News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Main Menu

Interstate 95 signing work

Started by roadman, March 06, 2012, 07:46:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

southshore720

I was on the North Shore over Labor Day weekend and noticed that I-95 in the Reading/Wakefield/Lynnfield area and MA-128 in the Peabody/Danvers area still had old BGS signage, despite the signage replacements that surround both of these stretches.  Was that intentional, or accidental?


PHLBOS

Quote from: southshore720 on September 06, 2017, 04:37:56 PM
I was on the North Shore over Labor Day weekend and noticed that I-95 in the Reading/Wakefield/Lynnfield area and MA-128 in the Peabody/Danvers area still had old BGS signage, despite the signage replacements that surround both of these stretches.  Was that intentional, or accidental?
The MA 128 signage in Peabody/Danvers (between MA 114 & Endicott St.) wasn't part of any I-95 signing contract.  Such would likely be a separate contract.  The signage at the MA 35 & MA 62 interchanges are fairly new as a result of the reconfigured interchanges (tight cloverleafs to diamonds).

IIRC, the Reading to Lynnfield signage along I-95 are newer than the older signs along other sections so that's probably why such haven't been replaced yet.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

bob7374

Quote from: PHLBOS on September 06, 2017, 05:32:35 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on September 06, 2017, 04:37:56 PM
I was on the North Shore over Labor Day weekend and noticed that I-95 in the Reading/Wakefield/Lynnfield area and MA-128 in the Peabody/Danvers area still had old BGS signage, despite the signage replacements that surround both of these stretches.  Was that intentional, or accidental?
The MA 128 signage in Peabody/Danvers (between MA 114 & Endicott St.) wasn't part of any I-95 signing contract.  Such would likely be a separate contract.  The signage at the MA 35 & MA 62 interchanges are fairly new as a result of the reconfigured interchanges (tight cloverleafs to diamonds).

IIRC, the Reading to Lynnfield signage along I-95 are newer than the older signs along other sections so that's probably why such haven't been replaced yet.
The signage along I-95/128 between Reading and Lynnfield (Exits 38 to 44) is due to be replaced by a project (No. 608205) due to start in the winter of 2019/2020. The Notice to Proceed on the project was given on Aug. 18.

roadman

#378
Quote from: bob7374 on September 06, 2017, 10:54:43 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 06, 2017, 05:32:35 PM
Quote from: southshore720 on September 06, 2017, 04:37:56 PM
I was on the North Shore over Labor Day weekend and noticed that I-95 in the Reading/Wakefield/Lynnfield area and MA-128 in the Peabody/Danvers area still had old BGS signage, despite the signage replacements that surround both of these stretches.  Was that intentional, or accidental?
The MA 128 signage in Peabody/Danvers (between MA 114 & Endicott St.) wasn't part of any I-95 signing contract.  Such would likely be a separate contract.  The signage at the MA 35 & MA 62 interchanges are fairly new as a result of the reconfigured interchanges (tight cloverleafs to diamonds).

IIRC, the Reading to Lynnfield signage along I-95 are newer than the older signs along other sections so that's probably why such haven't been replaced yet.
The signage along I-95/128 between Reading and Lynnfield (Exits 38 to 44) is due to be replaced by a project (No. 608205) due to start in the winter of 2019/2020. The Notice to Proceed on the project was given on Aug. 18.
One clarification - NTP was given to the consultant responsible for the design work for the project, and not for the actual construction.  Project advertisement for bids is expected to occur in Summer of 2019.

The signing between Route 114 in Peabody and Route 35 in Danvers is scheduled to be updated as part of the pending project (607954) to replace the bridge carrying Route 128 over the Waters River - this project will include adding an auxiliary lane each way on Route 128 between Route 114 and Endicott Street.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

PHLBOS

Quote from: roadman on September 08, 2017, 06:31:56 AMThe signing between Route 114 in Peabody and Route 35 in Danvers is scheduled to be updated as part of the pending project (607954) to replace the bridge carrying Route 128 over the Waters River - this project will include adding an auxiliary lane each way on Route 128 between Route 114 and Endicott Street.
IMHO, the stretch within the 114 cloverleaf should have an auxiliary lane, especially for the southbound direction (yes, I'm aware that doing such would mean replacing the 114 overpass).
GPS does NOT equal GOD

bob7374

Have posted several photos of new signage for the Highland Ave exits along I-95/MA 128 in the Add-A-Lane Project work zone in Needham. New overheads are both northbound:


and southbound:


The full set on my I-95 in MA Photo Gallery: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane

bob7374

Several new exit signs have now been added northbound in Needham. Including this 2-for-1 special:


The full set of latest photos can be found on the I-95 in Mass. Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane

PHLBOS

Quote from: bob7374 on October 17, 2017, 06:18:14 PM
Another recent example of two BGS' mounted on one single cantilevered gantry in the Bay State.  The first one I've seen was further north at the US 3/MA 3A interchange/Exit 33B-A along I-95/MA 128 southbound.

