins summer 2025. I don't know if you've been on the bridge, but part of the westbound side is closed off, with all traffic squeezing over to the eastbound and a bit of the westbound side. It's as rough looking on top of it.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 23, 2024, 06:44:41 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 23, 2024, 04:31:44 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 23, 2024, 01:44:47 PM
Does anyone know of plans to rehabilitate or replace the Mass. 129 overpass over I-93 in Wilmington? It looks awful and there are already a few band-aids on it.

https://hwy.massdot.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=ViewProject&PROJECT_NO=608703

Work begins summer 2025. I don't know if you've been on the bridge, but part of the westbound side is closed off, with all traffic squeezing over to the eastbound and a bit of the westbound side. It's as rough looking on top of it.

I guess it's good news that it's planned, but man is it scary it's going to be in this state another year and a half. I have been on top. It's kind of jarring how much the whole thing has been allowed to deteriorate.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on January 24, 2024, 11:40:44 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 23, 2024, 06:44:41 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on January 23, 2024, 04:31:44 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 23, 2024, 01:44:47 PM
Does anyone know of plans to rehabilitate or replace the Mass. 129 overpass over I-93 in Wilmington? It looks awful and there are already a few band-aids on it.

https://hwy.massdot.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=ViewProject&PROJECT_NO=608703

Work begins summer 2025. I don't know if you've been on the bridge, but part of the westbound side is closed off, with all traffic squeezing over to the eastbound and a bit of the westbound side. It's as rough looking on top of it.

I guess it's good news that it's planned, but man is it scary it's going to be in this state another year and a half. I have been on top. It's kind of jarring how much the whole thing has been allowed to deteriorate.

It took 5 years for them to replace Dedham St. bridge over I-95 in Canton, so good luck to Wilmington and the Red Sox on this one!
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on January 29, 2024, 10:48:54 PM
Good news. A MassDOT former Twitter post tonight indicates lanes will be closed overnight starting this week on US 3 between Burlington and Tyngsboro for sign replacement work.

The bad news is that the text says the work should last through the summer. Not a record breaking pace, to say the least.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on January 30, 2024, 03:50:58 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 29, 2024, 10:48:54 PM
Good news. A MassDOT former Twitter post tonight indicates lanes will be closed overnight starting this week on US 3 between Burlington and Tyngsboro for sign replacement work.

The bad news is that the text says the work should last through the summer. Not a record breaking pace, to say the least.

Perhaps US 3 can get its mile posts recalibrated too?  For example, the MA 129 overpass over US 3 is at mile 80.7, but the exit number is 79.  Also going north on US 3, you have a "mile 87" marker just before the exit for MA 40, which is signed exit 86.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on January 30, 2024, 05:09:29 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on January 30, 2024, 03:50:58 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 29, 2024, 10:48:54 PM
Good news. A MassDOT former Twitter post tonight indicates lanes will be closed overnight starting this week on US 3 between Burlington and Tyngsboro for sign replacement work.

The bad news is that the text says the work should last through the summer. Not a record breaking pace, to say the least.

Perhaps US 3 can get its mile posts recalibrated too?  For example, the MA 129 overpass over US 3 is at mile 80.7, but the exit number is 79.  Also going north on US 3, you have a "mile 87" marker just before the exit for MA 40, which is signed exit 86.

If they left the mileposts alone, but renumbered the exits in kilometers, no one would notice the discrepancies.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on January 31, 2024, 09:46:38 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on January 30, 2024, 03:50:58 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 29, 2024, 10:48:54 PM
Good news. A MassDOT former Twitter post tonight indicates lanes will be closed overnight starting this week on US 3 between Burlington and Tyngsboro for sign replacement work.

The bad news is that the text says the work should last through the summer. Not a record breaking pace, to say the least.

Perhaps US 3 can get its mile posts recalibrated too?  For example, the MA 129 overpass over US 3 is at mile 80.7, but the exit number is 79.  Also going north on US 3, you have a "mile 87" marker just before the exit for MA 40, which is signed exit 86.

Yeah those are miserably off from reality.

I've driven past the sign pile on the northbound side between MA 40 and Westford Rd and noticed a few "exit 1" tabs in there. I guess this means that Spit Brook Rd in NH will finally have an advance sign in MA, since the only sign for it now is the one at the exit that is partly shrouded by brush.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on February 02, 2024, 09:46:19 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 29, 2024, 10:48:54 PM
Good news. A MassDOT former Twitter post tonight indicates lanes will be closed overnight starting this week on US 3 between Burlington and Tyngsboro for sign replacement work.

The bad news is that the text says the work should last through the summer. Not a record breaking pace, to say the least.

On the way back from UMass Lowell last night, I noticed that new APL signs for the I-95 / MA 128 interchange were installed on US 3 south. Only the 2 and 1 mile signs were up and the rest downstream was waiting for the foundations and signs to be installed.

Also semi-unrelated to this, but the LEFT exit tabs on the Lowell Connector also have returned as well, not sure if the other LEFT exit tabs were reinstated in the places they were taken off from in mid 2023.

(https://i.ibb.co/dpsGc8x/DSC01772.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xgKJsxd)
(https://i.ibb.co/7JQj0CL/DSC01773.jpg) (https://ibb.co/wN7B2gj)


Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on February 02, 2024, 10:20:34 AM
The state is also replacing the sign for US 3 S/B-I-95 N/B exit 72A that is just a curve and not an actual exit.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on February 02, 2024, 10:38:22 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 02, 2024, 10:20:34 AM
The state is also replacing the sign for US 3 S/B-I-95 N/B exit 72A that is just a curve and not an actual exit.

So this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4755621,-71.2196302,3a,75y,151.07h,97.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjJBffEZ5q8Vo4p1I2bp5OA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) is going to be replaced similar to the signs at the eastern terminus of I-295 north at I-95 north (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.954946,-71.3065057,3a,45y,80.16h,95.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scePle30EXmo1D_UR5wSJXA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), as well as I-95 north after Exit 26 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2080653,-71.1397346,3a,21.2y,28.51h,96.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-xrwFREqgNHTqdlIxkeKlQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on February 02, 2024, 12:23:32 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on February 02, 2024, 10:38:22 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 02, 2024, 10:20:34 AM
The state is also replacing the sign for US 3 S/B-I-95 N/B exit 72A that is just a curve and not an actual exit.

So this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4755621,-71.2196302,3a,75y,151.07h,97.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjJBffEZ5q8Vo4p1I2bp5OA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) is going to be replaced similar to the signs at the eastern terminus of I-295 north at I-95 north (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.954946,-71.3065057,3a,45y,80.16h,95.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scePle30EXmo1D_UR5wSJXA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), as well as I-95 north after Exit 26 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2080653,-71.1397346,3a,21.2y,28.51h,96.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-xrwFREqgNHTqdlIxkeKlQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)?

