AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northeast => Topic started by: southshore720 on March 29, 2014, 08:39:59 AM

Title: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: southshore720 on March 29, 2014, 08:39:59 AM
I noticed the now-infamous little orange markers on the side of I-195 prepping for the new signage replacement between MA exits 1-11.  Does anyone know when that project is expected to be completed?  I think I read something about this in a previous thread, but I don't recall which thread it was covered in.

I also noticed an interesting temporary orange construction sign that is using digital time estimates regarding how to navigate arround the closed MA 79 ramp (Exit 5).  The sign is so large and busy that I couldn't really read what it said moving along at 70 MPH.  It's interesting that they would put all that time and money with traffic estimates for a temporary sign.  There's also a counterpart to this sign on MA 24 South in the Exit 7 vicinity.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: bob7374 on March 29, 2014, 11:00:47 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on March 29, 2014, 08:39:59 AM
I noticed the now-infamous little orange markers on the side of I-195 prepping for the new signage replacement between MA exits 1-11.  Does anyone know when that project is expected to be completed?  I think I read something about this in a previous thread, but I don't recall which thread it was covered in.
The project is updating signs both along I-195 and MA 24. According to the MassDOT project listing, it is now 10% complete and is scheduled to be completed in Spring 2015.

Here's the description of the project's scope from MassDOT:
SEEKONK- DARTMOUTH- GUIDE & TRAFFIC SIGN REPLACEMENT ON I-195 & SR 24
This project is for the replacement of existing guide and traffic signs on Interstate Route 195 from the Rhode Island/Massachusetts state border in Seekonk easterly to the Reed Road interchange (Exits 11A-B) in Dartmouth. Replacements of existing guide and traffic signs will also be made on state Route 24 within Fall River from the Rhode Island/Massachusetts state border northerly to the Route 24/I-195 interchange. Also included is the replacement of applicable signing on intersecting secondary roadways.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: southshore720 on March 31, 2014, 09:44:41 AM
Thanks Bob!  Hopefully it's not the same contractor doing the I-93 work at a snail's pace!

Another thing (signage-wise) that bothers me about I-195 is in the Rhode Island EB stretch at Exits 7-8.  Instead of including those signs in the iWay sign replacement contract, they left these decrepit orphans up and they look horrible.  When they realigned US 6 from Exit 7 to Exit 8, instead of furnishing new signs, RIDOT cut and pasted.  The end result was a Kindergarten project with bad use of "green-out" on the Exit 8 sign.  It just looks incredibly sloppy.  There is one new sign for Exit 6 EB (which lists way too many streets from its original "Broadway" designation) and one new 1/2 mile approach sign for Exit 7 EB, but that's all in the East Providence stretch.  These signs may now be some of the oldest ones in the state now!
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: roadman on March 31, 2014, 01:04:02 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on March 31, 2014, 09:44:41 AM
Thanks Bob!  Hopefully it's not the same contractor doing the I-93 work at a snail's pace!