There's another recent example of a two BGS panels on a cantilevered gantry is along I-90 westbound in the Springfield area.  That gantry design is that of a single pipe/tube.

I'd be curious to see/know whether or not the additional weight (of the additional BGS panel) will ultimately shorten the strength lifespan of the cantilevered gantries.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

roadman

Quote from: PHLBOS on October 18, 2017, 09:32:24 AM
I'd be curious to see/know whether or not the additional weight (of the additional BGS panel) will ultimately shorten the strength lifespan of the cantilevered gantries.

"Double panel" cantilever supports generally have uprights with greater wall thickness than comparable span structures.  Also, the foundations are generally deeper and often larger than for traditional span structures.  Lastly, current AASHTO specifications to sign supports - which recent MassDOT designs, including the add-a-lane supports, are based on - place far greater emphasis on potential fatigue effects than previous editions did.

So, unless there is an underlying deficiency in either the metal or the welds (which caused the failure of a similar, but much older, "double panel" cantilever support on I-93 outside Concord, New Hampshire a few years back), and excluding failure from an overheight vehicle impact, it is highly probable that the structure will be OK until it is replaced some 36 to 40 years from now.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

PHLBOS

Quote from: roadman on October 18, 2017, 10:00:02 AM"Double panel" cantilever supports generally have uprights with greater wall thickness than comparable span structures.  Also, the foundations are generally deeper and often larger than for traditional span structures.  Lastly, current AASHTO specifications to sign supports - which recent MassDOT designs, including the add-a-lane supports, are based on - place far greater emphasis on potential fatigue effects than previous editions did.

So, unless there is an underlying deficiency in either the metal or the welds (which caused the failure of a similar, but much older, "double panel" cantilever support on I-93 outside Concord, New Hampshire a few years back), and excluding failure from an overheight vehicle impact, it is highly probable that the structure will be OK until it is replaced some 36 to 40 years from now.
Good to know.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

bob7374

Traveled along I-95 North this Saturday to check out the new exit ramp for Highland Ave. in Needham, and the resulting new exit signs which now all have letter suffixes:


The new ramp exit sign:


Photos of the new ramp and other new signs can be found on my I-95 in Mass. Photo Gallery:
http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane

SignBridge

Good to see that Mass DOT wisely ignores the MUTCD's recommendation of not having a street name and a town name on the same sign. Same as New York DOT. Common sense actually prevails.

roadman

Quote from: SignBridge on November 04, 2017, 09:59:47 PM
Good to see that Mass DOT wisely ignores the MUTCD's recommendation of not having a street name and a town name on the same sign. Same as New York DOT. Common sense actually prevails.
MassDOT considers the street name to be directional information, similar to a route shield, and not a destination.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

PHLBOS

Quote from: roadman on November 05, 2017, 06:22:57 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 04, 2017, 09:59:47 PM
Good to see that Mass DOT wisely ignores the MUTCD's recommendation of not having a street name and a town name on the same sign. Same as New York DOT. Common sense actually prevails.
MassDOT considers the street name to be directional information, similar to a route shield, and not a destination.
As such should be IMHO.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

PurdueBill

Did the MUTCD powers that be ever give a reason for that recommendation?  It seems awfully silly.  Street name and town name are much more useful than just a town name or street name alone in many cases.

SignBridge

I may have heard some reason for that recommendation, but I don't remember. I agree it's silly and I'm really happy that New York and Mass. DOT's ignore it. Unfortunately New Jersey DOT does follow it to a fault. And recently the NJ Turnpike Authority has been removing street names from new exit signs on the Garden State Pkwy. and just posting towns. I hate seeing signs with town names and no road name. It's too general for my taste. I like to know the specific road name or route number for an exit.

storm2k

Quote from: SignBridge on November 07, 2017, 08:12:13 PM
I may have heard some reason for that recommendation, but I don't remember. I agree it's silly and I'm really happy that New York and Mass. DOT's ignore it. Unfortunately New Jersey DOT does follow it to a fault. And recently the NJ Turnpike Authority has been removing street names from new exit signs on the Garden State Pkwy. and just posting towns. I hate seeing signs with town names and no road name. It's too general for my taste. I like to know the specific road name or route number for an exit.

NJDOT doesn't follow it to a fault, though newer signage has tended to omit road names. I agree that it's kind of stupid, because in many places, the road is known more by its name than where it goes.