There is the little orange Liddell sign next to the current one so I presume so.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: PHLBOS on February 02, 2024, 06:35:35 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 02, 2024, 10:20:34 AM
The state is also replacing the sign for US 3 S/B-I-95 N/B exit 72A that is just a curve and not an actual exit.
For the Burlington US 3 interchange: since the cloverleaf ramp to I-95 (MA 128) northbound is also a through US 3 southbound movement; there should not be an exit tab on those particular signs.  The exit for I-95 (MA 128) southbound should be just Exit 72 (or 71 since US 3 MM 72.0 is located north of the interchange).

For the Canton interchange; there rightfully isn't an exit tab for that cloverleaf ramp because it's the through I-95 northbound movement.  FWIW, there are plans to reconfigure that interchange with a 2-lane flyover ramp replacing that single-lane cloverleaf ramp.

For the Attleboro interchange; since I-295 ends at I-95, having an exit tab for that cloverleaf ramp to I-95 northbound is justified.

Quote from: fwydriver405 on February 02, 2024, 09:46:19 AM
Also semi-unrelated to this, but the LEFT exit tabs on the Lowell Connector also have returned as well, not sure if the other LEFT exit tabs were reinstated in the places they were taken off from in mid 2023.
When I was in eastern MA last November; I saw that the LEFT tabs returned on those MA 128 northbound (EXIT 64) signs for the I-95/MA 128 northbound split.  If one looks on the backs of those reinstalled LEFT exit tabs; one sees several additional mounting support brackets on them.

I'm sure the reinstalled ones for the Lowell Connector have such as well.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on February 03, 2024, 11:58:47 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 02, 2024, 06:35:35 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 02, 2024, 10:20:34 AM
The state is also replacing the sign for US 3 S/B-I-95 N/B exit 72A that is just a curve and not an actual exit.
For the Burlington US 3 interchange: since the cloverleaf ramp to I-95 (MA 128) northbound is also a through US 3 southbound movement; there should not be an exit tab on those particular signs.  The exit for I-95 (MA 128) southbound should be just Exit 72 (or 71 since US 3 MM 72.0 is located north of the interchange).

For the Canton interchange; there rightfully isn't an exit tab for that cloverleaf ramp because it's the through I-95 northbound movement.  FWIW, there are plans to reconfigure that interchange with a 2-lane flyover ramp replacing that single-lane cloverleaf ramp.

For the Attleboro interchange; since I-295 ends at I-95, having an exit tab for that cloverleaf ramp to I-95 northbound is justified.

Quote from: fwydriver405 on February 02, 2024, 09:46:19 AM
Also semi-unrelated to this, but the LEFT exit tabs on the Lowell Connector also have returned as well, not sure if the other LEFT exit tabs were reinstated in the places they were taken off from in mid 2023.
When I was in eastern MA last November; I saw that the LEFT tabs returned on those MA 128 northbound (EXIT 64) signs for the I-95/MA 128 northbound split.  If one looks on the backs of those reinstalled LEFT exit tabs; one sees several additional mounting support brackets on them.

I'm sure the reinstalled ones for the Lowell Connector have such as well.
Last time I was on I-93 and I-95 in the Canton area two weeks ago the left tabs were still missing (except for the one on I-93 South that was never taken down).

As for whether both ramps on US 3 South deserve exit numbers, I agree that only the I-95/128 South exit needs one. MassDOT has been slightly inconsistent as to this practice, saying they use the A/B ramp suffixes to indicate that a particular route ends, hence the use if 1 A/B in Canton at the end of I-93 South, even though one of the 'exits' is not a ramp. But this policy seems to also include, in some cases, where a particular highway ends since they use A/B in Braintree where MA 3 meets I-93/US 1, it's the end of the Pilgrims Highway not MA 3. In this case I would have only given the I-93 South to I-95 exit a number [Perhaps this is because long range plans call for the ending of MA 3 there?].

Lastly, there may be a clue on the latest US 3 sign replacement project listing as to why the contract has taken so long. In it they state the contractor ["Road Safe formerly Liddell"] has started putting up signage. Perhaps MassDOT lost patience with Liddell Bros. and switched contractors to complete the project.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on February 03, 2024, 05:47:07 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on February 03, 2024, 11:58:47 AM
Lastly, there may be a clue on the latest US 3 sign replacement project listing as to why the contract has taken so long. In it they state the contractor ["Road Safe formerly Liddell"] has started putting up signage. Perhaps MassDOT lost patience with Liddell Bros. and switched contractors to complete the project.

https://www.roadsafetraffic.com/roadsafe-traffic-systems-inc-acquires-liddell-bros-inc-and-liddell-leasing-corp/

Answers that question I guess. I wasn't aware of it myself.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on February 04, 2024, 09:23:27 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 03, 2024, 05:47:07 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on February 03, 2024, 11:58:47 AM
Lastly, there may be a clue on the latest US 3 sign replacement project listing as to why the contract has taken so long. In it they state the contractor ["Road Safe formerly Liddell"] has started putting up signage. Perhaps MassDOT lost patience with Liddell Bros. and switched contractors to complete the project.

https://www.roadsafetraffic.com/roadsafe-traffic-systems-inc-acquires-liddell-bros-inc-and-liddell-leasing-corp/

Answers that question I guess. I wasn't aware of it myself.
Thanks. Since the 2 leading sign replacement contractors for MassDOT are now 1, is it safe to say that the costs of these projects are going to up, independent of any recent material cost inflation, and that there will be fewer of them or cheaper materials used?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on February 18, 2024, 08:48:44 PM
Managed to snap a photo of this new sign assembly at Exit 91 on a trip to Nashua today, which finally includes a ½ mile advance for NH's Exit 1: Spit Brook Rd. Concord Nashua NH is omitted on the left sign from the old one.

EDIT, Nashua, not Concord for the first control city

(https://i.ibb.co/2Wfc822/IMG-4101.jpg) (https://ibb.co/34LSfXX)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on February 19, 2024, 10:06:06 AM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on February 18, 2024, 08:48:44 PM
Managed to snap a photo of this new sign assembly at Exit 91 on a trip to Nashua today, which finally includes a ½ mile advance for NH's Exit 1: Spit Brook Rd. Concord NH is omitted on the left sign from the old one.

(https://i.ibb.co/2Wfc822/IMG-4101.jpg) (https://ibb.co/34LSfXX)

I thought I saw an exit 1 tab in the pile of signs off the side of the road south of there and was wondering if this was coming. For decades there has never been an advance sign for Spit Brook Rd, just the first sign at the exit.