Hate to burst your bubble, but the I-195 contractor is Liddell Brothers of Halifax, MA.  They're the same contractor doing the re-signing on I-93 between Randolph and Boston.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: southshore720 on March 31, 2014, 01:48:12 PM
 :poke: **BURST!**  So I guess we'll see those signs in 2020 as this contractor has no sense of urgency or schedule...
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: roadman on March 31, 2014, 02:52:50 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on March 29, 2014, 08:39:59 AM
I also noticed an interesting temporary orange construction sign that is using digital time estimates regarding how to navigate arround the closed MA 79 ramp (Exit 5).  The sign is so large and busy that I couldn't really read what it said moving along at 70 MPH.  It's interesting that they would put all that time and money with traffic estimates for a temporary sign.  There's also a counterpart to this sign on MA 24 South in the Exit 7 vicinity.
As I understand it, these "temporary" signs (and the detector equipment related to them) will be intergrated into the pending statewide system of permanent travel time signs - the contract for which is to be advertised for bids by late Spring of 2014.  These signs are currently are black on orange because they specifically relate to an active construction project, but I've been told they will be re-faced as white on green once the Route 79 work is completed and the statewide project is "on-line".
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: southshore720 on November 03, 2014, 01:14:36 PM
I doubt we're going to see any progress on this signing project through the winter.  At last check recently, there were some new large I-195 reassurance shields with a narrow font.  In the I-93 thread, Bob mentioned some new permanent traffic time VMS' on RI 24, but any on the I-195 mainline, especially heading to the Cape?
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: bob7374 on November 03, 2014, 10:53:43 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on November 03, 2014, 01:14:36 PM
I doubt we're going to see any progress on this signing project through the winter.  At last check recently, there were some new large I-195 reassurance shields with a narrow font.  In the I-93 thread, Bob mentioned some new permanent traffic time VMS' on RI 24, but any on the I-195 mainline, especially heading to the Cape?
While I didn't drive I-195 outside of where it runs with MA 24 on Saturday, in doing some research for the age of signs I saw using Street View, I noticed the I-195 photos had been updated as of this September. It shows the new I-195 shields with the narrow font and one new permanent traffic time sign for the Braga Bridge heading westbound before the first MA 24 exit. You could check it out the other way to see if there are any permanent traffic time signs heading that direction.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: southshore720 on May 03, 2015, 11:19:10 PM
I was on I-195 this weekend and noticed some progress on the sign replacement project.  There was some new signage erected for Exits 9-11, moreso Eastbound than Westbound.  It looks like they will replace signs starting in Dartmouth and finally making their way down to Seekonk.  The new signs for Exit 10 (Horseneck Beach) look nice...they use a lot less green space than their predecessors.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: southshore720 on September 09, 2015, 02:51:32 PM
SIGNING PROJECT UPDATE:  I was on I-195 over the weekend and there has been sporadic sign replacement between Exits 1-3 and between Exits 8-9.  Due to the construction on the Braga Bridge / Exit 5 Interchange, I don't know if they are going to erect the signage for that exit just yet.  The staging area is in a deserted parking area off of I-195 Eastbound.  There were many signs and gantries just waiting to be erected!
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: PHLBOS on September 09, 2015, 04:04:47 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 03, 2014, 10:53:43 PMIt shows the new I-195 shields with the narrow font.
Exhibit A (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6780014,-71.1016812,3a,75y,302.14h,82.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swYghkJNINI5JL4WspjdpxQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

Ugh!  Series B on a 3dI-shield containing a 1.  Not only is such idiotic (& ugly IMHO) but it's also non-compliant with MassDOT's current standards stating that Series D is to be used for all route number signs/shields.  Personally, Series C should be used for 3-digit routes not having a 1 and all 4-digit routes (MA has at least two of them).