SignBridge

You're right storm2k. After typing my post I remembered the I-80 exit signs in the Hackensack area used to display both street and town names. Don't know if they still do. Ditto on I-280 in the West Orange area.

J N Winkler

The usual reason given for not combining street and town names on advance guide and exit direction signs is to reduce message loading.  The preferred approach to indicating which towns can be accessed from which exits is to use supplemental guide signs, e.g. "Methuen NEXT 3 EXITS" (next exits sign), "Chicopee NEXT EXIT" (next exit sign), or "Framingham Exits/Ware Rd 1/Natick St 2 1/4" (community interchanges sign).

Message loading in general is managed by limiting the number of message units on any single display, which can be one sign or multiple signs mounted on a common structure and facing the same direction.  This design reference defines message units, explains how to count them, and sets out limits that are deemed consistent with good practice (even when higher message loadings fall within the limits, lower message loadings are still preferred):

http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/fsh/fsh.pdf

This is actually the first time I have heard of the workaround of treating the street name as if it were a shield.  I don't like it because all it takes is a determination by the FHWA state or regional office to enforce the MUTCD as written (good reason required to put city and street names on the same sign) to set up a huge fight.  Most agencies have experienced little difficulty in relegating city names to supplemental guide signs, except in congested urban areas where other factors are at play, such as resort to carbon-copying existing legends to avoid renewing sign structures.  Enhanced 911 also has pushed agencies into using street name signing heavily even in rural areas, where map relatability (the ability to match information between a sign and a map) tends to be good with digital maps like Google Maps but poor with large-scale paper maps like single-sheet state maps.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

roadman

Quote from: J N Winkler on November 09, 2017, 11:15:42 AM
The usual reason given for not combining street and town names on advance guide and exit direction signs is to reduce message loading.  The preferred approach to indicating which towns can be accessed from which exits is to use supplemental guide signs, e.g. "Methuen NEXT 3 EXITS" (next exits sign), "Chicopee NEXT EXIT" (next exit sign), or "Framingham Exits/Ware Rd 1/Natick St 2 1/4" (community interchanges sign).

Message loading in general is managed by limiting the number of message units on any single display, which can be one sign or multiple signs mounted on a common structure and facing the same direction.  This design reference defines message units, explains how to count them, and sets out limits that are deemed consistent with good practice (even when higher message loadings fall within the limits, lower message loadings are still preferred):

http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/fsh/fsh.pdf

This is actually the first time I have heard of the workaround of treating the street name as if it were a shield.  I don't like it because all it takes is a determination by the FHWA state or regional office to enforce the MUTCD as written (good reason required to put city and street names on the same sign) to set up a huge fight.  Most agencies have experienced little difficulty in relegating city names to supplemental guide signs, except in congested urban areas where other factors are at play, such as resort to carbon-copying existing legends to avoid renewing sign structures.  Enhanced 911 also has pushed agencies into using street name signing heavily even in rural areas, where map relatability (the ability to match information between a sign and a map) tends to be good with digital maps like Google Maps but poor with large-scale paper maps like single-sheet state maps.
Not putting a street name and a city name on the same sign is only a recommendation.  Unless FHWA makes it a mandatory condition, I don't see how you'd wind up with an enforcement fight.  As far as message loading, in my view, having a street name and a city name on a sign is no different than using a shield and a city name - it's still two units of information the driver has to process.  And, IMO, the "workaround" is an example of using good engineering judgment instead of exercising blind obedience to the MUTCD.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

storm2k

Quote from: SignBridge on November 08, 2017, 10:42:17 PM
You're right storm2k. After typing my post I remembered the I-80 exit signs in the Hackensack area used to display both street and town names. Don't know if they still do. Ditto on I-280 in the West Orange area.

Most of them do because they haven't been replaced in a while. 287 south of 78 uses both street name and town legends on the signs as well.

shadyjay

There's a sign project going on I-95 in southeast Connecticut, from Groton to the RI state line.  The new signs are substantially changing the legends vs the old signs and is removing the practice of a street name/town on the same sign.  For instance, "Exit 91/CT 234/No. Main St/Stoninington Borough" is becoming "Exit 91/CT 234/Stonington". 

Yes, it does make the sign simpler, but a few miles further west in Groton it will lead to more confusion.  For instance, on I-95 NB Exit 85, the ramp splits, with US 1/Downtown Groton continuing straight and an exit to Thames Street (which leads to Electric Boat and such).  But now, the Thames Street sign will read "Groton Waterfront".  And Exit 87, "Clarence B. Sharp Highway" is being replaced with "Groton City".  Southbound, since there's no Exit 85 in that direction, the primary signs will read "349/Groton City" with supplemental signage reading "Groton Waterfront/Groton Downtown".  So that's 3 Grotons for one exit.  Is that less confusing than using a street name? 