Since ground signage at the ends of ramps are being replaced, I hope the new one at the end of this ramp doesn't erroneously state that MA 3A goes north from the ramp, when it's on the other side of the Merrimack River, since the current one does.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: roadman65 on February 19, 2024, 11:17:08 PM
What's up with the service area on a non tolled I-95 in Newton?

Seems odd for a free freeway to have one. Usually they're on toll facilities except for some select parkways in the NYC area having a small gas station here or there. Usually uncommon for non toll roads though.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on February 20, 2024, 03:21:41 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 19, 2024, 11:17:08 PM
What's up with the service area on a non tolled I-95 in Newton?

Seems odd for a free freeway to have one. Usually they're on toll facilities except for some select parkways in the NYC area having a small gas station here or there. Usually uncommon for non toll roads though.

There's still one on NB I-95 in Lexington at the MA-2A exit, and one on each side of MA-24 just south of MA-104. Also, on US-6 on Cape Code at MA-132, which for years was the end of the freeway part of US-6.

Massachusetts used to have a lot of them. There was one on the SB Southeast Expwy (now I-93) just before the Mass Ave Connector, and it was a real challenge to exit from it and get all the way over to the ramp onto the Expwy, so I'm not surprised that one was closed. Further down, there was one shortly before the MA-3/MA-128 split, which you can still see as a vacant lot in the 1994 GE imagery.

When I was growing up, they all had Howard Johnson's Restaurants, which were actually pretty good, and were open all night. The gas stations were all Atlantic stations, and were about the only all-night gas stations anywhere, except a few in Boston.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on February 20, 2024, 05:22:04 AM
Quote from: pderocco on February 20, 2024, 03:21:41 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 19, 2024, 11:17:08 PM
What's up with the service area on a non tolled I-95 in Newton?

Seems odd for a free freeway to have one. Usually they're on toll facilities except for some select parkways in the NYC area having a small gas station here or there. Usually uncommon for non toll roads though.

There's still one on NB I-95 in Lexington at the MA-2A exit, and one on each side of MA-24 just south of MA-104. Also, on US-6 on Cape Code at MA-132, which for years was the end of the freeway part of US-6.



Massachusetts used to have a lot of them. There was one on the SB Southeast Expwy (now I-93) just before the Mass Ave Connector, and it was a real challenge to exit from it and get all the way over to the ramp onto the Expwy, so I'm not surprised that one was closed. Further down, there was one shortly before the MA-3/MA-128 split, which you can still see as a vacant lot in the 1994 GE imagery.

When I was growing up, they all had Howard Johnson's Restaurants, which were actually pretty good, and were open all night. The gas stations were all Atlantic stations, and were about the only all-night gas stations anywhere, except a few in Boston.

There are a couple of others that date back to the opening of MA-128 in the early 1950s and I guess have been grandfathered in to the current system. There is one on MA-128 north in Beverly after Exit 46 and one on I-95 southbound in Newton between Grove Street and MA-16, which is also a challenge to get in to and out of, but not as bad as the other ones that no longer exist.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 20, 2024, 01:09:18 PM
There are also service areas on MA 24 just north of the Interstate 495 interchange: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9563776,-71.0272819,1471m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu. There is one at the MA 132 exit on US 6: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6880477,-70.3380176,465m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu. And here are the three on Interstate 95/MA 128: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3303673,-71.2533541,422m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu, https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4409459,-71.2562207,632m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu, https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5741948,-70.875476,273m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu. Those are all the ones I am aware of.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: MATraveler128 on February 20, 2024, 01:33:49 PM
Don't forget the one on MA 3 southbound in Plymouth at Exit 13.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bmitchelf on February 20, 2024, 04:39:55 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on February 18, 2024, 08:48:44 PM
Managed to snap a photo of this new sign assembly at Exit 91 on a trip to Nashua today, which finally includes a ½ mile advance for NH's Exit 1: Spit Brook Rd. Concord NH is omitted on the left sign from the old one.

(https://i.ibb.co/2Wfc822/IMG-4101.jpg) (https://ibb.co/34LSfXX)

Nashua, not Concord, removed https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6946785,-71.4461739,3a,75y,8.58h,78.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scF6RRYCjI0PJ0gUj49Qmfw!2e0!5s20230801T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on February 20, 2024, 10:48:20 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 20, 2024, 01:33:49 PM
Don't forget the one on MA 3 southbound in Plymouth at Exit 13.
That's spooky. I don't remember that one at all, even though it's visible in the GE historic imagery from 1995, and there's an icon for it in the Mass Official maps going back to 1983. I used to commute through there in 1983, and after moving to Cape Cod in 1985, I used to do day trips to Boston via MA-3 almost once a week. When I look at it in GSV, it doesn't ring the faintest bell.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on February 20, 2024, 11:07:41 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 19, 2024, 10:06:06 AM
I thought I saw an exit 1 tab in the pile of signs off the side of the road south of there and was wondering if this was coming. For decades there has never been an advance sign for Spit Brook Rd, just the first sign at the exit.

Since ground signage at the ends of ramps are being replaced, I hope the new one at the end of this ramp doesn't erroneously state that MA 3A goes north from the ramp, when it's on the other side of the Merrimack River, since the current one does.

I entered the freeway at MA 113 and exited at NH's Exit 2, so not sure if there were any 1 mile signs for NH's Exit 1 before MA 113, or if any new signage at Exit 91 fixes the erroneous MA 3A reference. I'll have to check next time I'm up in the area (as well as any other new signs on US 3 from 95/128 to NH/MA).

Quote from: bmitchelf on February 20, 2024, 04:39:55 PM
Nashua, not Concord, removed https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6946785,-71.4461739,3a,75y,8.58h,78.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scF6RRYCjI0PJ0gUj49Qmfw!2e0!5s20230801T000000!7i16384!8i8192

Fixed in my initial post, thanks, must have been thinking of another sign upstream by mistake (presumably at NH's Exit 2 / 1A)...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 21, 2024, 12:00:00 PM
Should the "service area" on US 6 even count?

Its access isn't controlled, it isn't signed as a service area, and it isn't owned by MassDOT.

EDIT: Barnstable, MA, GIS survey confirms it is actually state property.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on February 22, 2024, 06:36:06 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 21, 2024, 12:00:00 PM
Should the "service area" on US 6 even count?

