Route 1A Boston to Revere sign project

[roadman]

Bids were opened this afternoon on MassDOT's Route 1A sign replacement project from the East Boston viaduct in Boston to Bell Circle in Revere.  Liddell Brothers in Halifax, MA was the apparent low bidder.

[PHLBOS]

Interesting. 

Most of the BGS' along the East Boston Expressway viaduct aren't that old (& are still in decent shape) and most of the paddle style D6/D8 LGS' at Bell Circle were also just recently replaced (the old double-paneled D6 signs on a single post were replaced with two separate D6 signs & posts).  These are the newest signs to still use the old-school NH-MAINE listings (for Route 60 West).

The oldest BGS' on the project work limits are these two from the late 70s.

Hopefully, the new signs for 1A South from Bell Circle will finally acknowledge that there are two available tunnels to Boston and not just one.  This replacement LGS/D6 sign for 1A South still has a Pre-Big Dig era legend.  Personally, I would replace the Sumner Tunnel legend with either Logan Airport or Airport - Tunnels legends.

[bob7374]

Bids were opened this afternoon on MassDOT's Route 1A sign replacement project from the East Boston viaduct in Boston to Bell Circle in Revere.  Liddell Brothers in Halifax, MA was the apparent low bidder.

Which probably means you'll not see any work on the 1A project started until their work on the Mass Pike is completed since they seem to only have the resources to work 1 contract at a time. From viewing traffic cameras along the Pike it appears they were digging besides the westbound lanes across from the Weston exit eastbound to place a foundation for a new overhead sign at the I-95/128 exit last week. Work delayed while they completed their signage contract for the Toll Demolition project. If they don't get all the foundations down soon they'll have to wait until next spring to complete the work, the time the project was supposed to be completed.

[jp the roadgeek]

It'll be interesting to see if the signing project contains provisions to add exit numbers.

[PHLBOS]

It'll be interesting to see if the signing project contains provisions to add exit numbers.

I don't believe that are any plans to add Exit numbers along the East Boston Expressway portion of 1A; the road's way too short to warrant such IMHO.

[roadman]

It'll be interesting to see if the signing project contains provisions to add exit numbers.

I don't believe that are any plans to add Exit numbers along the East Boston Expressway portion of 1A; the road's way too short to warrant such IMHO.

That is correct.  Not enough grade separated interchanges between Bell Circle and the Sumner Tunnel to justify numbering the stretch.

[AMLNet49]

Will there be better signage of the exits and on-ramps right around the tunnel itself, as the viaduct descends to the tunnel and vice versa?

There is currently only one advance signs eastbound (coming out of the tunnel) for the first exit, with a pull-through that has Route 1A in text instead of a shield, plus a gore sign which has the destination as well.

Going westbound, there is zero advance signage for the final exit before the tunnel, only a pull through with a single diagonal arrow, and a gore point ground mounted BGS again signaling the tunnel not the exit. There is no signage on either of the two streets that empty into Route 1A at the toll plaza here as well, but most importantly there is no signage, even well in advance, of the exit.

There is also an older all-caps overhead BGS for the airport shortly before ascending the viaduct (EDIT/CORRECTION: this sign has recently been replaced but it appears all the others I mention here remain). There is now an airport shield at the on-ramp that follows (the last one before ascending the viaduct), but for some reason not a Route 1A shield with it.

[roadman]

Will there be better signage of the exits and on-ramps right around the tunnel itself, as the viaduct descends to the tunnel and vice versa?

There is currently only one advance signs eastbound (coming out of the tunnel) for the first exit, with a pull-through that has Route 1A in text instead of a shield, plus a gore sign which has the destination as well.

Going westbound, there is zero advance signage for the final exit before the tunnel, only a pull through with a single diagonal arrow, and a gore point ground mounted BGS again signaling the tunnel not the exit. There is no signage on either of the two streets that empty into Route 1A at the toll plaza here as well, but most importantly there is no signage, even well in advance, of the exit.

There is also an older all-caps overhead BGS for the airport shortly before ascending the viaduct (EDIT/CORRECTION: this sign has recently been replaced but it appears all the others I mention here remain). There is now an airport shield at the on-ramp that follows (the last one before ascending the viaduct), but for some reason not a Route 1A shield with it.

Advance signing for the tunnels will be improved under this project.  Signing just before the Sumner Tunnel entrance is being improved as part of the Sumner Tunnel legacy toll plaza demolition work.

[Mergingtraffic]

Does this include the Sumner Tunnel button copy signs?

[roadman]

Does this include the Sumner Tunnel button copy signs?

Sumner Tunnel button copy signs are being replaced under the legacy toll plaza demo project.

