Interstate 95 signing work

[SignBridge]

These overhead signs are new? MassDOT should be aware that the Manual now requires the arrow to be placed between the words Exit and Only on the yellow panel. Instead they've adhered to the older practice. Typical......

[PHLBOS]

These overhead signs are new? MassDOT should be aware that the Manual now requires the arrow to be placed between the words Exit and Only on the yellow panel. Instead they've adhered to the older practice. Typical......

Yes, that BGS is new.  It's worth noting that prior to the reconstruction; MA 109 had 2-through lanes and the old BGS had no EXIT ONLY tab/legend but had a similar layout; at the time, there was no need for such.

One has to wonder if the lane restriping, making the right lane a must-exit lane was a design change and the already-fabricated BGS had the yellow EXIT ONLY portion retrofitted prior to it being delivered & installed.  Roadman can confirm/correct.

[roadman]

These overhead signs are new? MassDOT should be aware that the Manual now requires the arrow to be placed between the words Exit and Only on the yellow panel. Instead they've adhered to the older practice. Typical......

Yes, that BGS is new.  It's worth noting that prior to the reconstruction; MA 109 had 2-through lanes and the old BGS had no EXIT ONLY tab/legend but had a similar layout; at the time, there was no need for such.

One has to wonder if the lane restriping, making the right lane a must-exit lane was a design change and the already-fabricated BGS had the yellow EXIT ONLY portion retrofitted prior to it being delivered & installed.  Roadman can confirm/correct.

PHLBOS is correct.  The lane configuration on the Route 109 bridge over I-95 was revised to make the right lane must exit as a permanent change.  As the sign support had already been fabricated, the design of the sign panel was retrofitted to add the EXIT ONLY banner without altering the panel size.

[PHLBOS]

Thread bump but no photos:

The remaining replacement interchange BGS' for the MA 2 interchange (Exits 29A-B) were installed (on cantilevered gantries) within the last few weeks.  As of last weekend, the old BGS' (originally-structure-mounted but then moved to ground-mounted wooden posts when the adjacent MA 2 overpass replacement project began) are still present.

Interestingly, the legends on the newer BGS' mimic the 2-destination legends of the previous BGS'.  For those that may not recall, the other new BGS' contained single-destination signage (Fitchburg for MA 2 West & Boston for MA 2 East).  While Fitchburg was also used on the previous 2 westbound signage along with Acton; Boston was not used for previous 2 eastbound signage in this area (both the new & old BGS read EXIT 29A-2 EAST-Arlington-Cambridge).

This recent sign-legend inconsistency begs the question: were these new BGS' (near the overpass) installed as part of the MA 2 replacement overpass project or part of the overall I-95 replacement signage project?

[roadman]

This recent sign-legend inconsistency begs the question: were these new BGS' (near the overpass) installed as part of the MA 2 replacement overpass project or part of the overall I-95 replacement signage project?

Most likely, they were fabricated and installed under the Route 2 bridge project.  And the fact they used the old legends tends to tell me that nobody at higher levels was consulted first about the panel design.  By adding an additional legend on the exit direction signs that is not included on any of the advance signs, these new signs are actually in violation of the MUTCD.

[bob7374]

This recent sign-legend inconsistency begs the question: were these new BGS' (near the overpass) installed as part of the MA 2 replacement overpass project or part of the overall I-95 replacement signage project?

Most likely, they were fabricated and installed under the Route 2 bridge project.  And the fact they used the old legends tends to tell me that nobody at higher levels was consulted first about the panel design.  By adding an additional legend on the exit direction signs that is not included on any of the advance signs, these new signs are actually in violation of the MUTCD.

There's a possibility I may be driving in that area tomorrow, and, if so, I'll try to get some photos. Meanwhile, here's the previous MA 2 West exit sign northbound, which sounds identical to the new one based on the description:

[PHLBOS]

There's a possibility I may be driving in that area tomorrow, and, if so, I'll try to get some photos. Meanwhile, here's the previous MA 2 West exit sign northbound, which sounds identical to the new one based on the description:

As of this past Sunday (June 26), the old BGS' were still present but moved to wooden posts away from the overpass.  The new BGS' & gantry are located closer to the new overpass.

As stated earlier, the legend inconsistency is more apparent for the MA 2 eastbound ramp BGS due to the use of Boston (as opposed to Arlington and/or Cambridge) on the other new BGS'. 

Personally, I still think signing MA 2 eastbound for Boston at this location doesn't make sense; since such is not a continuous freeway to Boston (east of the Alewife T station, MA 2 becomes largely a 2-lane road).  IMHO, Cambridge should have been used for the single-destination signage instead since the freeway does indeed end at the western edge of Cambridge.

[mass_citizen]

Personally, I still think signing MA 2 eastbound for Boston at this location doesn't make sense; since such is not a continuous freeway to Boston (east of the Alewife T station, MA 2 becomes largely a 2-lane road).  IMHO, Cambridge should have been used for the single-destination signage instead since the freeway does indeed end at the western edge of Cambridge.

Agreed, no one driving on I-95 in that area is going to be taking Route 2 to get to Boston. Arlington and/or Cambridge made perfect sense...and of course MassDOT changed it. If you ask them however I'm sure they will give some boilerplate explanation that somehow blames it on the Feds/MUTCD (as usual)

[Rothman]

I rarely drive past Alewife on Route 2 headed inward from I-95.

[bob7374]

Here's the new signage for MA 2. First heading south on I-95:

Where's Boston?

Second, heading north, with the addition of Acton:


New overhead gantries have now gone up on the MA 2 bridge, don't know if the signs are new or not, but they have the same control cities as the old one. Here for I-95 North on MA 2 East:


The southbound control city is Attleboro.