Its access isn't controlled, it isn't signed as a service area, and it isn't owned by MassDOT.
In the old days, it always felt like all the state-owned service areas, because it had the same tenants, Howard Johnson's and Atlantic Gasoline, but it could have been private even then. In the early 60s, it was at the end of the freeway section of 6, on a large rotary. When they extended the freeway in the late 60s, it ended up in the middle of a more conventional interchange, with one of the ramps running behind it, and so it remains today. But I suppose it's possible for land within an interchange to be privately owned.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on February 22, 2024, 09:09:31 PM
It is owned by MassDOT.   It is listed as an official service area on all MassDOT documents I've seen, and was last rebuilt in the 80s in conjunction with the rebuilding of the areas on Route 24 in Bridgewater and on 128 in Beverly.  These were all rebuilt at the same time in the 80s. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 23, 2024, 12:19:48 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on February 02, 2024, 09:46:19 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 29, 2024, 10:48:54 PM
Good news. A MassDOT former Twitter post tonight indicates lanes will be closed overnight starting this week on US 3 between Burlington and Tyngsboro for sign replacement work.

The bad news is that the text says the work should last through the summer. Not a record breaking pace, to say the least.

On the way back from UMass Lowell last night, I noticed that new APL signs for the I-95 / MA 128 interchange were installed on US 3 south. Only the 2 and 1 mile signs were up and the rest downstream was waiting for the foundations and signs to be installed.

Also semi-unrelated to this, but the LEFT exit tabs on the Lowell Connector also have returned as well, not sure if the other LEFT exit tabs were reinstated in the places they were taken off from in mid 2023.

(https://i.ibb.co/dpsGc8x/DSC01772.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xgKJsxd)
(https://i.ibb.co/7JQj0CL/DSC01773.jpg) (https://ibb.co/wN7B2gj)
I will forever miss the "file folder" style of MassHighway/MassDOT BGSs. They're nostalgic to me.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on February 23, 2024, 12:53:27 PM
Regarding the new signage on US 3, S/B there is now a 2 mile warning for I-495. Surprisingly, it is the same as all the other ones, the diagrammatic, which I thought wasn't even allowed anymore. It's really a carbon copy of the other existing S/B ones (that have yet to be replaced), except the lane lines on US 3 are thicker.

The one mile sign for comparison, https://maps.app.goo.gl/nAn8ksCWt6WJCBSv9
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on February 23, 2024, 10:15:57 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 23, 2024, 12:53:27 PM
Regarding the new signage on US 3, S/B there is now a 2 mile warning for I-495. Surprisingly, it is the same as all the other ones, the diagrammatic, which I thought wasn't even allowed anymore. It's really a carbon copy of the other existing S/B ones (that have yet to be replaced), except the lane lines on US 3 are thicker.

I was under the impression that those were still permitted in the national MUTCD, however, the newer version doesn't depict the number of lanes are added or dropped:

Quote from: MUTCD 11th ed. - Section 2E.41 Design of Freeway and Expressway Diagrammatic Advance Guide SignsSupport:
01 The Diagrammatic Advance guide sign (see Figure 2E-41) is a guide sign that shows a simplified graphic view of the exit departure arrangement in relationship to the main highway at an interchange. Its purpose is to provide advance notice of complex or unexpected road geometry or ramp departures at an interchange and/or depict successive decision points where additional context might be helpful to interpreting the subsequent primary Interchange Advance guide signs. Unlike Diagrammatic signs that were included in previous editions of this Manual, the Diagrammatic Advance guide sign does not depict which or the number of specific lanes that serve a particular destination or depict lanes added or reduced.

Quote from: MUTCD 11th ed. - Section 2E.41 Design of Freeway and Expressway Diagrammatic Advance Guide SignsStandard:
03 G. Arrow shafts shall not contain lane lines.
06 Diagrammatic Advance guide signs located on the main roadway shall not be used to depict a downstream split of an exit ramp.

See MUTCD 11th edition - Section 2E.41 Design of Freeway and Expressway Diagrammatic Advance Guide Signs and Figure 2E-41: Examples of Diagrammatic Advance Guide Signs for more info... nevertheless, I'm not sure if a Massachusetts Amendments to the latest 2023 MUTCD is in the works currently addressing these new changes in the latest version.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on February 26, 2024, 08:24:22 AM
Overhead signs on I-295 in both directions have been recently replaced.  The new signs have the same control cities as their predecessors.  They even replaced an overhead "left lane ends 1/2 mile" sign going north just before exit 2B (US 1 North).

Side note - why does I-295 reduce to 2 lanes about 1 and a half miles before meeting I-95, with an extra wide left median?  It seems so weird to me.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on February 26, 2024, 06:39:35 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on February 26, 2024, 08:24:22 AM
Overhead signs on I-295 in both directions have been recently replaced.  The new signs have the same control cities as their predecessors.  They even replaced an overhead "left lane ends 1/2 mile" sign going north just before exit 2B (US 1 North).

Side note - why does I-295 reduce to 2 lanes about 1 and a half miles before meeting I-95, with an extra wide left median?  It seems so weird to me.
Safer to reduce beforehand than right at the exit.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on February 26, 2024, 06:44:24 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on February 26, 2024, 08:24:22 AM
Overhead signs on I-295 in both directions have been recently replaced.  The new signs have the same control cities as their predecessors.  They even replaced an overhead "left lane ends 1/2 mile" sign going north just before exit 2B (US 1 North).

Side note - why does I-295 reduce to 2 lanes about 1 and a half miles before meeting I-95, with an extra wide left median?  It seems so weird to me.

To get traffic to merge and slow down before the exit.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on February 27, 2024, 09:31:53 AM
These are all good answers.  However, who in the right mind decided that I-295 north to I-95 north traffic would traverse a single lane 270 degree loop?  AND then have to weave with traffic exiting I-95?

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense logically to have a 2-lane ramp from I-295 north to I-95 north, curving to the left?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on February 27, 2024, 09:55:53 AM
Quote from: kramie13 on February 27, 2024, 09:31:53 AM
These are all good answers.  However, who in the right mind decided that I-295 north to I-95 north traffic would traverse a single lane 270 degree loop?  AND then have to weave with traffic exiting I-95?

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense logically to have a 2-lane ramp from I-295 north to I-95 north, curving to the left?
Let me know when you find an engineer that's still alive when that interchange was designed.  Also, see the stubs...
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2024, 01:28:29 PM
The stubs at the northern Interstate 95/Interstate 295 were to have continued as Interstate 895. It would have looped southward, then westward along existing RI 37 to terminate at Exit 3AB on Interstate 295. There was another 895 proposed, some of it would have utilized existing RI 138 between US 1 and RI 238. However, both 895s were cancelled due to local opposition.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on February 27, 2024, 02:52:51 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on February 27, 2024, 09:31:53 AM
These are all good answers.  However, who in the right mind decided that I-295 north to I-95 north traffic would traverse a single lane 270 degree loop?  AND then have to weave with traffic exiting I-95?

