Interstate 95 signing work

[PHLBOS]

A similar error was done with this BGS along I-95 northbound in Woburn.  The exit tab should read EXITS 38 A-B.

I know in the old days (pre-Exit XX A-B) using just the exit number on the tab was standard MassDPW practice for advance notice interchange BGS' and then Exit XX N/S/E/W tabs were only posted for the individual exit ramps and if the advance notice for said-ramp.

Since mile-marker-based exit numbers are coming in the foreseable future; any related corrections will probably done then (when the exit numbers themselves change) at the latest.

[bob7374]

Update as to I-95 Signing projects in MA:
The Newton to Lexington project is 88% according to the MassDOT listing. The contractor reports continuing to install remaining overhead and ground level signage as of March with Spring 2015 still listed as the completion date. The Peabody to Georgetown project is listed as 44% with the contractor stating they are continuing to install support structures. I hope to travel to both these areas soon to get some updated photos.

New overheads are also continuing to be installed in the Add-A-Lane project area between Dedham and Needham. Traveling through on Patriot's Day (in the rain, so no photos) I noticed new signs are up NB for Exits 16 (MA 109) and 17 (MA 135) since I last traveled there in the fall. There were also new overheads southbound for the 1/2 mile advance and exit signs for MA 109. They are still working on the new MA 109 bridges that is holding up opening the new fourth lanes in this area. Don't know how the winter affected the previous statement by MassDOT that the project was to be complete by this fall.

[bob7374]

I have posted photos taken this weekend along I-95/MA 128 documenting new signage both due to the current Newton-Lexington sign replacement project, such as


as well as new overheads going up in the Add-A-Lane project area between Dedham and Needham, such as


on my I-95 in Mass. Photo Page http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html (the Add-A-Lane photos being further down the page).

There are only 2 overhead signs remaining to be replaced between Newton and Lexington, both for MA 2 and are mounted on a bridge currently under construction which may be delaying the replacement. The only other major item is to place the new reassurance markers along this stretch. As for the Dedham to Needham lane work, only the remaining new MA 109 bridges are holding up the new lanes being used between Exits 15 and 18.

[roadman]

There are only 2 overhead signs remaining to be replaced between Newton and Lexington, both for MA 2 and are mounted on a bridge currently under construction which may be delaying the replacement.

That is correct.  Those signs and cantilever supports will be installed by the Route 2 contractor once the bridges are rebuilt.  Note that current MassDOT policy is to avoid mounting BGS panels to bridge structures unless site conditions preclude the use of an independent support.

[PHLBOS]

I commented similar on FB and probably on either a previous page of this thread or on another thread, but I still think that the above-I-95 North upward-arrow BGS just doesn't look right for this scenario.  It looks like it was designed for a ground-mounted application.

I still prefer the previous layout of the pull-through BGS.

For the new BGS, I just would've matched the legend & layout in-kind.  And if MUTCD/FHWA gets their panties in a wad over the use of two destinations on a through-BGS; I would've used Waltham instead.

[roadman65]

The arrow is not even needed.  Just green it out and it will be fine.

[PHLBOS]

The arrow is not even needed.  Just green it out and it will be fine.

If the arrow wasn't there, one could just arrange the I-95 shield and NORTH cardinal as one line (i.e. 95 NORTH) and such would've made for a much shorter sign height.

[Zeffy]

I still prefer the previous layout of the pull-through BGS.

For the new BGS, I just would've matched the legend & layout in-kind.  And if MUTCD/FHWA gets their panties in a wad over the use of two destinations on a through-BGS; I would've used Waltham instead.

I don't like the design either. Here's what I would've done:



Or, if one wanted to have a pullthrough arrow, even though I think it's not needed here...

[roadman65]

Your ideas are right if the sign was being installed for the first time, but its already here.  Why waste tax dollars and replace the whole panel? Just green out the arrow, and maybe shift around the I-95 shields and cardinal directions and viola! 