I'm also surprised "US Sub Base" is remaining on the primary Exit 86 signs.  It is a "town of sorts".  And poor Ledyard is left out, with ConnDOT still thinking Gales Ferry is more important to go on the primary signs for Exit 86. 

In some cases, I agree that the street name is more of a route marker than anything else, and a street name/town should be allowed to co-exist.  In other cases, "TOWN - NEXT X EXITS" should suffice.  Or if there's just one exit for the town within its boundaries, then just the route markers and town name(s).  If the exit leads to a unnumbered street, then use the street name and town.  Seeing a sign with just a town name and nothing else is kind of bland. 

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: shadyjay on November 09, 2017, 12:40:16 PM
There's a sign project going on I-95 in southeast Connecticut, from Groton to the RI state line.  The new signs are substantially changing the legends vs the old signs and is removing the practice of a street name/town on the same sign.  For instance, "Exit 91/CT 234/No. Main St/Stoninington Borough" is becoming "Exit 91/CT 234/Stonington". 

Yes, it does make the sign simpler, but a few miles further west in Groton it will lead to more confusion.  For instance, on I-95 NB Exit 85, the ramp splits, with US 1/Downtown Groton continuing straight and an exit to Thames Street (which leads to Electric Boat and such).  But now, the Thames Street sign will read "Groton Waterfront".  And Exit 87, "Clarence B. Sharp Highway" is being replaced with "Groton City".  Southbound, since there's no Exit 85 in that direction, the primary signs will read "349/Groton City" with supplemental signage reading "Groton Waterfront/Groton Downtown".  So that's 3 Grotons for one exit.  Is that less confusing than using a street name? 

I'm also surprised "US Sub Base" is remaining on the primary Exit 86 signs.  It is a "town of sorts".  And poor Ledyard is left out, with ConnDOT still thinking Gales Ferry is more important to go on the primary signs for Exit 86. 

In some cases, I agree that the street name is more of a route marker than anything else, and a street name/town should be allowed to co-exist.  In other cases, "TOWN - NEXT X EXITS" should suffice.  Or if there's just one exit for the town within its boundaries, then just the route markers and town name(s).  If the exit leads to a unnumbered street, then use the street name and town.  Seeing a sign with just a town name and nothing else is kind of bland.

As far as Ledyard, most people now associate it with Foxwoods, and Exit 86 really isn't a preferred exit for it.  I would use Sub Base/Gales Ferry southbound, and Gales Ferry/Old Mystic northbound for Exit 86.  And Exit 87 northbound I would use Avery Point for CT 349.  Only place I would use Ledyard as a control city would be for Exit 92 Southbound (CT 2/CT 49; Ledyard/Voluntown).   
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

shadyjay

True for Ledyard, I guess.  The old signs on the offramp for Exit 86 NB had a pullthrough for CT 184 that said "Center Groton/Ledyard".  Oh no, not another Groton!  (Center, Downtown, Waterfront, City, oh my!)   I bet "Old Mystic" on Exit 86 would confuse people as well, given the fact that Mystic is a big tourism draw in the area.  Best to not mention Mystic until you're within a couple miles of the correct exit. 

Southbound Gold Star signage is also being "simplified".  Exit 83 is going from "US 1/Frontage Rd/New London/Shopping Malls" to "US 1/Frontage Rd".  Exit 84 is having Hodges Squ added, retaining Norwich and a simplified "New London".  Also interesting to note that Exit 83, NB, to CT 32 has a Norwich control point.  Really, this is unecessary, as Exit 76 (I-395) is signed for Norwich (and Plainfield.... grrrr).  Past that, any traffic getting on I-95 to go to Norwich is taking the long-way around.  Exit 81 and 82 entering traffic would just head to CT 85 to get on I-395 at Exit 2.  Perhaps a future sign project on I-95 west of the Thames would rectify those issues. 

J N Winkler

Quote from: roadman on November 09, 2017, 11:45:08 AMAs far as message loading, in my view, having a street name and a city name on a sign is no different than using a shield and a city name - it's still two units of information the driver has to process.

The question then becomes:  how is this better than having just the street name by itself, which is only one unit of information?  In cases where separate municipalities are part of the same urban agglomeration, how do drivers benefit from having the city name on every sign in an action signing sequence rather than on a supplemental sign?  I'd imagine drivers rely more on the street name than the city name for last-mile navigation.  (I can see the city name still being valuable, especially at interchanges fitting into certain unusual configurations, for drivers who treat cities as discrete points for orienteering purposes.  But digital mapping makes street names easier to find in unfamiliar large metropolitan areas, and tends to favor their use for last-mile navigation.)
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.