Series D, I-195 shield further west (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.681813,-71.1278665,3a,75y,292.15h,92.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNppDathkTwywMEYaL0lMFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)  Such looks 10-times better IMHO.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 09, 2015, 08:37:41 PM
Is the interchange work around 140 done?  I regularly visited folks down that way who have since moved, so I have not kept up.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: roadman on September 10, 2015, 10:19:07 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on September 09, 2015, 02:51:32 PM
SIGNING PROJECT UPDATE:  I was on I-195 over the weekend and there has been sporadic sign replacement between Exits 1-3 and between Exits 8-9.  Due to the construction on the Braga Bridge / Exit 5 Interchange, I don't know if they are going to erect the signage for that exit just yet.  The staging area is in a deserted parking area off of I-195 Eastbound.  There were many signs and gantries just waiting to be erected!
The signs on the Braga Bridge and within the Exit 5 interchange were originally proposed to be replaced as part of the I-195 signing.  However, shortly after the work was awarded, a decision was made to transfer that work to the Braga Bridge/Route 79 project.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: southshore720 on December 14, 2015, 03:21:31 PM
UPDATE:  I rode MA 24 / RI 24 to Newport yesterday and noticed that the Exit 4 approach to I-195 via MA 24 South was replaced with new diagrammatics.  I didn't think that this end of MA 24 was part of that I-195 re-signing contract, so that was a nice surprise.  Most of the MA 24 Fall River section is replaced, although there are still a few sign bridges left to go in the NB direction.  The I-195 Exit 8B diagrammatics for the left MA 24 North exit are still not up yet, though.  Because RIDOT is responsible for the approach to MA Exit 1 on MA 24 NB ( :-/), don't expect to see any new approach BGS' from them.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: southshore720 on December 14, 2015, 03:23:25 PM
Slightly related:  I also notice they never took down the gantry for the "toll bridge attempt" over the Sakonnet bridge.  Only the toll devices were removed...  What a fail that was!
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: PHLBOS on December 15, 2015, 10:54:47 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on December 14, 2015, 03:21:31 PM
UPDATE:  I rode MA 24 / RI 24 to Newport yesterday and noticed that the Exit 4 approach to I-195 via MA 24 South was replaced with new diagrammatics.  I didn't think that this end of MA 24 was part of that I-195 re-signing contract, so that was a nice surprise.
Scroll up and see Reply #1 in this thread for project scope & description.  Replacement signage along this stretch of MA 24 was indeed part of the signage contract.
Quote from: southshore720 on December 14, 2015, 03:23:25 PM
Slightly related:  I also notice they never took down the gantry for the "toll bridge attempt" over the Sakonnet bridge.  Only the toll devices were removed...  What a fail that was!
A recent photo of the old bridge on Facebook still showed the old guidance signage mounted on it.  RIDOT leaving items behind seems to be par for the course.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: bob7374 on May 16, 2016, 11:34:06 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on December 14, 2015, 03:21:31 PM
UPDATE:  I rode MA 24 / RI 24 to Newport yesterday and noticed that the Exit 4 approach to I-195 via MA 24 South was replaced with new diagrammatics.  I didn't think that this end of MA 24 was part of that I-195 re-signing contract, so that was a nice surprise.  Most of the MA 24 Fall River section is replaced, although there are still a few sign bridges left to go in the NB direction.  The I-195 Exit 8B diagrammatics for the left MA 24 North exit are still not up yet, though.  Because RIDOT is responsible for the approach to MA Exit 1 on MA 24 NB ( :-/), don't expect to see any new approach BGS' from them.
Was through this stretch today and, sad to say, not much more has been done. I did get photos of the  diagrammatic signs on MA 24 South, including:
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZdR8lOAqS9E/Vzp2M0zeX7I/AAAAAAAACH0/ysF7qSl5DRUK0aAk8w2Bg-fhyVtRz-gJgCLcB/s400/ma24signs516b.JPG)

As well as f the new reassurance markers, here on I-195 West:
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Q3C248sXJM0/Vzp4HibrZLI/AAAAAAAACIU/6YMKH-UMpxk4vuk9I4SMpt-n8VsM_y-MwCLcB/s400/ma24signs516f.JPG)

More images can be found, along with a summary of the past few months news on the MassDOT Milepost Exit Conversion project, in this blog post:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/05/new-massachusetts-exit-signage-and.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/05/new-massachusetts-exit-signage-and.html)
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: PHLBOS on May 17, 2016, 08:59:25 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 16, 2016, 11:34:06 PM(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZdR8lOAqS9E/Vzp2M0zeX7I/AAAAAAAACH0/ysF7qSl5DRUK0aAk8w2Bg-fhyVtRz-gJgCLcB/s400/ma24signs516b.JPG)
Given that the 3di contains a 1 in it; the numerals for that I-195 shield should be Series D.  Current MassDOT specs call for such regardless of the numerals (I, personally don't agree w/that particular policy).