Plus look at the pull through on I-78 in Bedminster, NJ for the I-287 interchange going west.  NJDOT wasted space placing the I-78 shield going westbound that results in almost the same as removing exclusively the arrow here, only at least NJDOT got the WEST I-78 in the center pretty much.

[PHLBOS]

Your ideas are right if the sign was being installed for the first time, but its already here.  Why waste tax dollars and replace the whole panel? Just green out the arrow, and maybe shift around the I-95 shields and cardinal directions and viola!

One could place a large green-out plate that reads (via 2-lines):

95 NORTH
Waltham

and place it so that it's centered above the Portsmouth, NH legend without too much trouble nor expense. 
Given the height of that BGS, such a green-out plate would indeed fit.

[roadman65]

Or another idea is to add Portland, ME to the sign giving it two controls or having both Waltham and Portsmouth.  Just the idea of two control cities would work.

[PHLBOS]

Or another idea is to add Portland, ME to the sign giving it two controls or having both Waltham and Portsmouth.  Just the idea of two control cities would work.

Too far south to have Portland, ME added.  The only I-95 signs in MA that lists Portland, ME as a destination are in Salisbury (Exits 58 & 60 on-ramp signage in particular). 

Given that this stretch is still known and referred to as Route 128 (among the locals) despite the lack of signs stating such; listing a more local destination (that's situated along the I-95/MA 128 concurrency) makes more sense.

[shadyjay]

To be honest, I kinda like the new pullthrough and arrow... kind of different in the present homogenized world of signage these days.  I think at least some sort of arrow is important here since only the left lane is for thru traffic.  Of course if I were in charge, both I-95 and 128 would be displayed, and I'd revert back to the NH-Maine control point.  Yeah I know, the feds aren't a fan of that kind of behavior anymore.

[SignBridge]

Route 128 lives! I was up there last week. On the Masspike eastbound at Exit-14 the signs still read (95) (128) I was very surprised to see that, but I kind of liked the Route-128 designation and I think it should be signed as both routes.

I like Zeffy's versions of that pull-through sign. I almost always prefer the direction on the right side of the route-shield. And although I am an MUTCD fan, I agree that 2 destinations could reasonably be shown when space permits, although the Manual suggests only the next control city should be shown on Interstate highways. So Waltham and Portsmouth work for me.

[Beeper1]

On MA-9 eastbound, there is still an overhead BGS, probably from the mid 1970s, that still shows ONLY 128, with the control cities of Dedham and Gloucester, and no mention of I-95 at all.   I think it is the 1 mile advance BGS.

[spooky]

On MA-9 eastbound, there is still an overhead BGS, probably from the mid 1970s, that still shows ONLY 128, with the control cities of Dedham and Gloucester, and no mention of I-95 at all.   I think it is the 1 mile advance BGS.

It is. I wonder why this sign wasn't replaced when all the other Route 9 overhead signage was replaced, and whether it can be replaced as an add-on to the Route 9 interchange project that is happening under the I-95/Rt. 128 add-a-lane.

[PHLBOS]

Route 128 lives! I was up there last week. On the Masspike eastbound at Exit-14 the signs still read (95) (128) I was very surprised to see that, but I kind of liked the Route-128 designation and I think it should be signed as both routes.

Those particular BGS' were erected during the late 80s/early 90s and were Turnpike Authority installations; which might explain why 128 shields were included on the main signs.

It's slated to be replaced in the future with 95-only signs similar to the the new ones that were erected along I-90 westbound.

On MA-9 eastbound, there is still an overhead BGS, probably from the mid 1970s, that still shows ONLY 128, with the control cities of Dedham and Gloucester, and no mention of I-95 at all.   I think it is the 1 mile advance BGS.

I concur, I drove along MA 9 eastbound nearly 2 weeks ago; it's still there.

That BGS was erected circa 1973-74; just prior to the I-95 designation being assigned.

It is. I wonder why this sign wasn't replaced when all the other Route 9 overhead signage was replaced, and whether it can be replaced as an add-on to the Route 9 interchange project that is happening under the I-95/Rt. 128 add-a-lane.