[PurdueBill]

The lettering for the control cities on the signs on 128/95 seems small.  I also am not a fan of the exit tab having a full white border all the way around--I thought the Mass specs were for it to not have a bottom white border because it would meet the main sign's white border. The main signs don't have the upper right corner squared like the specs have done either.

The sign shown on Route 2 looks good, but the 128 assembly is a mess with the NORTH banner misplaced and a hard right arrow where an angled one belongs.  Is the ramp advisory speed sign a tad small too?

[SignBridge]

How do they come up with Peabody as a control city on I-95? Again, the concept of signing on the Interstate system is supposed to be for drivers unfamiliar with the local area. Portsmouth, NH would be the logical choice after Boston, wouldn't it? How many out-of-town drivers know where a small city like Peabody is?

[hotdogPi]

How do they come up with Peabody as a control city on I-95? Again, the concept of signing on the Interstate system is supposed to be for drivers unfamiliar with the local area. Portsmouth, NH would be the logical choice after Boston, wouldn't it? How many out-of-town drivers know where a small city like Peabody is?

Peabody, MA is actually larger than Portsmouth, NH.

[SignBridge]

I stand corrected 1. I just looked it up and Peabody has a pop. of 52K with Portsmouth having less than half that at 21K. But I'll bet Portsmouth is the better known of the two. However if we're signing by the largest cities than Peabody is correct after all. Thanks!

[shadyjay]

The Peabody dates back to the 128 days.  Originally, I believe the control cities on this portion of I-95 were Peabody and Dedham.  Some older ones, pre-I-95 have said Gloucester (an old one from Route 9 said Dedham/Gloucester".  During the 1990s, dual control cities NB showed Peabody/NH-Maine (later changed to Portsmouth) and SB showed Dedham/Providence. 

[machias]

Here's the new signage for MA 2. First heading south on I-95:

Where's Boston?

Second, heading north, with the addition of Acton:


New overhead gantries have now gone up on the MA 2 bridge, don't know if the signs are new or not, but they have the same control cities as the old one. Here for I-95 North on MA 2 East:


The southbound control city is Attleboro.

Are these signs all the same age and/or part of the same contract? I'm trying to figure out why the design of the signs on 128 (heh) is different that the design of the sign on MA 2.

[SignBridge]

Well Route-128 was a much more local type highway in the 1950's than I-95 would be in later years. I could understand those kinds of destinations in that era. Today I would think that southbound I-95 would be signed first for Boston and then for Providence, RI. Again the idea is to use the largest/most important cities on Interstate Highways.

[AMLNet49]

Well Route-128 was a much more local type highway in the 1950's than I-95 would be in later years. I could understand those kinds of destinations in that era. Today I would think that southbound I-95 would be signed first for Boston and then for Providence, RI. Again the idea is to use the largest/most important cities on Interstate Highways.

Peabody is also the location of the I-95/128 split so that may have played a factor. Just a guess though.

[Alps]

I stand corrected 1. I just looked it up and Peabody has a pop. of 52K with Portsmouth having less than half that at 21K. But I'll bet Portsmouth is the better known of the two. However if we're signing by the largest cities than Peabody is correct after all. Thanks!

Yeah, well that doesn't always mean a lot. Peabody is a large suburb of Boston, while Portsmouth is a small but important port city destination. There are plenty of suburbs in NJ larger than many "large towns" or small cities in other states, and far less important.

[roadman]

The lettering for the control cities on the signs on 128/95 seems small.  I also am not a fan of the exit tab having a full white border all the way around--I thought the Mass specs were for it to not have a bottom white border because it would meet the main sign's white border. The main signs don't have the upper right corner squared like the specs have done either.

The sign shown on Route 2 looks good, but the 128 assembly is a mess with the NORTH banner misplaced and a hard right arrow where an angled one belongs.  Is the ramp advisory speed sign a tad small too?

Legends on the new overhead signs on I-95 (128) appear to be 13.33"/10" instead of 16"/12".  Most of the overhead signs on Route 2 were fabricated and installed under the recent Lincoln to Arlington sign replacement project, and reset onto new supports under the Route 2 bridge project.  The sole exceptions were the pull-through signs on Route 2 east at I-95(128) south and Route 2 west at I-95 (128) north.  Because the existing exit signs at these locations were reset onto new 'double panel' cantilever supports instead of full span structures - this was done mainly for construction staging reasons - it was practical to reset the pull-through signs, so they were just removed.

And I agree with you about the Route 128 markers - which predate the Route 2 bridge project and were reset "as-is".  What was somebody thinking here?

[MikeCL]

I saw this at this rest stop in Middleton, CT why not just replace the whole sign?


iPhone

[MikeCL]

iPhone

[Alps]

That sign is more greenout than legend at this point.

[noelbotevera]

iPhone

Getting CraIG CouNtY vibes here.

And this area seems to have changed a lot in 2010 (the last time I was in New Haven).

[roadman]

Are these signs all the same age and/or part of the same contract? I'm trying to figure out why the design of the signs on 128 (heh) is different that the design of the sign on MA 2.

As I noted above, the signs on MA 2 were originally fabricated and installed under the Lincoln to Arlington MA 2 sign replacement project completed in 2012, as were reset onto new supports as part of the bridge replacement project.  The new signs for Route 2 on I-95 (MA 128) were fabricated and installed under the MA 2 over I-95 bridge replacement project, which was a design-build project.  Typically, once the conceptual plans are approved, review of plans and submissions for design-build projects is normally handled directly by the project team and the designer of record, instead of through the various MassDOT sections such as Traffic and Highway Design.  This would explain the use of inconsistent destinations, the smaller than standard letter sizes, and the generally inconsistent workmanship (i.e. exit tab borders) on the new signs on the I-95 mainline.