Quote from: bob7374 on May 16, 2016, 11:34:06 PM
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Q3C248sXJM0/Vzp4HibrZLI/AAAAAAAACIU/6YMKH-UMpxk4vuk9I4SMpt-n8VsM_y-MwCLcB/s400/ma24signs516f.JPG)
CT 24 has invaded Fall River lol.  We will not talk about the Series B numerals on that I-195 shield.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 18, 2016, 03:14:52 PM
I think the direction tabs on the reassurance shields should have been in the middle, not on the left side.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: PHLBOS on May 18, 2016, 03:51:07 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 18, 2016, 03:14:52 PM
I think the direction tabs on the reassurance shields should have been in the middle, not on the left side.
MA has done such, at least for its large/oversized 3-digit route shields for some time (since the 90s); I'm not too fond of nor condone the practice, just giving the lowdown.  However, doing such for a large 2-digit route shield doesn't happen as often.

I have seen other states do similar from time to time.  Here's an example along another Route 24 in NJ with the direction tab on the right side (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.785833,-74.4199062,3a,75y,171.58h,71.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxiyG16QArhTEQ_bfXvMZqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  Given that the direction/cardinal banner is more adequately sized with respect to the route shield; this one should've been centered above the shield.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: AMLNet49 on May 18, 2016, 05:54:29 PM
It has to do with the fact that they use regular sized banners with the oversized shields. I always wondered why they couldn't have oversized banners made that would fit across both posts, because the issue seems to be that the standard banners simply aren't wide enough to stretch across both posts, so they simply affix it to the one closest to the roadway.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: PHLBOS on May 19, 2016, 08:50:16 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on May 18, 2016, 05:54:29 PM
It has to do with the fact that they use regular sized banners with the oversized shields. I always wondered why they couldn't have oversized banners made that would fit across both posts, because the issue seems to be that the standard banners simply aren't wide enough to stretch across both posts, so they simply affix it to the one closest to the roadway.
Here's an example (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4923439,-70.881718,3a,75y,340.65h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHdnmhZ5oAyJeoByLl959ow!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) of where 2 regular-sized banners are placed above (& side-by-side) an oversized shield.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: AMLNet49 on May 19, 2016, 04:47:35 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 19, 2016, 08:50:16 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on May 18, 2016, 05:54:29 PM
It has to do with the fact that they use regular sized banners with the oversized shields. I always wondered why they couldn't have oversized banners made that would fit across both posts, because the issue seems to be that the standard banners simply aren't wide enough to stretch across both posts, so they simply affix it to the one closest to the roadway.
Here's an example (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4923439,-70.881718,3a,75y,340.65h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHdnmhZ5oAyJeoByLl959ow!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) of where 2 regular-sized banners are placed above (& side-by-side) an oversized shield.

I'll also add that today I obverved several shields on the southern part of I-495 and all of MA-25 that used a crossbar to center a banner over the oversized shield. I had never paid attention to this I guess but I definitely now recall seeing it in other places.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: roadman on May 19, 2016, 08:19:25 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on May 19, 2016, 04:47:35 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 19, 2016, 08:50:16 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on May 18, 2016, 05:54:29 PM
It has to do with the fact that they use regular sized banners with the oversized shields. I always wondered why they couldn't have oversized banners made that would fit across both posts, because the issue seems to be that the standard banners simply aren't wide enough to stretch across both posts, so they simply affix it to the one closest to the roadway.
Here's an example (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4923439,-70.881718,3a,75y,340.65h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHdnmhZ5oAyJeoByLl959ow!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) of where 2 regular-sized banners are placed above (& side-by-side) an oversized shield.

I'll also add that today I obverved several shields on the southern part of I-495 and all of MA-25 that used a crossbar to center a banner over the oversized shield. I had never paid attention to this I guess but I definitely now recall seeing it in other places.

The problem with such a mounting is that the crossbar piece may prevent the support posts from properly yielding if struck by a vehicle.  This is one of the reasons that the cardinal direction plates are normally mounted to the left post of such installations, and not centered over the shield.