Chances are that the Limits of Work for contract(s) that erected the newer signs along MA 9 did not extend beyond 1/2 mile from the interchange.

[PaulRAnderson]

That is one UGLY ASS ARROW!  Why does it have to be so BIG?

Paul

[roadman]

Or another idea is to add Portland, ME to the sign giving it two controls or having both Waltham and Portsmouth.  Just the idea of two control cities would work.

Since the early 1990s, Waltham and Peabody have been recognized by FHWA and AASHTO as official control cities for I-95 northbound in Massachsuetts.  Blame AASHTO for not actually updating their formal list (despite repeated requests from MassHighway/MassDOT to do so).  Even if this weren't the case, the MUTCD only requires that one destination (typically the bottom one) on multi-destination signs be a control city.

As for the up arrow on the BGS, I agree this is a format you normally see on a ground-mounted sign.  However, I've been told that the rationale for using this format on an overhead "pull-thru' sign was because the ramp continues as two lanes past the MA 30 exit, and there was insufficent width at this location to provide a BGS that had two down arrows (the "correct' way to place through arrows).  Yes, it does look weird, but I understand that MassDOT hasn't gotten any complaints about the new sign yet.

[PHLBOS]

the MUTCD only requires that one destination (typically the bottom one) on multi-destination signs be a control city.

That hasn't stopped MassHighway/DOT from providing an additional destination in the past.  Given the more densely populated area (along with the 128 history); the previous Waltham - Portsmouth, NH listings should've been maintained.  This is where I and MUTCD part ways; one size doesn't always fit all.

Not to mention that the new exit BGS' along I-90 westbound for I-95 lists Waltham as a northbound 95 destination.  There's definitely some inconsistency here.

As for the up arrow on the BGS, I agree this is a format you normally see on a ground-mounted sign.  However, I've been told that the rationale for using this format on an overhead "pull-thru' sign was because the ramp continues as two lanes past the MA 30 exit, and there was insufficent width at this location to provide a BGS that had two down arrows (the "correct' way to place through arrows).  Yes, it does look weird, but I understand that MassDOT hasn't gotten any complaints about the new sign yet.

My 78-year-old mother would complain about the lack of a more local destination listing (plus the absence of 128 on the main signs - I know, old news) if she drove through this area more often than the odd up-arrow. 

A couple years ago, she was totally thrown off with the 95 NORTH Portsmouth, NH on-ramp sign from US 20 further up the road (and wound up initially not taking the ramp to get home).  She was expecting, at least a 128 listing and/or a more local destination on the main signs.  While the old, early-70s era 128 NORTH Gloucester sign listed a distant locale than Peabody; if she saw that old sign, she knew the road was at least 128 and got on.  I tried to explain to her that the I-95 designation along 128 has existed since the mid-70s and the Feds mandated that the 128 signs be dropped from the main signage.  While she may have reluctantly accepted such; she still doesn't see why a more local destination could be used on the signs or two listings like many other Bay State signs had in the past (and present in other instances).

Back to the sign in question; if a single-centered downward arrow is no longer allowed (that's news to me since the previous BGS is from the 90s), then maybe no arrow for the pull-through BGS would've been a better choice.  Either that or the MA 30 exit BGS should've been sized & arranged to have the exit arrow positioned at the lower-center of the sign (a practice that is still done in other areas and that MA used to do) and the pull-through BGS could've been moved so that two downward-arrows would be centered over each lane.  The signboard itself is certainly wide enough for 2 downward arrows given the Portsmouth, NH legend.

[roadman]

You are correct PHLBOS that the sign is wide enough for two down arrows.  The question is whether those down arrows could be properly aligned over the lanes.  While the arrows do not have to be directly centered over the lanes, nevertheless, it should be obvious to approaching drivers which lanes the arrows apply to - this may be tricky to do given the curvature at this location.