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense logically to have a 2-lane ramp from I-295 north to I-95 north, curving to the left?
Sure. It's a logical place for a trumpet, and it looks like there might even be room for one without too much fuss.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: jmacswimmer on February 27, 2024, 03:05:46 PM
Quote from: pderocco on February 27, 2024, 02:52:51 PM
Quote from: kramie13 on February 27, 2024, 09:31:53 AM
These are all good answers.  However, who in the right mind decided that I-295 north to I-95 north traffic would traverse a single lane 270 degree loop?  AND then have to weave with traffic exiting I-95?

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense logically to have a 2-lane ramp from I-295 north to I-95 north, curving to the left?
Sure. It's a logical place for a trumpet, and it looks like there might even be room for one without too much fuss.

The development behind the NB-to-SB loop ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9576836,-71.2973498,598m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu) could pose a problem IMHO depending on the design speed for a new outside-of-the-trumpet, 2-lane ramp for NB-to-NB.

But MassDOT did redo the SB-to-SB ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9566676,-71.3047891,355m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu) to provide 2 lanes and a gentler curve not that long ago, so I do wonder if they would revisit the interchange again for this NB-to-NB ramp.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on February 27, 2024, 05:36:18 PM
Historic aerials from the late 60s/early 70s show the outlines of a cloverleaf interchange between I-95 and what would have been I-895 on the Attleboros.

The loop ramps need to be replaced, especially from I-295N to I-95N. As mentioned already, the development nearby makes that a bit more complicated.  And TBH, the state has higher priority improvements, like fixing both I-93/I-95 interchanges.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on February 27, 2024, 07:29:30 PM
How 'bout this...
... make the NB to NB ramp a flyover, coming into I-95 NB on the left.  This forms the southern terminus of an 8-lane I-95 up to 128.
Take the existing 295NB to 95NB loop ramp and convert it to the new 95SB to 295SB ramp.  That way, you get rid of the [the worst of the] loop.   Ok... probably too fictional.  And there are more pressing matters on MassDOT's plate. 

But seriously, has there ever been any talk of widening I-95 South (meaning the southern section of I-95 in Mass, south of 128)?  The median is wide and variable and could (with relative ease) be widened.  You wouldn't even have to mess with any interchanges.  I thought it was happening years ago.  Every time I travel this section, there seems to be more than enough traffic to warrant it. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 29, 2024, 03:36:55 PM
I keep seeing these covered-up detour signs around 93 in Assembly/Sullivan Squares and Medford Square. What work is about to happen?

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240229/2c75e8a787403f4542cd92ee2173f010.jpg)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 29, 2024, 03:58:23 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on February 22, 2024, 09:09:31 PM
It is owned by MassDOT.   It is listed as an official service area on all MassDOT documents I've seen, and was last rebuilt in the 80s in conjunction with the rebuilding of the areas on Route 24 in Bridgewater and on 128 in Beverly.  These were all rebuilt at the same time in the 80s.
And Plymouth, perhaps? They're all pretty similar.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: fwydriver405 on February 29, 2024, 08:52:59 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 29, 2024, 03:36:55 PM
I keep seeing these covered-up detour signs around 93 in Assembly/Sullivan Squares and Medford Square. What work is about to happen?

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240229/2c75e8a787403f4542cd92ee2173f010.jpg)

If I had to guess, they're detour routes (https://www.mass.gov/info-details/sumner-tunnel-restoration-getting-to-and-from-logan-airport) because of the Sumner Tunnel closures (https://www.mass.gov/info-details/sumner-tunnel-restoration-traffic-and-construction-updates#:~:text=From%20Fall%202023%20to%20Summer,project%20by%20end%20of%202024.), which is slated to ramp up again this year.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 01, 2024, 05:17:20 AM
With the exception of the Mass. Pike, the Commonwealth's rest areas are below average, IMHO.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on March 01, 2024, 06:46:56 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 01, 2024, 05:17:20 AM
With the exception of the Mass. Pike, the Commonwealth's rest areas are below average, IMHO.
That's becoming true in a lot of places, due to intentional disinvestment in rest areas since they're not as necessary as they once were, private businesses consider them competition and transportation funding is limited.

But, the flip side of that is sometimes you get a governor that wants to throw friends/contractors/donors a bone, so the state actually builds Taj Mahal-ish welcome centers and the like in a spurt of construction.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: kramie13 on March 01, 2024, 07:49:36 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2024, 01:28:29 PM
The stubs at the northern Interstate 95/Interstate 295 were to have continued as Interstate 895. It would have looped southward, then westward along existing RI 37 to terminate at Exit 3AB on Interstate 295. There was another 895 proposed, some of it would have utilized existing RI 138 between US 1 and RI 238. However, both 895s were cancelled due to local opposition.

I know there was a proposed I-895.  But it's been 50 years since it was cancelled.

FIFTY years.

The interchange could have been reconstructed back in the 1970s when it became obvious that 895 was never going to happen.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on March 01, 2024, 05:31:53 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 01, 2024, 05:17:20 AM
With the exception of the Mass. Pike, the Commonwealth's rest areas are below average, IMHO.

The fact that they have let the former welcome center in Mansfield on I-95 NB fall into the condition it has been is an embarrasement.   And the Chelmsford rest area on I-495 NB was rebuilt and open for a few years, then the building was shuttered (something had to been going on here, as Chelmsford-SB's building is still open directly across the highway).  There's also the closed (completely) area in Swansea on I-195 EB.  And no more tourist information centers at any of the 'pike's service plazas.  Charlton-EB even has an old-looking house that used to house the info center but its closed.   And then there's I-84 EB just over the CT line... old MassHighway maps show this area as having a welcome center at one point.

CT briefly tried the single shift at its rest areas, which used to be open 24/7.  That didn't last long, and Lamont reinstated 24/7 operation and even restored funding for the welcome centers at several locations statewide.  Its a small improvement that gives travelers a better impression of the state. 

Honestly, in Mass, they'd be better off completely closing off the rest areas with buildings closed, and leveling the sites/returning to nature.  That'd be better than what travelers see now... Welcome to Mass.  Here's an abandoned building and a weed-encrusted parking lot with a couple of portolets that haven't been cleaned in god-knows-when!  Unless there's eventual plans to reopen them.  Mansfield-NB would probably require a complete tear-down/replacement at this point.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 02, 2024, 10:41:50 AM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on February 29, 2024, 08:52:59 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 29, 2024, 03:36:55 PM
I keep seeing these covered-up detour signs around 93 in Assembly/Sullivan Squares and Medford Square. What work is about to happen?