Note that, on Interstates and freeways, MassDOT has begun phasing out the use of the twin telescopic posts in favor of single slip-base mounted steel beams to support route markers, as this support method is more robust in wind.  The route assemblies recently installed on the I-95 (128) between Wellesley and Lexington are an example of this newer mounting method.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: bob7374 on May 19, 2016, 10:36:44 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 19, 2016, 08:19:25 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on May 19, 2016, 04:47:35 PM
It has to do with the fact that they use regular sized banners with the oversized shields. I always wondered why they couldn't have oversized banners made that would fit across both posts, because the issue seems to be that the standard banners simply aren't wide enough to stretch across both posts, so they simply affix it to the one closest to the roadway.

The problem with such a mounting is that the crossbar piece may prevent the support posts from properly yielding if struck by a vehicle.  This is one of the reasons that the cardinal direction plates are normally mounted to the left post of such installations, and not centered over the shield.

Note that, on Interstates and freeways, MassDOT has begun phasing out the use of the twin telescopic posts in favor of single slip-base mounted steel beams to support route markers, as this support method is more robust in wind.  The route assemblies recently installed on the I-95 (128) between Wellesley and Lexington are an example of this newer mounting method.
Here's an example from Waltham to illustrate Roadman's comments on the new type of single beam assemblies:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gribblenation.net%2Fmass21%2Fi95sign705m.jpg&hash=04b4b04d728f73e5fd74de1f4cfaf8c78f8fbf61)
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: AMLNet49 on May 19, 2016, 11:44:00 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 19, 2016, 08:19:25 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on May 19, 2016, 04:47:35 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 19, 2016, 08:50:16 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on May 18, 2016, 05:54:29 PM
It has to do with the fact that they use regular sized banners with the oversized shields. I always wondered why they couldn't have oversized banners made that would fit across both posts, because the issue seems to be that the standard banners simply aren't wide enough to stretch across both posts, so they simply affix it to the one closest to the roadway.
Here's an example (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4923439,-70.881718,3a,75y,340.65h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHdnmhZ5oAyJeoByLl959ow!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) of where 2 regular-sized banners are placed above (& side-by-side) an oversized shield.

I'll also add that today I obverved several shields on the southern part of I-495 and all of MA-25 that used a crossbar to center a banner over the oversized shield. I had never paid attention to this I guess but I definitely now recall seeing it in other places.

The problem with such a mounting is that the crossbar piece may prevent the support posts from properly yielding if struck by a vehicle.  This is one of the reasons that the cardinal direction plates are normally mounted to the left post of such installations, and not centered over the shield.

Note that, on Interstates and freeways, MassDOT has begun phasing out the use of the twin telescopic posts in favor of single slip-base mounted steel beams to support route markers, as this support method is more robust in wind.  The route assemblies recently installed on the I-95 (128) between Wellesley and Lexington are an example of this newer mounting method.

Very interesting, thank you for the insight as always. The new design looks good, and of course it's great that it's safer in case of accident.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: mass_citizen on May 26, 2016, 12:48:56 AM
Quote from: roadman on May 19, 2016, 08:19:25 PM

Note that, on Interstates and freeways, MassDOT has begun phasing out the use of the twin telescopic posts in favor of single slip-base mounted steel beams to support route markers, as this support method is more robust in wind.  The route assemblies recently installed on the I-95 (128) between Wellesley and Lexington are an example of this newer mounting method.