[PHLBOS]

You are correct PHLBOS that the sign is wide enough for two down arrows.  The question is whether those down arrows could be properly aligned over the lanes.  While the arrows do not have to be directly centered over the lanes, nevertheless, it should be obvious to approaching drivers which lanes the arrows apply to - this may be tricky to do given the curvature at this location.

As I mentioned earlier; had the MA 30 exit BGS was vertically stacked (exit arrow located at bottom-center, not a new design practice at all), then it along with the I-95 BGS could've slid over just a tad to better align the arrow closer to the center of the lanes.

Maybe the current up-arrow BGS would've looked less weird if it were shorter in height (& same type of arrow as on the MA 30 exit BGS), positioned more to the left and the 95 NORTH legend was on the same horizontal line.

[bob7374]

Route 128 lives! I was up there last week. On the Masspike eastbound at Exit-14 the signs still read (95) (128) I was very surprised to see that, but I kind of liked the Route-128 designation and I think it should be signed as both routes.

Those particular BGS' were erected during the late 80s/early 90s and were Turnpike Authority installations; which might explain why 128 shields were included on the main signs.

It's slated to be replaced in the future with 95-only signs similar to the the new ones that were erected along I-90 westbound.

On MA-9 eastbound, there is still an overhead BGS, probably from the mid 1970s, that still shows ONLY 128, with the control cities of Dedham and Gloucester, and no mention of I-95 at all.   I think it is the 1 mile advance BGS.

I concur, I drove along MA 9 eastbound nearly 2 weeks ago; it's still there.

That BGS was erected circa 1973-74; just prior to the I-95 designation being assigned.

It is. I wonder why this sign wasn't replaced when all the other Route 9 overhead signage was replaced, and whether it can be replaced as an add-on to the Route 9 interchange project that is happening under the I-95/Rt. 128 add-a-lane.

Chances are that the Limits of Work for contract(s) that erected the newer signs along MA 9 did not extend beyond 1/2 mile from the interchange.

Here's a GSV image of the sign, for those who haven't seen it: https://goo.gl/maps/ZjH4e
This is a prime example of what I call an 'orphan' sign. A sign that, either because it was located outside the limits of the work zone, or due to problems found later by the contractor in putting up a replacement, were left behind after all the other signs in the area were updated. Another example closer to where I live is related to I-93, not I-95, but is also along the historic MA 128 belt:

This was to be a part of the MA 3 sign replacement project in 2009 but problems with the placement of supports for the overheads caused it to be left behind. Apparently the old gantry wasn't good enough for the new signs either. This photo was taken more than 6 years ago and the I-93 and MA 3 shields are even more faded today.

[SignBridge]

Looking west from the Washington St. overpass in Braintree, correct? I took this same photo myself years ago. I always liked that (T) Station designation. I'm sorry it's not being used anymore. The new signs in that area say MBTA Station, but I'll bet everyone who lives in the Boston Area still calls it The "T".   The only real improvement on the newer signs is that they finally added Burgin Pkwy. which had been a serious omission in the earlier signs. But I would have liked  T Burgin Pkwy.

[PHLBOS]

This is a prime example of what I call an 'orphan' sign. A sign that, either because it was located outside the limits of the work zone, or due to problems found later by the contractor in putting up a replacement, were left behind after all the other signs in the area were updated. Another example closer to where I live is related to I-93, not I-95, but is also along the historic MA 128 belt:

This was to be a part of the MA 3 sign replacement project in 2009 but problems with the placement of supports for the overheads caused it to be left behind. Apparently the old gantry wasn't good enough for the new signs either. This photo was taken more than 6 years ago and the I-93 and MA 3 shields are even more faded today.

That being the case, MassDOT could've at least replaced the I-shields (& remove the MA 3 shield and TO legend on the left BGS); especially since the old ones are of the mountable/demountable type (vs. ashesive).

Another example of orphaned signs along I-95 in MA is further south near the RI border are these 1977-era survivors.  For some reason, these BGS' (for RI exits) & gantry were omitted from being replaced when the rest of the I-95 BGS' & gantries northward to Canton were all replaced circa 2000.