[bob7374]

Looking at the Bid Tabulation for the contract, had some questions regarding the bid by Liddell Bros. It seems their bid was lower than the MassDOT estimate and the competing bid by Roadsafe Traffic Systems due to some extremely small estimates for some of the items needed to purchase. For example, Item 841.6 Supports for Guide Signs. MassDOT estimates for the 19 to be needed is $1,400 each, yet Liddell says it can get them for $1 each, thus producing savings of more than $26,000. Does Liddell have 19 supports laying around which they do not need to buy? Another item is traffic cones, Item 851.1. MassDOT says 140 will need to be purchased at a cost of $100, totaling $14,000 while Liddell says it can buy them at .01 (1 cent) each for a total of $1.40. Is this another case where they already have them and thus don't need to put in a realistic bid for the item?

[Alps]

Looking at the Bid Tabulation for the contract, had some questions regarding the bid by Liddell Bros. It seems their bid was lower than the MassDOT estimate and the competing bid by Roadsafe Traffic Systems due to some extremely small estimates for some of the items needed to purchase. For example, Item 841.6 Supports for Guide Signs. MassDOT estimates for the 19 to be needed is $1,400 each, yet Liddell says it can get them for $1 each, thus producing savings of more than $26,000. Does Liddell have 19 supports laying around which they do not need to buy? Another item is traffic cones, Item 851.1. MassDOT says 140 will need to be purchased at a cost of $100, totaling $14,000 while Liddell says it can buy them at .01 (1 cent) each for a total of $1.40. Is this another case where they already have them and thus don't need to put in a realistic bid for the item?

Whenever someone low bids an item like that, they are intentionally losing money on it while high bidding another item. Basically they identified what they believe is a bust in the estimate, and they are hoping that their high-bid item needs another few dozen of whatever it is, such that they end up making money overall. Common trick.

[roadman]

Looking at the Bid Tabulation for the contract, had some questions regarding the bid by Liddell Bros. It seems their bid was lower than the MassDOT estimate and the competing bid by Roadsafe Traffic Systems due to some extremely small estimates for some of the items needed to purchase. For example, Item 841.6 Supports for Guide Signs. MassDOT estimates for the 19 to be needed is $1,400 each, yet Liddell says it can get them for $1 each, thus producing savings of more than $26,000. Does Liddell have 19 supports laying around which they do not need to buy? Another item is traffic cones, Item 851.1. MassDOT says 140 will need to be purchased at a cost of $100, totaling $14,000 while Liddell says it can buy them at .01 (1 cent) each for a total of $1.40. Is this another case where they already have them and thus don't need to put in a realistic bid for the item?

One clarification.  The MassDOT Cones for Traffic Management item is on a per day basis, not per cone furnished.  Number of cones required at any given time, and the need to reset those cones to accommodate changes in the work area, is determined by the Resident Engineer during specific work activities.  So the quantity bid on is 140 days, not 140 cones.  This item is normally not included in sign replacement work on Interstates and freeways, unless there will be significant work activity at at-grade intersections - which is obviously the case with the Route 1A project.

Also note that one of the principal businesses for firms like Liddell and RoadSafe is to provide temporary traffic control for other contractors, utility companies, and the like, who are charged top dollar for those services.  That is why, on sign replacement projects like these, you often see them bid very low bid prices for the traffic control items - because they normally have the items lying around otherwise not making any money for them.

[mass_citizen]

Looking at the Bid Tabulation for the contract, had some questions regarding the bid by Liddell Bros. It seems their bid was lower than the MassDOT estimate and the competing bid by Roadsafe Traffic Systems due to some extremely small estimates for some of the items needed to purchase. For example, Item 841.6 Supports for Guide Signs. MassDOT estimates for the 19 to be needed is $1,400 each, yet Liddell says it can get them for $1 each, thus producing savings of more than $26,000. Does Liddell have 19 supports laying around which they do not need to buy? Another item is traffic cones, Item 851.1. MassDOT says 140 will need to be purchased at a cost of $100, totaling $14,000 while Liddell says it can buy them at .01 (1 cent) each for a total of $1.40. Is this another case where they already have them and thus don't need to put in a realistic bid for the item?

Whenever someone low bids an item like that, they are intentionally losing money on it while high bidding another item. Basically they identified what they believe is a bust in the estimate, and they are hoping that their high-bid item needs another few dozen of whatever it is, such that they end up making money overall. Common trick.

It does not always mean the estimate has an error, another common reason is contractors like to "front load" payment so they receive larger sums of money at the beginning of the project (a common reason they tend to take their time closing out a project and/or completing punchlist items as they are not making much profit if any.)

[bob7374]

According to the project listing, the Notice to Proceed was given for the project on January 19 with a completion date of Spring 2019.