The I-93 Boston to Randolph project also has these supports
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: southshore720 on June 06, 2016, 11:45:07 PM
I was just on this stretch the other day.  Exits 1-4 are completely done; Exit 5 is on hold due to the exit's closure; Exits 6-8 are spotty...no diagrammatic installed for the left Exit 8B to 24 North yet.  I believe most of Exits 9-11 are done, but I haven't been down that way in a while.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 07, 2016, 10:47:27 AM
Does anyone know if they will be re-opening the southbound rest area in Swansea?  According to GSV, MASSDOT has been using it as a staging area for sign replacement.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: southshore720 on April 18, 2017, 11:54:55 AM
Regarding the Pawtucket Ave. accelerated bridge project in East Providence:
Does anyone know if they are going to replace those decrepit non-reflective BGSs that were once affixed to the bridge for Exits 7 and 8 in this project?  I'm assuming RI is going to follow suit with current practice and not re-attach BGS to bridges.
UPDATE 4/29/18:  These signs were replaced, which means that the NB moldy oldies for Exits 6 and 7 are the last vintage pair standing.  Still no permanent BGS for Exit 8.  In true RI style, they are using the LGS as the "good enough" replacement.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: southshore720 on April 29, 2018, 02:29:48 PM
OK, WHAT IS GOING ON with this sign replacement project on I-195?  Two years in and we still have an entire truckload of signage still waiting in a closed rest area waiting to be erected.  That includes sign bridges for the Fall River area, especially the MA 24 overlap.  Don't these contractors have a time limit, and don't they get fined if they exceed that time limit?  Delays are understandable, but this is getting to be ridiculous.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: southshore720 on December 06, 2018, 05:02:51 PM
^ Update Dec 2018:  NO PROGRESS on this sign replacement project.  Have they all but given up?  Does MASSDOT find this to be acceptable?  What can possibly justify this kind of delay?  How can the contractors be rewarded for not completing the job?
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: AMLNet49 on December 07, 2018, 11:21:35 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on December 06, 2018, 05:02:51 PM
^ Update Dec 2018:  NO PROGRESS on this sign replacement project.  Have they all but given up?  Does MASSDOT find this to be acceptable?  What can possibly justify this kind of delay?  How can the contractors be rewarded for not completing the job?

How can you “give up” on a project after spending thousands on signs and gantries, especially after starting? The signs have probably lost reflectivity just sitting there. I wonder if it’s a manpower shortage, because otherwise to do no work during the warm summer months is inexcusable
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: bob7374 on December 07, 2018, 11:57:16 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 07, 2018, 11:21:35 AM
Quote from: southshore720 on December 06, 2018, 05:02:51 PM
^ Update Dec 2018:  NO PROGRESS on this sign replacement project.  Have they all but given up?  Does MASSDOT find this to be acceptable?  What can possibly justify this kind of delay?  How can the contractors be rewarded for not completing the job?
How can you "give up"  on a project after spending thousands on signs and gantries, especially after starting? The signs have probably lost reflectivity just sitting there. I wonder if it's a manpower shortage, because otherwise to do no work during the warm summer months is inexcusable
The MassDOT project status report still lists this project as under construction, 95% complete, and due to be complete in the fall of 2015.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: bob7374 on June 09, 2020, 10:22:39 PM
Bumping up this thread. MassDOT was suppose to announce the winning bidder for a small sign contract (609299) covering the replacement of several overhead signs related to the I-195/MA 24 interchange this afternoon (6/9). These signs were not replaced during the last I-195 replacement contract apparently due to environmental concerns. The special provisions document on the contract bid page indicates that all the current right side foundations for the existing signs will be removed, but that the median foundations will be kept for use by the new signs. It also states that all the sign structures and supports created for the last replacement contract that were not put up, and that are stored at the I-195 East rest area in Swansea, are to be "removed and discarded." Is this because those signs will not fit on the new supports? New new signs will be created for this project. For those who want to read the documents, they are here:
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-20-1030-0H100-0H002-50570&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-20-1030-0H100-0H002-50570&external=true&parentUrl=bid)
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: southshore720 on June 10, 2020, 07:13:57 PM
Thank you for the update, Bob!  It's amazing this project dragged on for so long!  How were the "environmental impacts" not evaluated during the initial sign replacement project?
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: roadman on June 11, 2020, 01:11:17 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on June 10, 2020, 07:13:57 PM
Thank you for the update, Bob!  It's amazing this project dragged on for so long!  How were the "environmental impacts" not evaluated during the initial sign replacement project?