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240229/2c75e8a787403f4542cd92ee2173f010.jpg)

If I had to guess, they're detour routes (https://www.mass.gov/info-details/sumner-tunnel-restoration-getting-to-and-from-logan-airport) because of the Sumner Tunnel closures (https://www.mass.gov/info-details/sumner-tunnel-restoration-traffic-and-construction-updates#:~:text=From%20Fall%202023%20to%20Summer,project%20by%20end%20of%202024.), which is slated to ramp up again this year.
Among all these there's a "road work ends" sign coming off the elevated part of Route 16 near Medford Square. Seems pretty far afield for the Sumner.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 02, 2024, 10:44:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2024, 06:46:56 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 01, 2024, 05:17:20 AM
With the exception of the Mass. Pike, the Commonwealth's rest areas are below average, IMHO.
That's becoming true in a lot of places, due to intentional disinvestment in rest areas since they're not as necessary as they once were, private businesses consider them competition and transportation funding is limited.

But, the flip side of that is sometimes you get a governor that wants to throw friends/contractors/donors a bone, so the state actually builds Taj Mahal-ish welcome centers and the like in a spurt of construction.

(personal opinion emphasized)


Perhaps service areas with staffed travel kiosks and hotel reservations, etc. might no longer be needed in the digital era. But I do think rest areas with actual facilities are important, as well as more parking areas for the increasing multitude of trucks on our roads and that can be seen parked in the shoulders and in the main travel lane at rest areas. It need not be super-elaborate.

As for off-highway businesses, I recall a news story a while back about a Dunkin Donuts located in Salisbury off of 95 being surprised at all the extra traffic they were getting to use their restroom after the state closed the rest area and pointed them to that Dunkin Donuts. I'm not sure every highway-adjacent business wants to welcome the masses to use their facilities (some of which are no better than the rest areas). If the state wanted to eliminate rest areas altogether, they should at least coordinate with businesses at or near the exits to let them know that people will be coming their way.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: DrSmith on March 02, 2024, 04:28:11 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 02, 2024, 10:44:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2024, 06:46:56 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 01, 2024, 05:17:20 AM
With the exception of the Mass. Pike, the Commonwealth's rest areas are below average, IMHO.
That's becoming true in a lot of places, due to intentional disinvestment in rest areas since they're not as necessary as they once were, private businesses consider them competition and transportation funding is limited.

But, the flip side of that is sometimes you get a governor that wants to throw friends/contractors/donors a bone, so the state actually builds Taj Mahal-ish welcome centers and the like in a spurt of construction.

(personal opinion emphasized)


Perhaps service areas with staffed travel kiosks and hotel reservations, etc. might no longer be needed in the digital era. But I do think rest areas with actual facilities are important, as well as more parking areas for the increasing multitude of trucks on our roads and that can be seen parked in the shoulders and in the main travel lane at rest areas. It need not be super-elaborate.

As for off-highway businesses, I recall a news story a while back about a Dunkin Donuts located in Salisbury off of 95 being surprised at all the extra traffic they were getting to use their restroom after the state closed the rest area and pointed them to that Dunkin Donuts. I'm not sure every highway-adjacent business wants to welcome the masses to use their facilities (some of which are no better than the rest areas). If the state wanted to eliminate rest areas altogether, they should at least coordinate with businesses at or near the exits to let them know that people will be coming their way.

Mass could do something like Utah did with private-public rest areas. These were a gas station and convenience stores off an exit. To qualify they had to have sufficient sized bathrooms, not require a purchase, picnic tables, and sufficient parking. I think there were cleanliness and 24/7 operation requirements too. The up side was a gas station advertised as a rest stop.  it would be a compromise and provide facilities while distributing the costs.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on March 02, 2024, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on March 02, 2024, 04:28:11 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 02, 2024, 10:44:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2024, 06:46:56 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 01, 2024, 05:17:20 AM
With the exception of the Mass. Pike, the Commonwealth's rest areas are below average, IMHO.
That's becoming true in a lot of places, due to intentional disinvestment in rest areas since they're not as necessary as they once were, private businesses consider them competition and transportation funding is limited.

But, the flip side of that is sometimes you get a governor that wants to throw friends/contractors/donors a bone, so the state actually builds Taj Mahal-ish welcome centers and the like in a spurt of construction.

(personal opinion emphasized)


Perhaps service areas with staffed travel kiosks and hotel reservations, etc. might no longer be needed in the digital era. But I do think rest areas with actual facilities are important, as well as more parking areas for the increasing multitude of trucks on our roads and that can be seen parked in the shoulders and in the main travel lane at rest areas. It need not be super-elaborate.

As for off-highway businesses, I recall a news story a while back about a Dunkin Donuts located in Salisbury off of 95 being surprised at all the extra traffic they were getting to use their restroom after the state closed the rest area and pointed them to that Dunkin Donuts. I'm not sure every highway-adjacent business wants to welcome the masses to use their facilities (some of which are no better than the rest areas). If the state wanted to eliminate rest areas altogether, they should at least coordinate with businesses at or near the exits to let them know that people will be coming their way.

Mass could do something like Utah did with private-public rest areas. These were a gas station and convenience stores off an exit. To qualify they had to have sufficient sized bathrooms, not require a purchase, picnic tables, and sufficient parking. I think there were cleanliness and 24/7 operation requirements too. The up side was a gas station advertised as a rest stop.  it would be a compromise and provide facilities while distributing the costs.
I doubt this would fly in NY.  Blue signs for advertising businesses is one thing, where they pay for slots.  Declaring private businesses a rest area would be something NYSDOT would shy away from after the Taste of NY business.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: vdeane on March 02, 2024, 04:53:46 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 02, 2024, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on March 02, 2024, 04:28:11 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 02, 2024, 10:44:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2024, 06:46:56 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 01, 2024, 05:17:20 AM
With the exception of the Mass. Pike, the Commonwealth's rest areas are below average, IMHO.
That's becoming true in a lot of places, due to intentional disinvestment in rest areas since they're not as necessary as they once were, private businesses consider them competition and transportation funding is limited.

But, the flip side of that is sometimes you get a governor that wants to throw friends/contractors/donors a bone, so the state actually builds Taj Mahal-ish welcome centers and the like in a spurt of construction.

(personal opinion emphasized)


Perhaps service areas with staffed travel kiosks and hotel reservations, etc. might no longer be needed in the digital era. But I do think rest areas with actual facilities are important, as well as more parking areas for the increasing multitude of trucks on our roads and that can be seen parked in the shoulders and in the main travel lane at rest areas. It need not be super-elaborate.

As for off-highway businesses, I recall a news story a while back about a Dunkin Donuts located in Salisbury off of 95 being surprised at all the extra traffic they were getting to use their restroom after the state closed the rest area and pointed them to that Dunkin Donuts. I'm not sure every highway-adjacent business wants to welcome the masses to use their facilities (some of which are no better than the rest areas). If the state wanted to eliminate rest areas altogether, they should at least coordinate with businesses at or near the exits to let them know that people will be coming their way.

Mass could do something like Utah did with private-public rest areas. These were a gas station and convenience stores off an exit. To qualify they had to have sufficient sized bathrooms, not require a purchase, picnic tables, and sufficient parking. I think there were cleanliness and 24/7 operation requirements too. The up side was a gas station advertised as a rest stop.  it would be a compromise and provide facilities while distributing the costs.
I doubt this would fly in NY.  Blue signs for advertising businesses is one thing, where they pay for slots.  Declaring private businesses a rest area would be something NYSDOT would shy away from after the Taste of NY business.
Wasn't the issue with the Taste NY stuff because they were directly on the interstates?  I think DrSmith is describing something like what Vermont has off I-89 at exit 7, which is basically a giant gas station/convenience store (imagine a Sheetz or Rutters without the kiosks) off the exit branded as a "traveler service center".
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on March 02, 2024, 05:09:06 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 01, 2024, 05:31:53 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 01, 2024, 05:17:20 AM
With the exception of the Mass. Pike, the Commonwealth's rest areas are below average, IMHO.

And the Chelmsford rest area on I-495 NB was rebuilt and open for a few years, then the building was shuttered (something had to been going on here, as Chelmsford-SB's building is still open directly across the highway).  And then there's I-84 EB just over the CT line... old MassHighway maps show this area as having a welcome center at one point.


The Chelmsford one has had the building closed due to some major problem with the water system. Still, the fact that it has been years without repair is stupid.

The area on I-84 was always just a picnic area and has never had a building.  There were plans to possibly build one back in the early 00s but those went nowhere.  The "welcome center" you saw on maps referred to a state info center that was located just off the highway in the now-demolished Sturbridge Isle truck stop that was off Exit 3 (old exit 1). It was where the Pilot truck stop is now.

Add to the embarrassment list the closed/abandoned welcome center on MA-25 approaching the Bourne Bridge.  Even the state's premier tourist region gets a closed and overgrown welcome.  The welcome center in Greenfield off I-91 near the VT line also now shuttered. The building has been completely turned into a DMV branch office and no longer offers even public restrooms.   
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Rothman on March 02, 2024, 05:33:17 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2024, 04:53:46 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 02, 2024, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on March 02, 2024, 04:28:11 PM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 02, 2024, 10:44:16 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2024, 06:46:56 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on March 01, 2024, 05:17:20 AM
With the exception of the Mass. Pike, the Commonwealth's rest areas are below average, IMHO.
That's becoming true in a lot of places, due to intentional disinvestment in rest areas since they're not as necessary as they once were, private businesses consider them competition and transportation funding is limited.

But, the flip side of that is sometimes you get a governor that wants to throw friends/contractors/donors a bone, so the state actually builds Taj Mahal-ish welcome centers and the like in a spurt of construction.

(personal opinion emphasized)


Perhaps service areas with staffed travel kiosks and hotel reservations, etc. might no longer be needed in the digital era. But I do think rest areas with actual facilities are important, as well as more parking areas for the increasing multitude of trucks on our roads and that can be seen parked in the shoulders and in the main travel lane at rest areas. It need not be super-elaborate.

As for off-highway businesses, I recall a news story a while back about a Dunkin Donuts located in Salisbury off of 95 being surprised at all the extra traffic they were getting to use their restroom after the state closed the rest area and pointed them to that Dunkin Donuts. I'm not sure every highway-adjacent business wants to welcome the masses to use their facilities (some of which are no better than the rest areas). If the state wanted to eliminate rest areas altogether, they should at least coordinate with businesses at or near the exits to let them know that people will be coming their way.

Mass could do something like Utah did with private-public rest areas. These were a gas station and convenience stores off an exit. To qualify they had to have sufficient sized bathrooms, not require a purchase, picnic tables, and sufficient parking. I think there were cleanliness and 24/7 operation requirements too. The up side was a gas station advertised as a rest stop.  it would be a compromise and provide facilities while distributing the costs.
I doubt this would fly in NY.  Blue signs for advertising businesses is one thing, where they pay for slots.  Declaring private businesses a rest area would be something NYSDOT would shy away from after the Taste of NY business.
Wasn't the issue with the Taste NY stuff because they were directly on the interstates?  I think DrSmith is describing something like what Vermont has off I-89 at exit 7, which is basically a giant gas station/convenience store (imagine a Sheetz or Rutters without the kiosks) off the exit branded as a "traveler service center".
Sure, but I don't think NYSDOT is eager to mix private and public anymore, even if it is to slap a rest area sign to direct traffic to private businesses.

Something like the truck stop signage on the Thruway would fly, though.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on March 02, 2024, 09:53:26 PM
Major truck stops (which obviously serve more cars than trucks) usually have signs high enough to be seen from the freeway well in advance of their exit. There are many brands that are exclusively truck stops, so when you see a Love's sign, you know it's a place you can eat, get gas, and pee, whether you're driving a Toyota or a Mack. But I don't recall anything resembling that where I grew up in Massachusetts. The brands in roadside service areas were the same as on local roads, so if it was off an exit, you couldn't be sure it was full service.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 03, 2024, 05:28:41 AM
Quote from: pderocco on March 02, 2024, 09:53:26 PM
Major truck stops (which obviously serve more cars than trucks) usually have signs high enough to be seen from the freeway well in advance of their exit. There are many brands that are exclusively truck stops, so when you see a Love's sign, you know it's a place you can eat, get gas, and pee, whether you're driving a Toyota or a Mack. But I don't recall anything resembling that where I grew up in Massachusetts. The brands in roadside service areas were the same as on local roads, so if it was off an exit, you couldn't be sure it was full service.

The state could definitely use more truck stops. Of course, high land costs and (likely) community opposition make them hard to build.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 03, 2024, 05:30:33 AM
Quote from: pderocco on March 02, 2024, 09:53:26 PM
Major truck stops (which obviously serve more cars than trucks) usually have signs high enough to be seen from the freeway well in advance of their exit. There are many brands that are exclusively truck stops, so when you see a Love's sign, you know it's a place you can eat, get gas, and pee, whether you're driving a Toyota or a Mack. But I don't recall anything resembling that where I grew up in Massachusetts. The brands in roadside service areas were the same as on local roads, so if it was off an exit, you couldn't be sure it was full service.