My understanding is that providing the median uprights for the new sign supports would have required spread footing foundations due to soil conditions.  Standard MassDOT practice for overhead sign structures is to have the Contractor conduct the soil borings before the fabricator prepares the exact design, which is why the need for spread footings at these locations (which all have existing structures) wasn't identified during the design of the previous 195 project.  My guess is that the environmental impacts cited are likely related to fact that long term lane shifts would have been needed to install spread footings at these locations.

The support designs in the 609299 contract avoid the need for median uprights, by using a combination of complete spans (across both roadways) and cantilevers.  All median uprights have been eliminated.

Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: roadman on June 12, 2020, 09:57:59 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 09, 2020, 10:22:39 PM
The special provisions document on the contract bid page indicates that all the current right side foundations for the existing signs will be removed, but that the median foundations will be kept for use by the new signs. It also states that all the sign structures and supports created for the last replacement contract that were not put up, and that are stored at the I-195 East rest area in Swansea, are to be "removed and discarded." Is this because those signs will not fit on the new supports? New new signs will be created for this project. For those who want to read the documents, they are here:
https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-20-1030-0H100-0H002-50570&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-20-1030-0H100-0H002-50570&external=true&parentUrl=bid)


Just to clarify Bob.  The median foundations for the existing sign supports will be abandoned in place, and not reused for the new sign supports .
As I noted in my previous post, the new sign supports being installed will be a combination of complete span structures (across both sides on the roadway), cantilever supports, and 'double panel' cantilever supports.  No new median-mounted supports will be provided.  Because of this, none of the sign supports currently in storage at the Seekonk rest area can be used or re-purposed for this project.  However, all the sign panels currently in the Seekonk rest area can and will be used  No new sign panels will be fabricated under the project.
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: bob7374 on June 16, 2020, 12:01:14 AM
Thanks for the clarification, it was hard to tell reading the document whether the disposal was referring to just the sign structures or the signs. The winning bidder was Roadsafe Traffic Systems at $849,976, typical winner Liddell Bros. had a bid of $959,200. MassDOT's estimated cost is $741,156. Will they accept the bid, or try again for something lower?

Meanwhile, I took a photo this past Sunday of one of the signs to be replaced on Route 24 North:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24signs620m.JPG&hash=31d8dce23bc560abf00825ee304ba9e13788e36f)

And one of the signs on I-195 East:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24signs620o.JPG&hash=399e100d53506a83d93d5ced5ac59794639b99ca)
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: Alps on June 16, 2020, 12:37:08 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 16, 2020, 12:01:14 AM
Thanks for the clarification, it was hard to tell reading the document whether the disposal was referring to just the sign structures or the signs. The winning bidder was Roadsafe Traffic Systems at $849,976, typical winner Liddell Bros. had a bid of $959,200. MassDOT's estimated cost is $741,156. Will they accept the bid, or try again for something lower?

Meanwhile, I took a photo this past Sunday of one of the signs to be replaced on Route 24 North:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24signs620m.JPG&hash=31d8dce23bc560abf00825ee304ba9e13788e36f)

And one of the signs on I-195 East:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fmass21c%2Fma24signs620o.JPG&hash=399e100d53506a83d93d5ced5ac59794639b99ca)
Does MassHighway (sorry, I was there 2001-2006) have a threshold above which a bid is rejected? 15%? 20%?
Title: Re: Interstate 195 (RI/MA)
Post by: roadman on June 16, 2020, 01:57:05 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 16, 2020, 12:37:08 AM
Does MassHighway (sorry, I was there 2001-2006) have a threshold above which a bid is rejected? 15%? 20%?

AFAIK, MassDOT does not have a specific threshold at which a bid is automatically rejected.  Rather, my experience has been that bids that are noticeably higher than the office estimate are reviewed on a case by case basis.