The state could definitely benefit from some well-located truck stops. However, high real estate costs and (likely) community opposition make them hard to construct. 
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on March 04, 2024, 05:49:20 PM
I had an idea for back when CT was thinking of closing all their non-commercial rest areas on I-84, I-91 and I-95... build slightly-off-highway "travel plazas" that are similar to a service plaza, but just off the highway.  Multiple food vendors, convenience store, and fuel services.  You wouldn't have to rely 100% on interstate traffic to bring business in, as they'd be accessible from the surface road.  This would've filled some gaps on I-91 and I-95. 

As far as Mass, I'd fix Chelmsford-NB, rebuild Mansfield-NB, do something with one of the ones by the Cape (there's one on I-195 just before I-495/MA 25 and there's one a few miles away on MA 25), and have something for I-91 in the Greenfield area.  Bernardston-SB is too small for a welcome center.  There's more than enough room at Sturbridge-EB but that's just a few miles from both Sturbridge Isle and the Charlton plaza.  But obviously if they wanted a welcome center in the area, they'd reopen that house at the entrance to Charlton-EB.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 07, 2024, 08:26:10 PM
Took a road trip this past weekend to check out new signage along US 3 between Burlington and the NH border and along US 1 South between Lynnfield and Chelsea.  For US 3, here's another one of the APL signs for I-95:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/us3signs324w.JPG)

For US 1, here's the new signage at the exit of MA 99 South:
(https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/us1signs324k.JPG)

All photos can be found, first for US 3, at: https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html)
or go to the US 1 signs directly at https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html#us1signs (https://malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html#us1signs)
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: bob7374 on March 16, 2024, 11:09:57 AM
Massachusetts has advertised its next two sign replacement projects, winning bid to be announced on April 30:

Location: BEVERLY - DANVERS - GLOUCESTER - MANCHESTER BY THE SEA - PEABODY - WENHAM
Description: Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement on Route 128
District: 4 Ad Date: 3/16/2024 Section Response: Const Project Value: $2,258,825.00
CDs, Plans & Specs Available: No
Federal Aid No.: HSI-003S(724)X Project Number: 609058 Project Type: Signing - Structural
No. of Addendums: 0 Date of Last Addendum: N/A

Location: DARTMOUTH - FAIRHAVEN - MARION - MATTAPOISETT - NEW BEDFORD - WAREHAM
Description: Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement on a Section of Interstate 195
District: 5 Ad Date: 3/16/2024 Section Response: Const Project Value: $6,763,675.50
CDs, Plans & Specs Available: No
Federal Aid No.: HSI-1955(261)X Project Number: 613193 Project Type: Signing - Structural
No. of Addendums: 0 Date of Last Addendum: N/A
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: mariethefoxy on March 16, 2024, 08:43:10 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on March 16, 2024, 11:09:57 AM
Massachusetts has advertised its next two sign replacement projects, winning bid to be announced on April 30:

Location: BEVERLY - DANVERS - GLOUCESTER - MANCHESTER BY THE SEA - PEABODY - WENHAM
Description: Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement on Route 128
District: 4 Ad Date: 3/16/2024 Section Response: Const Project Value: $2,258,825.00
CDs, Plans & Specs Available: No
Federal Aid No.: HSI-003S(724)X Project Number: 609058 Project Type: Signing - Structural
No. of Addendums: 0 Date of Last Addendum: N/A

Location: DARTMOUTH - FAIRHAVEN - MARION - MATTAPOISETT - NEW BEDFORD - WAREHAM
Description: Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement on a Section of Interstate 195
District: 5 Ad Date: 3/16/2024 Section Response: Const Project Value: $6,763,675.50
CDs, Plans & Specs Available: No
Federal Aid No.: HSI-1955(261)X Project Number: 613193 Project Type: Signing - Structural
No. of Addendums: 0 Date of Last Addendum: N/A

Doesn't both of those sections already have the new gen signs with the bigger exit tabs?
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on March 16, 2024, 11:35:36 PM
Yup... we're repeating now!

Only integrated exit tabs left in Mass on the mainlines are I-195 in Fall River (still).
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: southshore720 on March 19, 2024, 11:12:32 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 16, 2024, 11:35:36 PM
Yup... we're repeating now!

Only integrated exit tabs left in Mass on the mainlines are I-195 in Fall River (still).
And I-95 NB approaching I-93 in Canton.  Apparently waiting for the new I-93/I-95 flyovers that we will never see in our lifetimes.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: SectorZ on March 19, 2024, 05:19:41 PM
https://www.wcvb.com/article/massachusetts-structurally-deficient-bridges/60245711

A new story with map of all the structurally deficient bridges in the state. All the ones along 495 in the Merrimack Valley are pretty self-evident with the eyeball test. The overpass over MA 38 has emergency repairs going on right now.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: shadyjay on March 19, 2024, 06:49:16 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on March 19, 2024, 11:12:32 AM
Quote from: shadyjay on March 16, 2024, 11:35:36 PM
Yup... we're repeating now!

Only integrated exit tabs left in Mass on the mainlines are I-195 in Fall River (still).
And I-95 NB approaching I-93 in Canton.  Apparently waiting for the new I-93/I-95 flyovers that we will never see in our lifetimes.

Yup, there's those... and a couple on Rt 128 portions of I-95 and [I-93].  And one at the beginning of I-395 SB in Auburn. 

Which brings me to my next question....

Is there/what is there for a plan for the I-90/I-290/I-395 interchange in Auburn?  Sure its low on the priority list (when you look at I-90 Allston, I-95/I-93 interchanges, etc), but one which needs some work.  Not sure how to exactly fix it, as space is really tight around it.  You may be able to sneak in a direct I-395 North to I-90 East ramp, and perhaps make the I-290 WB exit to I-90 2 lanes (getting rid of the exit ramps to MA 12 in the process).   But wonder if there's ever been a plan to help out this entanglement of ramps, and what it would be.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Beeper1 on March 19, 2024, 11:26:22 PM
I'm not aware of any plans to re-design that giant knot of an interchange.   Yes, 395 NB to 90 EB might be do-able, but that connection is not really your main issue.  The long, winding connections and weaving needed for 90 EB to 290 and for 290 to 90 WB are the main problem, traffic-wise.  And I don't really know what you could do about that without taking tons of extra real estate that is already heavily developed.
Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: pderocco on March 21, 2024, 08:11:48 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on March 19, 2024, 05:19:41 PM
https://www.wcvb.com/article/massachusetts-structurally-deficient-bridges/60245711

A new story with map of all the structurally deficient bridges in the state. All the ones along 495 in the Merrimack Valley are pretty self-evident with the eyeball test. The overpass over MA 38 has emergency repairs going on right now.
Wow. Practically every bridge over the Mass Pike Extension in downtown is deficient. I hope the Pru doesn't fall over.